One hundred years of social work: a history of the profession in English Canada, 1900-2000 9781554581863, 9781554582808, 9781554583423

Table of contents :
Fragmentation of Social Work Bodies --
Social Work Theory and the Question of Theoretical Robustness --
Losing Our Historical Roots in the Peace Movement --
Moving Forward --
Maintaining and Improving Solidarity --
Fighting for Control over Our Work --
Returning to Our Legacy of Resistance --
Reinvigorating Our Theory Base --
Promoting Social and Economic Justice, Not Charity --
Note --
APPENDIX A CASW Branches, 1927 --
58 --
APPENDIX B CASW Presidents, 1926 --
2001.

Citation preview

ONE HUNDRED YEARS OF SOCIAL WORK

This page intentionally left blank

ONE HUNDRED YEARS OF SOCIAL WORK A HISTORY OF THE PROFESSION IN ENGLISH CANADA 1900––2000

THERESE JENNISSEN AND COLLEEN LUNDY

This book has been published with the help of a grant from the Canadian Federation for the Humanities and Social Sciences, through the Aid to Scholarly Publications Programme, using funds provided by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. Wilfrid Laurier University Press acknowledges the financial support of the Government of Canada through its Canada Book Fund for its publishing activities.

Library and Archives Canada Cataloguing in Publication Jennissen, Therese, [date] One hundred years of social work : a history of the profession in English Canada, 1900–2000 / Therese Jennissen and Colleen Lundy. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-55458-186-3 1. Social service –– Canada –– History. I. Lundy, Colleen, [date] HV105.J45 2011

361.3’0971

C2010-905169-6

Electronic formats. ISBN 978-1-55458-280-8 (PDF), ISBN 978-1-55458-342-3 (EPUB) 1. Social service –– Canada –– History. I. Lundy, Colleen, [date] HV105.J45 2011a

361.3’0971

C2010-905170-X

© 2011 Wilfrid Laurier University Press Cover design by HandsDesign.ca. Cover image: Tenements (1945), by Pegi Nicol MacLeod. Photo © National Gallery of Canada, Ottawa. Reproduced with the permission of the artist. Text design by Daiva Villa, Chris Rowat Design. This book is printed on FSC recycled paper and is certified Ecologo. It is made from 100% post-consumer fibre, processed chlorine free, and manufactured using biogas energy. Printed in Canada Every reasonable effort has been made to acquire permission for copyright material used in this publication and to acknowledge all such indebtedness accurately. Any errors and omissions called to the publisher's attention will be corrected in future printings. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior written consent of the publisher or a licence from The Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency (Access Copyright). For an Access Copyright licence, visit www.accesscopy right.ca or call toll free to 1-800-893-5777.

We dedicate this book to the memory of Ron Crawley (1951–2008)

This page intentionally left blank

CHAPTER ONE

Contents Preface xiii Acknowledgements xvii Abbreviations of Organizations and Terms xix CHAPTER ONE

TWO

Responding to Industrial Capitalism and Setting the Stage for Professional Social Work, 1880–1924 1 Child Welfare 2 Poverty 3 The Role of Religion 4 Planting the Seeds of Social Work 6 The Settlement Movement 7 Charity Organization Societies (COS) 8 Social Work in World War I 12 Postwar Social Unrest and Labour Conflict 14 Conclusion 16 Notes 17

Pursuing Professional Status, 1924–29 21 The American Influence 22 The Formative Years in Canadian Social Work Education 24 Formation of a Canadian Social Work Association 27 The Impact of Pursuing Professional Status 33 Conclusion 36 Notes 37

vii

viii

CONTENTS

THREE

FOUR

FIVE

Face to Face with Poverty: Social Work in the Depression, 1930–9 39 Social Workers Respond to Unemployment and Poverty 39 The Relief Crisis 46 Social Workers Come under Attack 47 Housing Conditions 48 Stretcher Bearers or Political Activists 49 Left-Leaning Social Workers 53 Social Casework Challenged 55 Developments in the CASW 59 Conclusion 61 Notes 61 Social Work in the War Years, 1939–45: Expansion and Consolidation 65 Contributing to the War Effort 66 The Continuation of Peacetime Social Work 69 Shortage of Qualified Social Workers 71 Growth and Consolidation in the CASW 72 Conclusion 74 Notes 75 Postwar Reconstruction and Civil Defence, 1940–60 79 Social Work and Postwar Reconstruction 80 The Royal Commission on Dominion–Provincial Relations (Rowell-Sirois), 1937–40 81 Unemployment Insurance Act, 1940 84 Report on Social Security for Canada (Marsh Report), 1943 85 Advisory Committee on Health Insurance (the Heagerty Committee), 1942–43 89 The Committee on Housing and Community Planning (the Curtis Committee), 1944 91 The Family Allowances Act, 1944 93 The Dominion–Provincial Conference on Reconstruction, 1945 95 Keeping an Eye on Child Welfare 98 Social Work and Civil Defence in Times of Peace 99 Conclusion 103 Notes 104

CONTENTS

SIX

Social Work in the Cold War Era, 1940–60: Radicalism and Repression 111 The Daycare Movement 113 The Peace Movement 115 The Canadian Peace Congress 115 Social Workers for Peace 118 The Case of Mary Jennison: A Victim of the Anti-Communist Witch Hunts 120 The RCMP “Red List” 125 Conclusion 128 Notes 129

SEVEN

A Conservative Era in Social Work: The 1950s 133 Formalizing a Code of Ethics 133 Welfare Planning as Social Action 137 Abolition of the Death Penalty 142 The Doukhobor Situation 143 Revisiting the Social Action Mandate, 1956–58 144 Conclusion 147 Notes 148

EIGHT

The Struggle for Workplace Improvements and Standards: The Role of Unions and Professional Associations 151 Social Work and Unions: An Uneasy Alliance 152 Social Workers, Staff Associations, and Unions 154 Vulnerability of Social Workers: A Case Example 159 Social Workers in High Demand and Short Supply 160 Inadequate Training 163 Salaries and Conditions of Work 166 Social Workers Prepare to Strike 171 Conclusion 173 Notes 174

NINE

Provincial Autonomy and Reorganization in the CASW, 1950–65 181 The “Manpower” Crisis in Social Work 182 Restructuring of Role and Function 184

ix

x

CONTENTS

Provincial Autonomy 186 The Move to Provincial Associations: British Columbia 188 Developments in Quebec 190 New Directions for the CASW 193 Conclusion 198 Notes 198 TEN

Advancing Social Work Education, 1950–70 203 US Influence on Social Work Education 203 Organizing Social Work Education in Canada 205 The National Committee of Canadian Schools of Social Work (NCCSSW) 206 Canadian Committee on Social Work Education (CCSWE) 208 Canadian Council on Education and Personnel for the Social Services (CCEPSS) 209 Social Worker Shortage and Social Welfare Workers 212 Meeting the Challenges in Social Work Education 216 The Unwelcoming University 220 Conclusion 223 Notes 223

ELEVEN

Legal Regulation of Social Work: The Last Stage in Professionalization 229 The Process of Professionalization 230 Legal Regulation: A Troubled Relationship with the State 232 A Patchwork of Regulatory Legislation 235 Convincing Government and Social Work 236 The Impact of Professionalization 240 Conclusion 242 Notes 243

TWELVE

Staying the Course: Choosing Professional Status over Progressive Politics 245 Selective Responses to Government Initiatives 246 Initiatives by Provincial Associations 249 The CASW Critiques Its Own Responses to Government 250 Silence on the Status of Women 251 Housing and Urban Renewal 254

CONTENTS

xi

The Absence of the CASW in Social Workers’ Political Struggles 256 Going It Alone: Bridget Moran’s Battle with British Columbia’s Social Credit Government 256 Accountability and Ethics in Social Work Practice: The Warrendale Affair 258 Exercising the Left Wing: Social Workers Promoting Social Change 260 Conclusion 261 Notes 262 THIRTEEN

Social Work in a Declining Welfare State, 1974–2000 267 Cutbacks to the Welfare State and Changes in the Profession, 1974–89 268 Malaise in the Profession 269 Social Work Practitioners Shift to the Left 270 Persecution of a Left-Leaning Social Work Professor 272 A Wholesale Attack on the Welfare State, 1989–2000 278 Responses from the Social Work Community 280 Social Work Demonstrates Its Relevance 281 Conclusion 283 Notes 283

FOURTEEN

One Hundred Years of Social Work: Looking Back and Moving Forward into the Twenty-First Century 287 A Time of Transformation 287 Social Work Entering the Twenty-First Century: An Uncertain Time 289 External Challenges 289 Challenges Internal to the Profession 291 The Ongoing Struggle to Address Our Inherent Contradictions 291 Losing Ground in the Workplace and in Society 292 Fragmentation of Social Work Bodies 293 Social Work Theory and the Question of Theoretical Robustness 294 Losing Our Historical Roots in the Peace Movement 297 Moving Forward 298 Maintaining and Improving Solidarity 298

xii

CONTENTS

Fighting for Control over Our Work 299 Returning to Our Legacy of Resistance 301 Reinvigorating Our Theory Base 301 Promoting Social and Economic Justice, Not Charity 302 Note 302 APPENDIX A

CASW Branches, 1927–58 303

APPENDIX B

CASW Presidents, 1926–2001 305 References 307 Index 331

CHAPTER ONE

Preface Social work is in the last analysis [should be] a means of liberation. –– René Sand, 1936, in Anciaux (1988: 50)

This book, the first comprehensive history of the Canadian social work profession, examines the practices and policies of the Canadian Association of Social Workers (CASW) and the activities of individual social workers, from the turn of the twentieth century to 2000. During this time social work evolved from its roots in Christian charity to its current status as a mature and enduring profession. At the turn of the nineteenth century, expanding capitalist markets created opportunities for social work to develop into a profession. Social work, along with other occupations such as nursing and teaching, embarked on a route that would help it gain legitimacy and recognition, a trajectory already well established in the professions of medicine and law. Professionalization requires the identification, production, promotion, and control of a commodity (Larson 1977). For social work, the commodity was a set of social work skills, initially social casework, and members of the profession set out to ensure its development and promotion. The profession positioned itself as a central partner in the formation and development of the social welfare state in Canada. The research for this study is based on archival data, oral histories, and secondary sources, including texts, social work journals, and conference proceedings. In Canada, we visited a total of fourteen provincial and university archives that hold social work and other relevant records. We also researched materials in two US archives –– the Sophia Smith Collection at Smith College in Northampton, Massachusetts, and the Social Welfare History Archives at the University of Minnesota. Key sources of information at xiii

xiv P R E F A C E

the National Archives of Canada were the records of the Canadian Association of Social Workers (CASW), the Canadian Welfare Council (CWC), the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT), and the Canadian Security Intelligence Services (CSIS) file on Mary Jennison, obtained through Access to Information. We have attempted to capture some of the regional and cultural diversity in Canada and its role in shaping the profession. We did not have the opportunity, however, to address social work developments in Nunavut, the Northwest Territories, and the Yukon. Nor did we fully explore social work practice with Aboriginal peoples. And while we recognize the cultural and linguistic distinctiveness and national character of Quebec, the book includes the history of social work that primarily reflects developments of Englishspeaking social workers in the province. A full accounting of the history of social work in Quebec would involve a more thorough engagement with the French tradition and French sources –– important research that was beyond the scope of our project. Our theoretical framework is derived from feminist political economy that recognizes the primacy of material conditions in determining social, legal, and ideological structures and processes in society. We regard the evolution of social work as an outgrowth of the development of capitalism and industrialization as well-meaning citizens responded to the misery and exploitation of the working class. We also emphasize that social work is a “women’s profession” and that gendered social relations were integral to the pursuit, formation, and development of the profession. It is through this lens that we document and understand social work’s development and responses to myriad political, economic, and social issues of the times. Social work has been shaped by changing social, economic, and political conditions, and this context is central to our historical analysis. Since its inception the profession has declared its primary obligation as the pursuit of social justice but this objective was lost in the quest for professionalization. We examine this lasting tension between social work’s commitment to social action directed toward social change and the lure of professional development. In preparing this manuscript we became keenly aware that this is just a beginning of the documentation of a complex history. There is room for a great deal more research on this topic and we hope that this project will encourage students, professors, social workers, and others interested in history to pursue this area of research further. By writing a book that covers a large time span, we have had to focus on broad themes that we believe are important in the history of the profession. A benefit of this approach is that the reader is given an overview of a subject about which not much has been

PREFACE

xv

written. A drawback, however, is that this type of project does not provide adequate space to probe many of the issues in detail. For example, we were not able to give sufficient space and recognition to numerous social work pioneers from across Canada. In the process of our research we discovered that in most regions of the country there were local social work pioneers who have contributed significantly to the development of the profession. Most often they were women, usually front-line social workers whose contributions were not recorded in archival sources. Also, through our use of this wide-angle lens, we did not focus on the development of social work among particular populations such as the Acadians. We trust that we have built a solid foundation upon which many more studies can be developed. We hope that this book will be of interest to social work students, both undergraduate and graduate, social work practitioners, and educators and colleagues who are interested in social work history. Knowledge of the history of our profession, the strategies taken, and the policies adopted during these definitive years can be used to inform the future course of direction for the social work profession in Canada.

xv

This page intentionally left blank

CHAPTER ONE

Acknowledgements We are indebted to many people for their assistance with this book. This was an ambitious project that spanned eight years and took us to numerous archives, agencies, and personal records spread across Canada and into the US. While we gathered a vast amount of historical data, we know that there are still many records to locate. We are grateful for the assistance of people too numerous to mention at the public archives we visited: National Archives of Canada, British Columbia Archives, Provincial Archives of Alberta, Saskatchewan Archives Board, Archives of Manitoba, Archives of Ontario, Public Archives of New Brunswick, Public Archives of Nova Scotia, and the Public Archives of Newfoundland and Labrador. In addition, we extend a thank you to the resource personnel at the University of British Columbia Archives, Library–Special Collections; University of Regina Archives and Special Collections; University of Toronto Archives; the Thomas Fisher Rare Book Library; McGill University Archives; Smith College Library; and the Social Welfare History Archives, University of Minnesota. We extend our appreciation to Eugenia Moreno, executive director, France Audet, and staff at the Canadian Association of Social Workers (CASW) and Louise Carignan, executive director, and staff at the Canadian Association of Social Work Education (CASWE) for providing access to their files. We are also indebted to the staff of the provincial social work associations that maintain their own historical files and granted us access to them. In particular, we are grateful for the generosity of the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Social Workers, Nova Scotia Association of Social Workers, Professional Corporation of Social Workers of Quebec, Manitoba Association of Social Workers, Alberta Association of Social Workers, and the British Columbia Association of Social Workers. xvii

xviii A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T S

Colleagues in other universities were generous with their time and we appreciate having access to the records of faculties and schools of social work, including the records of the following: Faculty of Social Work, University of Calgary; Faculty of Social Work, University of Manitoba; Faculty of Social Work, University of Toronto; School of Social Work, Carleton University; School of Social Work, McGill University; and the Maritime School of Social Work, Dalhousie University. Our deep appreciation goes to Wanda Thomas Barnard, Claire Bowley, Eryl Court, Bill Devine, Margriet Fidler, Gayle Gilchrist James, Gweneth Gowanlock, John Graham, Mary Hill, Anna Larsen, Helen Levine, Gil Levine, Brita Mickelburg, Brian Ouellette, Dick Ramsey, Linda Turner, Baldwin Reichwein, Gilles Rondeau, and Marlene Webber. These individuals shared with us their published and unpublished work, engaged in discussions about our research, directed us to important sources, or agreed to be interviewed. The research for this book was supported by a grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC), which allowed us to travel across Canada and to select sites in the US in search of archival sources. Thanks are also due to the staff at Wilfrid Laurier University Press. We want to acknowledge the importance of our collaborative working relationship and our friendship, both of which sustained us to the completion of this project. Finally, a time-consuming work of this nature places demands and sacrifices on family. So the support, encouragement, and technical assistance of Therese’s partner, Bob, was very important, as was that of Colleen’s compañero and loving partner, Ron. Sadly, Ron isn’t able to share in the joy of this final product; he passed away in March 2008. We dedicate this book to him.

CHAPTER ONE

Abbreviations of Organizations and Terms AAGW AAMSW AAPSW AASOC AASSW AASW ACSW AFL AFSCME AIT AJCS ASWB ASWNC ATSPSW AUCC BCASW BOA B.S.W. CAESS CAP CAS CASSW

American Association of Group Workers American Association of Medical Social Workers American Association of Psychiatric Social Workers American Association of Societies for Organizing Charity American Association of Schools of Social Work Alberta Association of Social Workers Alberta College of Social Workers American Federation of Labor American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees Agreement on Internal Trade Allied Jewish Community Services Association of Social Work Boards Association of Social Workers in Northern Canada Association of Training Schools for Professional Social Work Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada British Columbia Association of Social Workers Board of Accreditation Bachelor of Social Work Canadian Association for Education in the Social Services Canada Assistance Plan Children’s Aid Society Canadian Association of Schools of Social Work xix

xx

ABBREVIATIONS OF ORGANIZATIONS AND TERMS

CASW CASWE CAUT CCCW CCDDSSW

Canadian Association of Social Workers Canadian Association of Social Work Education Canadian Association of University Teachers Canadian Council on Child Welfare Canadian Committee of Deans and Directors of Schools of Social Work CCEPSS Canadian Council on Education and Personnel for the Social Services CCF Cooperative Commonwealth Federation CCSWE Canadian Committee on Social Work Education CCSWR Canadian Council of Social Work Regulators CHST Canada Health and Social Transfer CIO Congress of Industrial Organizations CLC Canadian Labour Congress COS Charity Organization Society CPC Communist Party of Canada CSIS Canadian Security Intelligence Services CSWE Council on Social Work Education CWC Canadian Welfare Council EPF Established Programs Financing FSAA Family Service Association of America FWAA Family Welfare Association of America GST Goods and Services Tax HHA Hamilton Housewives’ Association HPS Hebrew Philanthropic Society HRC Halifax Relief Committee HRDC Human Resources Development Canada HUAC House Un-American Activities Committee HWC Health and Welfare Canada IASSW International Association of Schools of Social Work IFSW International Federation of Social Workers IODE Imperial Order of the Daughters of the Empire JF&CS Jewish Family and Child Services LPP Labour Progressive Party MAC-PAPS Mackenzie-Papineau Battalion MASW Manitoba Association of Social Workers MCSA Montreal Council of Social Agencies MIRSW Manitoba Institute of Registered Social Workers M.S.W. Master of Social Work MUN Memorial University of Newfoundland

ABBREVIATIONS OF ORGANIZATIONS AND TERMS

NAACP NAFTA NASOC NASSW NASW NASW NBASW NCCSSW NCCUC NCSWE NDP NLASW NSASW NWA OAPSW OASW OCCSW OPTSQ PEIASW PEP RCAP RCMP REFUTS RSF SASW SHM SPCA TILMA UI UOPWA WILPF YMHBS

xxi

National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People North American Free Trade Agreement National Association of Societies for Organizing Charity National Association of Schools of Social Work National Association of Social Workers Newfoundland Association of Social Workers New Brunswick Association of Social Workers National Committee of Canadian Schools of Social Work National Conference of Canadian Universities and Colleges National Council on Social Work Education New Democratic Party Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Social Workers Nova Scotia Association of Social Workers Neighbourhood Workers’ Association Ontario Association of Professional Social Workers Ontario Association of Social Workers Ontario College of Certified Social Workers Ordre professionnel des travailleurs sociaux du Québec Prince Edward Island Association of Social Workers Programme Evaluation and Planning (Committee) Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples Royal Canadian Mounted Police Regroupment des unités de formation univérsitaire en travail social du Quebec Russell Sage Foundation Saskatchewan Association of Social Workers Settlement House Movement Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement Unemployment Insurance United Office and Professional Workers Association Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom Young Men’s Hebrew Benevolent Society

E

xxi

This page intentionally left blank

CHAPTER ONE

Responding to Industrial Capitalism and Setting the Stage for Professional Social Work, 1880–1924 The social work profession in Canada emerged from the efforts of local citizens responding to the needs of their neighbours, many of whom were recent European immigrants in search of better lives. Industrial capitalism of the mid-1800s created misery for many people who migrated to urban centres in search of work. The newly established waged labour system provided employment for some, but conditions of work were often difficult, dangerous, and low paid. The trends of industrialization, urbanization, and immigration introduced myriad interrelated social problems, including deplorable housing conditions, diseases and ill health, unemployment, and poverty. These problems were considered to be the responsibility, first and foremost, of individuals and their families. Those not able to look after their own needs or who were unable to find support from their families relied on the goodwill of the community or the local church. Unemployment, often leading to poverty, was particularly problematic because many of the unemployed were strong, healthy men who were unable to find work that could sustain them. Herbert Ames’ 1897 study of poverty in Montreal found that of the cases of poverty he examined, 64 percent included a man in the family who was able and willing to work, and that if employment were available for these families, they would soon adopt a better scale of living (Ames [1897] 1972: 77). 1

2

CHAPTER ONE

This social distress caught the attention of well-meaning citizens, primarily women from wealthier backgrounds, who responded to the underprivileged through charity work based in Christian morality. Both the Charity Organization Society (COS) and the Settlement House Movement (SHM) were part of this tradition. Charity work was an acceptable activity for women because it was regarded as an extension of the caring role assigned to them: “As guardians of the home, their natural charitable and benevolent abilities could be applied to society’s problems” (Daly 1995: 9). The organized charity responses initially focused on the problems of neglected and delinquent children and chronic poverty.

Child Welfare Industrial capitalism involved the restructuring of work and the family, and introduced a new concern about neglected and delinquent children. This social concern led to the establishment of the Society for the Protection of Women and Children in 1881 in Toronto and, in 1891, J.J. Kelso formed the first Children’s Aid Society in Toronto. The society provided a children’s refuge, a separate trial for juvenile offenders and young girls, and later the first probation services in Canada.1 In 1893 the provincial Child Protection Act was passed, J.J. Kelso was appointed superintendent of neglected and dependent children in Ontario to administer the act, and the child welfare movement was under way (Jones and Rutman 1981). Similar developments in child protection and “child saving” took place in other provinces. In 1882, the Nova Scotia Court gave the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) guardianship of neglected children. Over twenty years later, in 1905, a number of the concerned citizens in Truro organized the Children’s Aid Society of Colchester County (MacKinnon 2004). In the same year, J.J. Kelso was asked to study the situation in Halifax, and based on his recommendations, the first Child Protection Act was passed in 1906 and the Children’s Aid Society (CAS) of Halifax County was founded. However, around 1912 the CAS suddenly and inexplicably disappeared and the SPCA resumed the care of neglected children until 1923, when the CAS of Halifax was re-established. This may in part reflect the tenuous nature of funding and resources. Until 1938 neglected children could be indentured to families for their board and care or placed in orphanages.2 The child-saving movement and its focus on the prevention of juvenile delinquency was also a major concern in the western provinces, and legislation to protect children was enacted in the early part of the last century (Coulter 1995: 138). Again, J.J. Kelso assisted in drafting the first Child Protection Act of Saskatchewan in 1908, modelled after the Ontario act, and services to children were handled

SETTING THE STAGE

3

by private agencies such as the CAS until after World War II. Similarly, in British Columbia, the Children’s Protection Act was passed in 1901,3 followed closely by the establishment of the Children’s Aid Society of Vancouver (Canadian Welfare 1951: 20–24.) A Children’s Protection Act also was passed in Alberta in 1909, establishing “the beginning of the trend away from indenture” in that province (Krewski 1979: 11). Changing societal views concerning children and child welfare, and the gradual acceptance that society had a responsibility for its children and youth was most clearly indicated by the establishment in 1920 of the Canadian Council on Child Welfare (CCCW).

Poverty At the time of Confederation, the four provinces of the new Dominion of Canada (Upper and Lower Canada, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia) had already established their unique approaches for addressing poverty. Upper Canada (Ontario) adopted English civil law, but explicitly excluded the poor law. This meant that the responsibility for the poor rested with the individual, the family, or the community, and when this failed, the poor relied on voluntary associations or fraternal organizations and agencies. Both Nova Scotia and New Brunswick adopted the Elizabethan Poor Law, which gave local authorities responsibility for care of the poor (Fingard 1975). Eventually when the western provinces joined Confederation, care for the indigent in these sparsely populated regions was typically in the form of public programs run by municipalities (Osborne 1985: 1). These varying traditions carried on well into the next century. Some of the harshest manifestations of the Poor Law existed in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. In these provinces, overseers of the poor were appointed by the justices of the peace in every parish and town on an annual basis, and were authorized to care for the resident poor (Whalen 1972). The service of the overseers was compulsory and if they refused to hold office, they were fined. Once a poor person, a pauper, came to the attention of the overseer, she or he would be assessed for eligibility for outdoor relief such as food, clothing, and fuel. If deemed worthy of aid, the person would be placed on a paupers list. The primary institutional options, or indoor relief, for the poor were alms houses or poorhouses, orphanages, and homes for boys and girls. Taxpayers in some counties refused to pay for alms houses and instead continued the exploitative practice of contracting out the poor to farmers or shopkeepers, who were paid a yearly sum by the parish to house, feed, and clothe them. In response, farmers were entitled to use their labour in any

4

CHAPTER ONE

way they chose. In order to expedite this “contract system,” the overseer of the poor used the inhumane practice of the public sale or auction of poor women, men, and children, or the “white slave trade” as it became known. The last paupers auction in New Brunswick took place in King’s County in 1898, and the King’s County Almshouse was opened in 1899 to provide shelter for the poor (Whalen and Oppen 1976; The Telegraph Journal 1977). Nova Scotia followed this example and stopped auctioning off its poor in 1900 (Wallace [1950] 1995). However, in counties where there was no institutional care, the poor continued to be victims of the contract system until the late 1920s (Whalen 1972). In Quebec, or Lower Canada, care of the poor was primarily the responsibility of the Roman Catholic Church. This responsibility dates back to the colony of New France when missionaries tended to the sick, aged, and orphaned. Sister Marguerite Bourgeoys, founder of the Sisters of the Congregation of Nôtre Dame, focused on educating women and children and converting the Iroquois to Christianity. The Church was well suited to assist the poor since it espoused a philosophy of Christian obligation for almsgiving and the preponderance of the population of the provinces was Roman Catholic. Through the next two centuries, the Church’s role in Quebec continued to gain influence in the field of social welfare, health, and education (Bellamy and Irving 1995: 90–91).

The Role of Religion Although the Catholic Church played the dominant role in the economic and social development of Quebec until the Quiet Revolution of the 1960s, there existed alongside it Jewish and English-Protestant ethnocultural traditions that had their own approaches to poverty and social dislocation. The Jewish tradition of charity existed in larger cities such as Montreal and Toronto. In 1869 Jews in Canada numbered 1,186 and most of them had settled in Montreal. The first Jewish social agency in Montreal, the Hebrew Philanthropic Society (HPS), was formed in 1847 to provide resettlement services for the growing population of Jewish immigrants fleeing from the political unrest and persecution in Europe. It endured for almost fifteen years, but eventually succumbed to the heavy demands placed on it, and by 1862 was no longer functioning (Weiss 1984: 11). Shortly after its demise in 1863, the Young Men’s Hebrew Benevolent Society (YMHBS) was established based on motivation to help others and contribute to social justice and, in 1877, the Young Women’s Hebrew Philanthropic Society was instituted in Montreal. The societies provided assistance in meeting basic needs, as well as activities to enhance the cultural, educational, and social develop-

SETTING THE STAGE

5

ment of newcomers to Canada. The YMHBS became one of the most renowned welfare institutions in Montreal, and for the first forty years of its operation it provided almost all of the social welfare services in the Jewish community in Montreal, as well as in other parts of the country. Around the turn of the century, the YMHBS began to diversify its services beyond relief giving. Its activities included the provision of services for orphaned children, care for the aged and infirm, and assistance to transients (Weiss 1984). In the last decade of the nineteenth century, the main funding source for the YMHBS was the Baron de Hirsch Institute,4 and in 1891 the name of the YMHBS was changed to the Baron de Hirsch Institute and Hebrew Benevolent Society of Montreal. In these early years, the Baron de Hirsch Institute was also engaged in philanthropic work and provided a free library and a Free School. In 1916, the institute spearheaded the development of the Federation of Jewish Philanthropies, a community-based fundraising body; the federation continued to operate as the Allied Jewish Community Services (AJCS), a coordinating body for over seventeen social work agencies (Weiss 1984). Another social work tradition with a basis in religion was the social gospel movement. As part of a widespread movement in Europe and North America that promoted a progressive Christian response to social problems, it flourished in English Canada from 1890 to 1939. It was comprised primarily of Anglican, Presbyterian, and Methodist leaders, a number of whom identified as socialists (Allen 1971). These churches took up the struggle for social reform. In 1907, the Protestant-led Moral and Social Reform Council of Canada, an alliance of Church and labour, was formed and jointly headed by J.G. Shearer and T.A. Moore, both progressive church leaders of the Presbyterian and Methodist churches respectively. James Simpson, a social gospeller and a socialist, was vice-president. As the council broadened its mandate and perspective, it was renamed the Social Service Council of Canada in 1914.5 The council was a federation of social welfare and social work organizations, was organized under eleven provincial units, and included Newfoundland and Bermuda. The name change in 1914 marked the shift from religious groups to include social reform groups such as the Trades and Labour Congress, the Women’s Temperance Union, and the National Council of Women. The Social Service Council became a powerful lobby for social reform and actively advocated for social welfare legislation, mothers’ pensions, unemployment insurance, old age pensions, working conditions, and child welfare. During this era some of the first social programs were developed. In 1914, the first Workmen’s Compensation Act was introduced in Ontario and

6

CHAPTER ONE

in 1927 the federal Old Age Pension Act. The introduction of mothers’ allowances was intended to offset the inadequacy of relief and to provide assistance to “worthy and competent” mothers (for example, widows). By 1925, mothers’ allowances were introduced in almost all US states and in five provinces –– Manitoba (1916), Saskatchewan (1917), Alberta (1919), Ontario and British Columbia (1920) (Kierstead 1925). In 1918, Charlotte Whitton became assistant secretary to Dr. John Shearer of the Social Service Council of Canada; she soon became recognized as one of Canada’s strongest proponents of social work. In 1920, the Canadian Council on Child Welfare (CCCW) was formed as a national federation of social agencies established to promote the development of child welfare programs across Canada. Charlotte Whitton was appointed honorary secretary, and the newly formed council assumed the child welfare activities of the Social Service Council. The council’s journal Social Welfare provided a forum for discussion and dissemination of current concerns, and from 1918 to 1924 the Social Service Council embarked on a program of research, publicity, and advocacy and was influential in social reform in Canada. Religion clearly had a strong role in shaping society’s understanding of social problems and the strategies that were adopted to respond to them. Over the years a slow process of secularization began to develop in English Canada and later in Quebec, although the influence of religion was not entirely absent until much later.

Planting the Seeds of Social Work Early secular responses to the conditions of the poor were organized primarily through either the housing settlement movement or the charity organization movement, both of which originated in England and emerged around the same time in the late 1890s and early 1900s in Canada. Both the settlement movement and the charity organization societies focused on alleviating despair among the population by engaging in different strategies. The settlement workers advocated for improved social and economic conditions, aligned with labour and other progressive movements, and supported social action. The Charity Organization Society (COS) workers, on the other hand, stressed the identification of those who were considered the “worthy poor” and the efficient administration of charity to them. With these two institutions, the seeds of social work were planted. The settlement workers contributed to the development of group work and community organizing, while the strength of the charity workers was in the direct application of casework theory and practice. Women were prominent in both movements

SETTING THE STAGE

7

as leaders and participants. Men were highly represented in the social gospel movement and as administrators of charitable agencies and foundations. The Settlement Movement Reform-minded volunteers established settlement houses in the inner cities and lived among the most deprived members of the community. In the UK, Toynbee Hall, named after social reformer Arnold Toynbee, was the first settlement established in London, England, and became a model for those to follow. Settlement houses were often affiliated with universities in an effort to educate students through first-hand exposure to the conditions of the poor and to engage in social reform. Settlement workers saw that an effective response to those suffering harsh social conditions was related to housing, employment, general social support such as recreation centres, and schools and public policy. They were “reformers who served as agitators and organizers and helped extend the social welfare function of government in the city, the state, and the nation” (Davis 1967: xiii). Settlement workers often lived in the community and provided services to those whom they referred to as “neighbours in need” (Lundblad 1995), and social problems were reflected in the day-to-day conditions of their own neighbourhoods. Settlement houses in the US quickly grew in numbers from six in 1891 to over 400 in 1910, prompting the establishment of the National Federation of Settlements in 1911 (Davis 1967). Jane Addams (1860–1935) was one of the most renowned leaders in the settlement movement and in social work in the US (Addams 1897). While in England, she visited Toynbee Hall and, along with her partner Ellen Gates Starr, became inspired to found Hull House in Chicago on her return. Established in 1889, Hull House grew to include twenty-six apartments and twenty-seven rooms and covered two city blocks (Trolander 1975). Addams associated with others who shared her commitment to social equality and social justice. She supported the activities of W.E.B. Dubois, an African-American scholar, noted Marxist, and civil rights activist, and was a founding member of the National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People (NAACP) in 1910 (Dubois 1968: 218, 260). There was a constant flow of visitors going to Hull House for inspiration. It was at Hull House that child welfare advocates J.J. Kelso and William Lyon Mackenzie King, future prime minister of Canada, were introduced to the problems of the poor. Addams quickly became a key figure in social work. In 1909 she became the first female president of the National Conference of Charities and Corrections, breaking a thirty-five-year tradition (Lasch 1965; Glowacki and Hendry 2004).

8

CHAPTER ONE

There were similar developments in Canada. The first Canadian settlement at Dorset Mission was established in Toronto in 1870 by St. Andrews Presbyterian Church and another mission followed in 1883, later to known as the Fred Victor Mission, still open today (Bellamy 2005). Others credit Evangelia as the first settlement founded in 1902 in Toronto by Sara Libby Carson (Irving et al. 1995: 23). In 1910 the University of Toronto’s Young Men’s Christian Association, influenced by the social gospel, established the University Settlement (Irving et al. 1995: 85). The contradiction on when the first settlement was founded may reflect a slight distinction between the definition of a mission and settlement. In Montreal, the University Settlement, founded in 1909 by McGill graduates with support from Professor James Dale, was situated in a part of the city where housing was substandard and poverty-stricken families were forced to live in crowded conditions. Families who were already in overcrowded space would sublet a room so that they could afford the rent.6 In one case a man, his wife, and nine children took two roomers to share the five-room flat (The McGill News June 3, 1921). The settlement owned two houses in the neighbourhood that were used by resident workers and students. The University Settlement provided social, educational, and recreational activities for all races and creeds. Specific services included boys’ and girls’ clubs, a mothers’ club, the largest free library for children in the city, a gymnasium, garden plots, baby clinics, and fresh milk for purchase. By 1920, there were a least thirteen settlements across Canada, most of them initiated by members of the social gospel (Allen 1971). The Neighbourhood Workers’ Association (NWA), originally connected to the settlement movement, distributed private relief and became established as a social work agency engaged in casework, family, and community work. It later became the Family Service Association of Toronto. In 1918, a Methodist minister and social gospeller, Frank Neil Stapleford, was hired to reorganize the NWA and to form the Federation for Community Services. This federation worked alongside the Federation of Jewish Philanthropies, established in 1917, and the Federation of Catholic Charities. He remained in this position until his death in 1952 (Wills 1995: 68–69). Charity Organization Societies (COS) Private charities responded to the plight of the poor with either indoor relief (shelter in a poorhouse or a workhouse) or outdoor relief (the provision of food, clothing, and fuel brought to the home). Based on the philosophy of the Poor Laws, relief was always provided in kind and never in cash. In 1869 the Charity Organization of London, England, was formed “to bring order

SETTING THE STAGE

9

out of the chaos of the city’s charities by offering district conferences at which the agencies could discuss their common problems and coordinate their efforts; and of insisting on careful investigations of appeals for help and a city-wide registration of applicants” (Bruno 1948: 98). The Charity Organization Societies, guided by the motto “Not Alms but a Friend,” advocated for “scientific philanthropy” based on the premise that relief contributed to pauperism by promoting dependence and a reluctance to work. Shortly thereafter, the charity organization movement migrated to North America, where it was supported by the Protestant middle and upper echelons. The US National Conference of Social Work was established and included representatives of boards of public charities across the United States and Canada.7 Mary Richmond (1861–1928), the director of the Baltimore (Maryland) Charity Organization Society (COS), advanced “friendly visiting,” a caseby-case response to rehabilitation of the poor. She quickly rose to social work prominence. Her four books recorded the developments of social work and guided social work practice for decades: Friendly Visiting among the Poor (1899) addressed the process of conducting charitable work in the homes of the poor; The Good Neighbor (1908) focused on a community response to human difficulty; Social Diagnosis (1917) offered a process of fact-finding and diagnosis; and What Is Social Case Work? (1922) introduced casework and demonstrated its relationship to other forms of social work. A system of relief was barely established when questions over its coordination became an important consideration. Herbert Ames first raised this concern about lack of organized effort among the charitable bodies in Montreal in the late 1890s. He suggested that “There should be a sort of clearing house in respect to relief effort, where every needy case could be assigned to the organization responsible for it and whereby a family already in receipt of help from one source should not be further assisted by another” (Ames [1897] 1972: 77–78). A coordination of services began, but it was motivated largely by the desire to avoid duplication of benefits to the poor. The associated charities served as clearing houses for the local dispensation of relief. Many social service agencies in Canada became members of the US National Association of Societies for Organizing Charity (NASOC), established in 1911 and funded by the Russell Sage Foundation.8 By 1922, the association had two hundred member societies and would assist in finding social workers, gathering information on special problems, and answering inquiries in an advisory capacity.9 Also, it was these types of organizations that guided social work practice in these early years.

10

CHAPTER ONE

By 1912, Toronto, Montreal, and Winnipeg had formed Associated Charities and joined NASOC. In order to be admitted as a member, it was necessary to have at least one full-time paid worker for cities with populations greater than 10,000, to maintain individual case records, to sign a transportation agreement for consultation visits, and be willing to respond to inquiries from other member charity societies.10 However, the degree to which communities were prepared to fulfill these criteria varied across the country. When Calgary applied for membership, Howard Falk, the general secretary of the Associated Charities in Winnipeg, wrote to the associate secretary in New York in confidence, expressing his views that the standards of the NASOC would be lowered if Calgary were admitted as a member. He argued that they would not be able to meet the bare requirements because of the lack of records and methods. The man who did most of their local relief work was described as “homeless” and a “drunk” who made “house to house visits with his pockets full of money, giving it where he thought he should.”11 Those delivering relief often lacked an adequate knowledge and skills. According to J.S. Woodsworth, a social reformer and member of the Social Gospel, many charity workers in western Canada did not have “the faintest idea of the principles” that should guide Associated Charity work and former policemen were regularly put in charge of the city relief department. In 1914 he wrote: Here in Saskatoon for instance, I found many ex-policeman decidedly military in appearance waxed pointed moustache etc. in a bar room formerly a civic office. His desk was across the corner of the room so he could sit with his back to the wall. In the drawer of the desk was a revolver ready for instant use with his heavy stick which he also kept beside him was not a sufficiently effective weapon. His appeals are to the Real Estate speculators of this Booster Town out of which the bottom has dropped to give relief so as to prevent riots and thus keep up appearances and real estate values!12

The Associated Charities of Toronto, with the co-operation of sixty-one churches, organizations, and relief-giving agencies, maintained a central file of all charity work and operated as a forum for discussion of social problems facing the community. The Montreal Charity Organization Society, founded in 1900, provided a co-coordinating function to bring together the charitable activities of various English-speaking agencies. Prominent among them were the Montreal Maternity Hospital (1843), the Montreal Diet Dispensary (1878), the Society for the Protection of Women and Children (1889), the Victoria Order of Nurses (1887), the Montreal Day Nursery (1887), and the University Settlement (1893).

SETTING THE STAGE

11

However, in 1919, a new organization, the Montreal Council of Social Agencies (MCSA), was developed to coordinate Protestant and non-sectarian voluntary activities in place of the COS. The COS withdrew its coordinating function and turned to provision of family service, and in 1920 changed its name to the Family Welfare Association of Montreal.13 The council also produced The Social Worker, a monthly journal transferred over from the COS. The journal was distributed to approximately three thousand homes to inform residents about what was being done in social work.14 J.H.T. Toynbee Falk served as the council’s first executive director until 1929. Fundraising drives for the Montreal Council of Social Agencies were conducted by the Financial Federation (1922–42) and its successors, the Welfare Federation of Montreal (1943–61), United Red Feather Services (1961–71), and Federated Appeal of Greater Montreal (1972). The Montreal Council of Social Agencies depended on the Confidential Exchange, a clearing house that registered clients from forty-one agencies and recorded and coordinated the social welfare services that were allocated to them. However, the coordination of relief giving through the COS and the development of a confidential exchange, in effect, placed stronger moral regulation on the poor, and the attempts at organizing charity were criticized by some relief-giving agencies.15 The Confidential Exchange registry, while allegedly put in place to save people from having to repeat their responses to a range of agencies, was primarily interested in preventing overlapping services to the poor. With a central registry, all anonymity of the poor was lost. However, another more sinister purpose was to save “its members at times from lazy and dishonest ne’er-do-wells who beg a living from their fellow citizens in preference to earning a decent independence.”16 In a 1924 survey of Protestant and non-sectarian relief-giving organizations of Montreal, workers in the Confidential Exchange felt that the churches were ill equipped to handle the problems of families in distress. Most of the clergy did not conduct investigations or maintain records of the aid that they distributed. There was concern over the potential harmful effects of dole giving and that it may increase pauperism. One clergyman confided that the attendance at his church would diminish if he did not give coal and groceries, and that people would cease to come if aid was not provided when they needed it. Despite these criticisms, there was full recognition that the task of responding to the mounting social concerns was immense, and that “Volunteers are an urgent necessity, and nowhere can they be reached more easily than through the church, and there is, perhaps, no one thing more vital to social work of whatever kind than the understanding and whole-hearted co-operation of the clergy.”17 In conclusion, the

12

CHAPTER ONE

author of the survey, Frances O’Neill, urged social work to engage in more than relief giving. “If social work is to be carried on intelligently and efficiently, it will require the utilization of every resource, and careful direction and leadership. Interest must be aroused and stimulated, but beyond emotional interest must be an interest founded on real knowledge of the causes of distress, and a recognition of what this distress means to the community as a whole.”18 O’Neill believed that an awakened public would foster much needed legislative reform.

Social Work in World War I Once a provision for relief giving was organized, social workers were better able to respond to other emerging concerns. In 1914 Canada entered the first Great War, “the war to end all wars,” without question since Great Britain had done so already. During 1914–18, approximately 630,000 men and women joined the Canadian Expeditionary force and went to war. Of these Canadians, sixty thousand were killed and more than 135,000 returned wounded, some maimed for life. All available resources went to the war effort, and social workers shifted their attention to responding to the families of soldiers and the soldiers who were returning, frequently psychologically or physically maimed (Kellogg 1917a; Morton 1993: 67). The Patriotic Fund, established at the outbreak of the war with a volunteer committee organized in almost every city in Canada, provided for families of soldiers and sailors in active service or who had been injured. The program, financed with the soldiers’ pay and donations, provided women and families with a stipend along with information and access to resources such as milk stations, free libraries, employment bureaus, dispensaries, and day nurseries. If women were able to secure employment, their budget allowances were cut accordingly. “In all cases the theory of the fund has been to see women bearing the double responsibility of mother and father, forced to go out to earn the living while the man fights overseas; nor, on the other hand, to see the grant go as surplus to women who, from choice or fortune, gain an ample income elsewhere” (Kellogg 1917a: 711). In Montreal, a city of 800,000 inhabitants, three-fifths who were French Canadian, the Ladies Auxiliary of the Patriotic Fund, working with the Montreal Relief Committee, set up an elaborate and efficient system for distribution of services. Each of the twenty-seven districts in the city had both an English-speaking and French-speaking head. A list of neighbourhood resources was compiled for each district (Kellogg 1917b). By 1917, a major concern for social workers was the returning soldier, who often was in need of physical and mental rehabilitation.

SETTING THE STAGE

13

During World War I, no one could have anticipated the central role that social workers played in disaster relief resulting from the Halifax Explosion. In 1917 “Halifax was torn apart by the biggest human-made explosion the world ever witnessed prior to the bombing of Hiroshima in 1945” (Boyd 2007: 63). This explosion destroyed the entire north end of the city, created a tsunami that produced floods, and left two thousand dead, nine thousand injured, orphaned children, and over twenty thousand homeless in the midst of winter. In a sociological study of the catastrophe, Samuel Henry Prince (1920: 34) documents how “the shock resulted in disintegration of social institutions, dislocation of the usual methods of social control and the dissolution of the customary.” This would be the first test of social work mettle at the time of disaster. Immediately the city organized the Halifax Relief Committee (HRC) to organize the disaster response, and social welfare experts arrived from across Canada and the United States. J.H. Falk agreed to relocate for one year from his position as director of welfare work in Winnipeg to serve as director of the Rehabilitation Committee, a subcommittee of the HRC. Along with Jane Wisdom, director of the Halifax Welfare Bureau, Falk “trained and supervised the corps of relief workers, helped the HRC develop its relief policies, and introduced innovative social work administration and casework procedures to Nova Scotia” (Boyd 2007: 78). For example, a community public health clinic integrating social work and public health, the first community health clinic in North America, was established in 1920, later to close in 1925. Ernest Blois, provincial superintendent of neglected and delinquent children, was put in charge of a special children’s committee to locate missing children, reunite children and parents or relatives, to place orphaned children, to provide clothing and food, and to refer wounded children (Kitz 1989). As Prince (1920: 139) recalls, the unpretentious bureau, formed only a few years back, had progressed “with amazing rapidity and now exercises an influence of coordination upon the churches, charities and philanthropic societies of the city.” As the relief effort came to a close, there was little political will to fund the welfare bureau. After having participated in new and innovative strategies resulting from the Halifax Explosion, and having developed an advanced public health and social welfare response, social work reverted back to a reliance on charities and casework. By 1922, as general unemployment increased, Edna Dumaresq, the general secretary of the Halifax Welfare Bureau, was frustrated in her attempts to respond to the over 180 applications for relief from unemployed workers and their families. As result, she felt that the bureau’s response was unprofessional and too investigative, offering little opportunity for the practice of

14

CHAPTER ONE

social work. In her experience, “more and more people every week get in touch with the bureau and refer their cases to us, but in this meeting the people, introducing ourselves into their homes, and then only referring them on to another society which also visits and gives inadequate relief that is worrying me. I feel we have no right into these people’s homes, and asking necessary questions unless we can make some use of the information.”19 In 1924 Dumaresq resigned as secretary of the Halifax Welfare Bureau, and the situation in Halifax was bleak as far as finding a local replacement since she was the only social worker in the city. A charitable service based on a means test was increasingly viewed as intrusive, punitive, and inadequate in responding to unemployment and poverty.

Postwar Social Unrest and Labour Conflict By 1919, World War I was replaced with a “war of the classes,” the struggle between capital and labour. The unrest came to a head in May and June with the Winnipeg General Strike. Workers across the country joined in support and labour strikes took place in cities from Sydney, Nova Scotia, to Vancouver, British Columbia. Radical social gospellers such as Woodsworth and A.E. Smith, and their People’s Churches were actively involved (Allen 1971).20 In the annual Labour Day edition of Social Welfare, the editor, Dr. J.G. Shearer, a gospeller, offered some of the reasons why there was unrest among the masses: [The] Employer in general, with notable exceptions, regard working people, men, women and children, as a commodity on sale, “labour” to be bought at the lowest market. Human personality is not recognized. Human rights are not considered.... The masses believe and have grounds for their belief that employers in general are out for all the profit they can get, regardless of who suffers in consequence, that community service, social welfare and national or world service is not in all their thoughts. (Social Welfare 1919a: 256)

In the context of this class exploitation, it was noted that milling companies showed profits of 30 percent and Dominion Textile reached a profit of 300 percent. These conditions resulted in a lack of confidence in the constituted government among the working people. The federal Report on the Industrial Commission, released on June 25, 1919, summarized the main causes of social unrest as unemployment and the fear of unemployment, the low wages and long hours of work, and the denial of collective bargaining rights. There was also growing opposition to the restrictions of freedom on speech and the press and the lack of equal education opportunities (Social Welfare 1918b).

SETTING THE STAGE

15

Many new immigrants –– Slavs, Italians, Austrians, and Germans –– were directed to western Canada to serve as cheap labour for railway construction. They were housed in unsanitary shanties and worked long hours. Their introduction to life in Canada was from “a filthy bunkhouse or from the harsh profane tongue of his task-master” (Roper 1920: 307). Once the railways were built, the workers sought work in other sectors, namely, mining and lumber, and many became staunch trade unionists and were active in the struggle to gain social and economic benefits. The commission’s recommendations included state-funded social insurance for those unable to work, greater recognition for human rights and human aspirations, and an eight-hour day where possible and twenty-four hours’ weekly rest. The Social Service Council passed a resolution in support of the eight-hour day and endorsed the principle of collective bargaining and the right of every worker to an income adequate to ensure a fair standard of living (Social Welfare 1920a). International events, such as the Russian Revolution of 1917, also influenced developments in Canada. While the Russian Revolution intrigued some, it aroused fear in others. For the Canadian state, it raised the fears of socialism in Canada and set off the Red Scare. Socialist and pacifist opponents of the war and “foreign aliens” who engaged in radical politics were placed in internment camps as late as February 1920. When the camps were finally closed, 8,579 men, eighty-one women, and 156 children had been imprisoned. All publications in an “enemy” language were banned, and by mid-1919, the Canadian state had suppressed the entire foreign language radical press (Kealey 1997). At war’s end attention returned once again to the growing poverty in Canada. As harsh social conditions continued, an effective social welfare response by organized charity became exceedingly difficult. Based on a 1920s survey by the Council of Montreal, it was decided to divide the agencies based on religion and to create three councils –– Protestant and Nonsectarian, Jewish, and Catholic. These divisions prompted the Family Welfare Association of America (FWAA) field director, after a visit to Montreal, to write: “I may be quite wrong but I cannot help feeling that separatism in time will lead to some fearful breaking apart. If there is no way around the growing barriers, I frankly can see nothing else ahead. I don’t know what form it will take, it may be fifty or a hundred years hence but it is coming seems as certain as fate.”21 A 1922 report of the Montreal Family Welfare Association, formerly the Charity Organization Society, underscored the destitution of the families served in the city:

16

CHAPTER ONE

The problems of fourteen hundred (1,400) families were dealt with during the twelve months period. Sickness, due in large measure to lack of proper nourishment, and the unhealthy, crowded way in which people are forced to live, was found in 72 percent of the families; 24 percent were seriously in debt; 4 percent were living in houses unfit for human habitation; the children of 4 percent of the families were not attending school at all regularly; examination showed that mental defectiveness existed in 2 percent and was suspected in another 3 percent; while intemperance, desertion, non-support, imprisonment and juvenile delinquency were strong forces in the disintegration of the home. (Social Welfare 1922: 219)

While some modest measures to assist the poor were put in place, the reliance on charity and casework to alleviate the harsh social and economic issues facing individuals and families was clearly ineffective and inadequate.

Conclusion In the thirty years of social welfare reform, charitable Church-based responses gradually had given way to a secular casework approach to social problems in most parts of Canada, with the exception of Quebec, where the Catholic Church maintained a hold until the 1960s. Through the casework approach of studying social issues and providing technical responses to them, social workers had demonstrated that they had an area of expertise for responding to social problems, such as assisting disaster victims and the settlement of returning soldiers. Skills in working with impoverished populations, however, were refined only after the onset of the Great Depression of the 1930s. The ravages of World War I had a profound impact on the Canadian population, including social workers. At the close of the decade, there was a concerted effort to embrace world peace through the signing of a number of peace pacts and agreements. Mary van Kleeck, director of industrial studies of the Russell Sage Foundation in New York and vice-president of the International Department of Industrial Relations Association, was invited to address the evening service of a Toronto Baptist church. In her talk, entitled “The Economic Basis of World Peace,” she argued that peace could be made permanent only if the industries of the world are organized in the interests of all people: “Important and inspiring as is getting together of statesmen, it must be recognized that governments alone cannot establish world peace, for the basis of world peace is economic. Competition in world markets and the struggle for possession of raw materials leads to war.” She continued to explain further with brilliant foresight: “Judging by the rapid growth of combinations and mergers, it may be predicted that the next ten years will witness a hitherto undreamed of development of international companies.”22 Van Kleeck was hopeful that the concentration of economic power might be used in the interests of labour and consumers, and urged that reli-

SETTING THE STAGE

17

gious forces join the struggle to secure an industrial society with a larger human service as its goal.23 The last decades of the twentieth century witnessed profound economic, social, and political change in Canada. The processes of capitalist industrialization, urbanization, and immigration created conditions of growth for the country, but this was accompanied by extreme social dislocation in some segments of the population. Efforts to assist people affected by unemployment, poverty, or ill health initially were left to families, local communities, or the churches. The major criteria for helping someone in need was to determine if the person was truly in need and not simply unwilling to work. Social work was born out of the charity tradition, but it developed an approach to individual, family, and social problems that allowed it to develop into a profession with skills and techniques that could be directly applied. For the next century social workers would continue to define their skills and expand them and continue working toward professionalization in an environment that was filled with both challenges and opportunities.

Notes 1 In 1887 Kelso founded the Toronto Humane Society to respond to cruelty to children and animals. See, for example, Early History of the Humane and Children’s Aid Movement in Ontario 1886–1893 (Toronto: L.K. Cameron) by an unknown author. 2 Public Archives of Nova Scotia (hereafter PANS), MG 20, Vol. 408, No. 1.3, Conference of Association of Child-Caring Institutions, Truro, NS, May 9–11, 1950, pp. 1–3. 3 B.C. Archives (hereafter B.C.A), GR 517, “Vancouver’s Early Days and the Development of Her Social Services.” From a paper given at the Annual Meeting of the Social Workers’ Club on May 18, 1938, by Lilian M. Nelson, formerly of the City Relief Department. 4 Baron Maurice de Hirsch was a railway entrepreneur and philanthropist from Austria and France. His philosophy was to settle homeless Jews in farming communities, and he supported this effort in several places, including Canada; see, e.g., Weiss (1984). 5 In 1920 the council changed its name to the Canadian Council of Social Development. For a history of the council, see Richard Allen, The Social Passion: Religion and Social Reform in Canada 1914–28 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1971). 6 The settlement was located at 169 Dorchester St. West, between Bleury and St. Lawrence Main. 7 The proceedings of the National Conference on Social Welfare (1874–1982) were issued under the following names: 1874, Conference Board of Public Charities; 1875–79, Conference of Charities; 1880–1, Conference of Charities and Correction; 1882–1916, National Conference of Charities and Correction;

18

CHAPTER ONE

1917–56, National Conference of Social Work; 1957–82, National Conference on Social Welfare. The entire proceedings can be found at http://www.hti.umich

.edu/n/ncosw. 8 Social Welfare History Archives (hereafter SWHA), FSAA, Box 89, Family Service Association of America (FSAA). The Greenwood Encyclopedia of American Institutions: Social Service Organizations (London: Greenwood Press, 1978), pp. 302–7. The organization was supported by the Russell Sage Foundation (RSF), and Mary E. Richmond, the director of the Charity Organization Department of RSF, and the associate director, Fred S. Hall, offered guidance and assistance. Several name changes followed –– American Association of Societies for Organizing Charity (AASOC) in 1912, American Association for Organizing Charity (AAOC) in 1919, Family Welfare Association of America (FWAA) in 1930, and the Family Service Association of America (FSAA) in 1946. The organization published The Family, which became Social Casework in 1946. 9 SWHA, FSAA, Box 89, letter to Mr. Stapleford, Neighborhood Workers Association, Toronto from executive director, March 14, 1922. 10 SWHA, FSAA, Box 89, letter to Rev. D.A. McKillop, Associated Charities, Calgary from the associate secretary (unsigned) September 19, 1912. 11 SWHA, FSAA, Box 89, letter to Mr. Maurice Willows, associate secretary, New York, NY, from J. Howard T. Falk, general secretary, the Associated Charities, The City of Winnipeg, October 29, 1912. 12 SWHA, FSAA, Box 89, letter to Mr. Smith [Montreal] from J.S. Woodsworth, Canadian Welfare League in Winnipeg, but written from Saskatoon February 1, 1914. Smith forwarded the letter to Francis H. McLean, American Society for Organizing Charities, New York. 13 McGill University Archives (hereafter MUA), MG 2076, Montreal Council of Social Agencies, Finding Aid offers an excellent historical account of these developments. 14 MUA, MG 2076 C30, Montreal Council of Social Agencies, April 1921. 15 SWHA, FSAA, Box 89, letter to Francis H. McLean, The Associated Charities in Boston from Samuel Arnold, secretary, The Associated Charities of Toronto, January 17, 1912. 16 MUA, M642 33 C1, Box 1, Montreal Council of Social Agencies, Welfare Work in Montreal in 1922, Confidential Exchange Report for 1922, quote p. 6. 17 MUA, MG 2076 C.29 5100B, Survey of the Protestant and Non-sectarian ReliefGiving Organizations of Montreal, made by Miss E. Frances O’Neill, at the Request of The Financial Federation of the Montreal Council of Social Agencies, February 1924, p. 135, quote p. 21. 18 MUA, MG 2076 C.29 5100B, Survey of the Protestant and Non-sectarian ReliefGiving Organizations of Montreal, made by Miss E. Frances O’Neill, at the Request of the Financial Federation of the Montreal Council of Social Agencies, February 1924, p. 26. 19 SWHA, FSAA, Box 89, Halifax Prior to 1928, letter to Mr. F.H. McLean, American Association for Organizing Family Social Work in New York City from Edna Dumaresq, general secretary, Halifax Welfare Bureau, April 10, 1924. 20 The social gospel movement lost momentum in 1922, and in January 1925, A.E Smith, one of the leaders, joined the Communist Party of Canada.

SETTING THE STAGE

19

21 SWHA, FSAA, Box 89, letter to Mr. John B. Dawson, The Charity Organization Society, Montreal, from field director [unsigned], March 1, 1921, possibly Francis McLean of New York. 22 Sophie Smith Collection (hereafter SSC), van Kleeck Fond, Box 18, paper presented by Mary van Kleeck, “The Economic Basis of World Peace,” 7 p.m. service at the Walmer Road Baptist Church, October 13, 1929, 1–3, quote pp. 2 and 3. 23 SSC, van Kleeck Fond, Box 9. She communicated these sentiments regularly to Prime Minister W.L. Mackenzie King and her influence extended outside of social work. The letters in this collection indicate that the prime minister and van Kleeck corresponded regularly with each other regarding industrial relations, particularly labour disputes.

This page intentionally left blank

CHAPTER TWO

Pursuing Professional Status, 1924‒29 The demands of an emerging industrial capitalist economy created conditions conducive to establishing social work as a profession. The transition to an industrial labour market produced social problems of a magnitude that the public could not ignore, and the skills of social workers were increasingly in demand to assist with these problems. Encouraged by the process of social work profession-building in the UK and the US, proponents in Canada took this opportunity to define and develop the work that they were doing. Social work became involved in a range of activities that centred on staking its claim and identifying an expertise in an increasingly important and expanding arena of work. This process had three important effects. First, by professionalizing, social workers became increasingly circumscribed by the demands of a new profession that, for the most part, did not threaten the existing labour process and the accumulation of private wealth. Second, the professional association would perform a legitimating function by supporting its members in the provision of programs and services that helped buffer the most extreme effects of poverty. And third, theoretically, a professional designation would give social workers a preferred status in a competitive labour market whereby “producers of special services [seek] to constitute and control a market for their expertise” (Larson 1977: xvi). Central to this process of professionalization was achieving independence from the US by establishing university-based programs to prepare social workers and to create an indigenous professional association. This chapter focuses on the developments that occurred up to the Great Depression of the 1930s. 21

22

CHAPTER TWO

The American Influence Social workers in Canada, in the early years, were heavily influenced by developments south of the border. They belonged to US professional associations, attended US conferences, contributed to US journals, and relied on US accreditation bodies. During these years there was an intense debate over the professional capacity of social work. The American Flexner Report (Flexner 1915), which attempted to identify social work and determine if it constituted a profession, was at the centre of discussion and had an important impact on the direction of social work in both the US and Canada. At the 1915 National Conference of Charities and Correction, Abraham Flexner, a consultant to the medical profession, delivered an invited paper titled “Is Social Work a Profession?” Although he questioned his competency at entering the discussion, he proceeded to assess social work’s capacity as a profession. A profession, he argued, must fulfill six criteria. It must contain: (1) an intellectual base with considerable individual responsibility, (2) an intellectual approach based on science and learning, (3) a practical component, (4) an educational technique, (5) self-organization, and (6) altruism. He concluded that social work fell short as a profession because of the broad nature of its work and suggested that a social worker is not “a professional agent so much as a mediator,” and therefore did not have sufficient individual responsibility for clients. Flexner (1915: 585) explained further: The social worker takes hold of a case, that of a disintegrating family, a wrecked individual, or an unsocialized industry. Having localized his problem, having decided on its particular nature, is he not usually driven to invoke the specialized agency, professional or other, best equipped to handle it? There is illness to be dealt with—the doctor is needed; ignorance requires the school; poverty calls for the legislator, organized charity, and so on.

He also noted that social work was not a fully developed educational discipline in its own right since most of the heads of schools of social work were men who were prepared in other disciplines, not social work. At the same conference, Porter Lee, chair of the New York School of Philanthropy, took a different position. He delivered a committee report on the professional basis of social work, emphasizing the importance of social work expertise: “If social workers are to justify their claims to professional standing it will not be chiefly because they are working to promote social welfare, but because they are qualified to promote social welfare and to promote social welfare in ways which other professions cannot” (Lee 1915: 599). Lee also emphasized the importance of theoretical as well as practical contributions to the development of casework.

P U R S U I N G P R O F E S S I O N A L S T A T U S , 1 9 2 4 –– 2 9 23

Mary Richmond, director of the Charity Organization Department at the Russell Sage Foundation, delivered a paper on casework and criticized reformers’ lack of understanding of social casework: “At the present the attitude of social reformers toward social casework would seem to vary from a desire to brush it aside altogether, as a patchwork thing which only delays the coming of social justice, all the way up to the determination to have a new kind of caseworker for every conceivable social situation” (Richmond 1915: 44). No doubt moved to action by Flexner’s pronouncements, in 1917 Richmond published Social Diagnosis, and identified casework as the technique unique to social work. She developed the casework process as studying, diagnosing, and treating individual problems. Although Richmond focused on the “retail” individual casework approach as opposed to the “wholesale” approach of social reforms in the settlement movement, it was never her intent to restrict a social work response to casework alone. When she realized social workers were doing just that, she is quoted as being concerned about the narrow application of the practice: “I have spent twenty-five years of my life in an attempt to get social casework accepted as a valid process in social work. Now I shall spend the rest of my life trying to demonstrate to social caseworkers that there is more to social work than social casework” (Bruno 1948: 187). Richmond was active in social reform and, at the time of her death, was a contributor to over twenty social action organizations. She was opposed to Freudian psychology and the theory of the unconscious, which was embraced by most social workers as the theoretical base needed for professional status.1 With the focus on professionalism, it became increasingly important that schools of social work become established departments in universities. At the 1915 National Conference, Felix Frankfurter, a Harvard law professor, reflected on how young the social work profession was compared to the eight hundred years of experience held by the legal profession. Nonetheless, he urged social work to become established within the universities: “The schools of social work must be intimate parts of the university, because they must have contact with the other branches of the university’s work.... These schools need the university. But the university also needs the school for social work” (Frankfurter 1915: 596). However, as is illustrated in the chapters that follow, schools of social work were not always welcomed into the academy. A central part of advancing professionally is the ability to claim identifiable skills. For social work, the commodity was casework and the priority was on the standardization of the practice through the development of university programs. Larson describes the important role of education in the professionalization project:

24

CHAPTER TWO

The standardization or codification of professional knowledge is the basis on which a professional “commodity” can be made distinct and recognizable to the potential publics. This effect is never direct, but mediated by the process of training: cognitive standardization allows a measure of uniformity and homogeneity in the “production of producers.” (Larson 1977: 40)

As early as 1897, Mary Richmond and others recognized that some specialized preparation was needed for those engaged in philanthropy. At this time the Conference of Charities and Corrections (later the National Conference of Social Work) was held in Toronto, and Mary Richmond delivered a paper titled “The Need for a Training School of Applied Philanthropy.” The development of educational programs quickly followed, and in 1898 the New York Charity Organization Society began a summer training course, the first educational program for social workers and the roots of the New York School of Philanthropy (later to become the Columbia School of Social Work) (van Kleeck and Taylor 1922). By 1905, lectures for social workers were under way in Chicago, Boston, and Philadelphia, and, several years later, organized initiatives in this regard took place in Canada.

The Formative Years in Canadian Social Work Education In Canada the Social Science Study Club in Toronto was established in 1911 with a membership of 275 affluent women, many of whom were social workers. The club’s goal was to inform public opinion on concerns such as immigration and housing. Then, in 1912, the Toronto Social Workers’ Club was formed with twenty-one charter members and a mandate to pursue “the cultivation of personal acquaintanceship among the members, their education in respect to all branches of social work, the increasing of efficiency and raising of standards, the encouragement of co-operation amongst all agencies doing social work, and fostering reform” (McGregor 1940: 12). In the following year, representatives from both clubs organized a meeting at the University of Toronto, which resulted in a resolution being passed to begin training courses to prepare social workers. The Toronto Department of Social Services was opened in 1914, and within the first year 281 students had registered part-time and twelve fulltime. The curriculum emphasized theories of social psychology and economics and focused on community practice. In 1919, seventeen schools of social work in the United States and Canada formed the US Association of Training Schools for Professional Social Work to develop standards for social work education. The association later became the American Association of Schools of Social Work (AASSW), and eventually the Council on Social Work Education (CSWE). The Toronto Department of Social Serv-

P U R S U I N G P R O F E S S I O N A L S T A T U S , 1 9 2 4 –– 2 9 25

ices joined, although it later withdrew membership for a brief period because of the association’s emphasis on casework rather than political economy.2 The department also joined the International Association of Training Schools. The change of name from Department of Social Services to Social Science in the 1929–30 session reflects an adherence to political economy and the department’s reluctance to embrace traditional forms of social work. At times public presentations sponsored by the department were viewed as inflammatory and were hotly protested, particularly when the speakers were decidedly on the left. For example, in 1918, as part of their lecture series, the Department of Social Services invited Jane Addams, from Hull House, to speak on “The Settlement’s Contribution to Community Life.” However, because of her work in the peace movement and her opposition to World War I, protests from individuals and the press, including threats to her safety, necessitated cancelling her visit. Several years later, Professor Alfred Dale, director of the Department of Social Services, was attacked in the press because he had chaired a meeting where Dr. Scott Nearing was the speaker (McGregor 1940: 9 32). Nearing (1883 1983) was a lifelong socialist and pacifist, and was fired from his position as an economics professor in the United States for actively opposing the war. John Graham (1996: 14), in his research on the history of the University of Toronto, found that there were internal divisions among faculty on whether to concentrate on social advocacy or casework practice and on the theoretical of social work education. However, in the early years the focus on political economy and social policy remained and may in part reflect the British influence. Also, in terms of leadership, Dale, the head of the University of Toronto program, paid a price for his support of speakers such as Addams and Nearing, which, combined with his ill health, curtailed his efforts to further develop a social change orientation to social work education. Graham contends that because of these developments, the University of Toronto school became a more moderate institution. “The University of Toronto School, like social work itself, was destined to become reified and divided, entrenched into camps variously described as casework-clinicalremedial, on the one hand, versus social change-structural-policy administration, on the other hand” (Graham 1996: 44). In 1918 the Department of Social Studies and Training, financially supported by the theological colleges, was opened at McGill primarily to provide social work theory and practice to young male clergy. Three men were instrumental in starting the department: Professor Dale, Mr. Dexter (general secretary of the Charity Organization Society), and the principal,

26

CHAPTER TWO

Sir William Peterson. J. Howard T. Falk was recruited to be the director. The curriculum focused on the study of social problems, economic theories of social reform, poverty, and ethics. The field component was with the Charity Organization Society (the Family Service Association). Certificates for a one-year course were awarded in 1920 and by 1923, a two-year diploma was offered. Course work was intended to attract students who were schoolteachers, theological students, volunteers in settlements and other agencies, and church workers, as well as social workers. Graduates found employment in the Charity Organization Society (family care), the hospital social service departments (follow-up after discharge), the hospital social service department, and the Women’s Directory (the unmarried mother), or the Juvenile Court (probation).3 In a plan for future directions, Falk emphasized that social workers ought to have certain attributes, such as “tact, poise, presence, sympathy, tempered by sound judgment and ‘that special something,’ call it ‘religion’ if you like which must draw or ‘call’ the person into social work.”4 From its inception the department was not given adequate financial resources, and Falk quickly realized that there was limited support from the university. In 1922, a letter to principal Sir Arthur Currie, Falk outlined his views of the developments since he arrived and emphasized the need for social work education in Montreal.5 At this time discussions were under way to abolish the department; however, Falk was not included in these deliberations. Falk accepted the job at McGill partly because he had been told that Montreal had excellent social agencies. He found, however, that there was a high turnover of social workers and that few were adequately trained. He also found that the churches in Montreal were not supporting the Protestant charities adequately. In Quebec, there was no state support for social welfare, and the financial burden was placed on private charities and the Church. Unlike the relative independence of curriculum development of the Toronto School of Social Work, McGill’s School of Social Work initially was heavily influenced by religion. In 1919, the theological colleges, the primary financial support for social work education, expressed dissatisfaction with the school’s curriculum and attached certain conditions to future funding. One condition was that the department had to teach core courses that were determined by the theological colleges, and that students were to be taught by someone of their own faith and by a sociologist. By 1920, Falk was asked to divide his time between the university and the Council of Social Agencies as a cost-cutting measure to the university. He felt that he had allowed himself “to be inveigled into attempting the impossible because I feared the Department would be abandoned if the cost was

P U R S U I N G P R O F E S S I O N A L S T A T U S , 1 9 2 4 –– 2 9 27

not kept down.”6 Falk continued as director until 1925 and was replaced by Carl A. Dawson, a sociologist. In the same year, the school was accepted as a member of the American Association of Schools of Professional Social Work. As social services expanded, training programs reflected the movement to a more systematic professional response. Formation of a Canadian Social Work Association Once the American Association of Social Workers (AASW) was formed in 1922, social workers in Canada began to think about establishing their own professional association. This was facilitated by the establishment of schools of social work at the University of Toronto and McGill, and the increase in the number of university-prepared social workers. Most graduates remained in Toronto and Montreal to work in social services agencies such as the Canadian Council on Child and Family Welfare (later the Canadian Welfare Council), private family and child welfare agencies, settlements, and the relatively new Community Chests and Councils. Therefore, it is not surprising that the initial leadership in developing a Canadian association was university-based and the membership concentrated in these two communities. Prior to this time, a number of social workers belonged to social work associations in the United States and attended the US National Conference of Social Work. While they had full membership privileges and were eligible to serve on committees, they did not feel on equal footing with their counterparts in the United States. Howard Falk argued that “in the last analysis the development of a social work program is closely related to if not largely dependent upon the policies, actions, and legislative enactments of government” (Dawson 1924: 189 90). For this reason, he advocated for a Canadian national social work consciousness and orientation and the development of a Canadian National Conference of Social Work and a Canadian Association of Social Workers. Others, such as Robert Mills (1924), believed that resources put into a national conference would take away from important provincial and regional conferences, and that Canadian social workers already had a number of associations where they could come together, such as the Child Welfare Council of Canada, the National Committee on Mental Hygiene, and the Social Service Council of Canada. American social workers offered guarded support for Canadians in developing an indigenous association. On March 28, 1922, J.B. Bueill, organizational secretary of AASW wrote: I have watched with interest the results of the discussion in Canada and particularly the feeling that Canada should have some sort of a professional Association of its own. The whole question seems to be an important one and one which

28

CHAPTER TWO

on both sides of the border should be given the most careful kind of consideration. I think I see very clearly the danger which there is in the Canadian group being absorbed by an association which has its headquarters and the large majority of its members on this side of the border. On the other hand, I do think that there is some distinct advantage in being affiliated with the social workers of this country if only for the fact that they would be far outnumber those in Canada. The mere strength of numbers and the activities which they are able to support is, it seems to me, an important point to be taken into consideration.7

She concluded the letter with an attempt to recruit members: “I am wondering if you yourself would not like to become a member of our association now and whether some of the other members of your staff would like to join also....” At the 1923 National Conference of Social Work in Washington, Canadians organized a luncheon for the purpose of discussing a national Canadian conference. A committee was formed (A.P. Paget of Winnipeg, M.C. Maclean of Toronto, and C.A. Dawson of Montreal) to prepare a more extensive discussion at the 1924 US national conference to be held in Toronto. The intention was not that Canadians would withdraw from the American conference, but that a Canadian conference, meeting every two to three years, would allow for a more focused gathering and the development of a national social work consciousness in Canada. When the National Conference on Social Work was held in Toronto in June 1924, Canadian delegates took the opportunity to organize a discussion regarding the possibility of forming both a Canadian Conference of Social Work and a national Canadian Association of Social Workers. They appointed a representative committee with Dawson, director of the School of Social Work at McGill, as chair, to consult with heads of national social work agencies on the feasibility of a national conference that would represent national and local organizations. The impetus came from the awareness that “the political and social traditions at the base of Social Work in Canada are sufficiently different to warrant a Canadian conference of social work as distinct from the American conference” (Dawson 1928: 101). A subcommittee was formed at a subsequent meeting to explore the development of a Canadian association that was to be headed by Professor J.A. Dale, director of the School of Social Work, University of Toronto. However, Professor Dale became ill and George B. Clarke (Family Welfare Association of Montreal) was appointed in his place.8 The subcommittee developed objectives for the association: (1) to promote professional standards and proficiency among social workers; (2) to organize and maintain a placement bureau; (3) to inform the public about the social work profession;

P U R S U I N G P R O F E S S I O N A L S T A T U S , 1 9 2 4 –– 2 9 29

(4) to publish a bulletin; and (5) to promote research in areas that relate to the above functions. These objectives were sent to social worker’s clubs in Halifax, Montreal, Toronto, and Winnipeg for critique. The committee delivered a report to the Child Welfare Conference in Ottawa in 1925 and was officially sanctioned as an organizing committee to proceed with forming the CASW.9 Later, this decision was endorsed by close to sixty social work representatives from Winnipeg, Toronto, Ottawa, Halifax, and Montreal who met in Montreal.10 Then, on July 3 social workers from many parts of Canada who were returning from the National Conference in Cleveland met in Toronto and confirmed the outcome of the Montreal meeting (Hopper 1926). The organizing committee was set up to have provincial representation on the following basis: Ontario, twenty members; Maritime provinces, fifteen; and ten members each for Manitoba, Quebec, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and British Columbia.11 A draft statement of the purpose was sent to various social workers’ clubs in Halifax, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, and Winnipeg requesting their input.12 Leadership and impetus for a Canadian association came from Falk and Clarke in Montreal, and while there was a lot of interest in the formation of an association in Canada, not everyone supported it.13 However, social workers from major cities met in Montreal and Toronto and accepted the draft constitution and bylaws and, in 1926, the Canadian Association of Social Workers was formed. Unfortunately, communication of these developments did not reach all of the members of the organizing committee. In particular, it appears that Judge Ernest Blois’ attempts to find out what was happening in Halifax were futile. On September 9, 1926, Blois wrote a sarcastic note to CASW secretary R.W. Hopper: I am so sorry you did not notify me of the untimely death of the infant association of Social Workers. It would have been some consolation to have sent some flowers, baby’s breath and for-get-me-nots [sic], would have been so appropriate. If you can find the time, some day, I should be grateful to you for a few words telling me of the last sad days of our dearly departed.14

More than one year later, Blois, then director of Child Welfare in Halifax, again wrote about his frustration with the association’s lack of effort to communicate outside of central Canada: “I have found such difficulty in getting satisfactory information—information of any kind regarding the progress and affairs of the association of Social Workers that I have about concluded that it is no use trying.” With regard to contributing to the section in Social

30

CHAPTER TWO

Welfare, Blois expresses his doubt that “anything we do in the Maritime Provinces would be of much interest to Montreal and Toronto.”15 These sentiments were to become an ongoing refrain from social workers in provinces distant from central Canada. The new association was advertised in the Compass (American Association of Social Workers) and the October issue of Social Welfare (Social Service Council of Canada). In part, the announcement of “A New Profession” read: It is the professional Association of Canadian Social workers, and its formation will perhaps be the first indication to many that the problems of inequalities and human relationship which arise from and live to burden our social structure, have evolved a profession of workers to meet them—a profession with a technique all its own, demanding a rigorous training, and a code of ethics and standards to be lived up to.16

Attention then turned to the establishment of a journal. The Social Service Council (SSC) was approached to determine if there was a possibility of Social Welfare becoming an official organ of both the SSC and the social workers of Canada. However, such an arrangement was not as straightforward as it appeared, and instead the journal Social Welfare gave the newly formed CASW several pages directly under its editorial control so that the association could report on activities and issues as they arose. Association membership came with a subscription to Social Welfare and the official announcement of the CASW appeared in the October 1926 edition of the journal. The Constitution of the Canadian Association of Social Workers was approved on September 1, 1926, and outlined the aims of the association: To bring together professional social workers for such co-operative effort as may enable them more effectively to carry out their ideals of service to the community. To this end the Association shall seek to promote professional standards, encourage proper and adequate preparation and training, cultivate an informed public opinion which will recognize the professional and technical nature of social work, issue an official organ, maintain a professional employment service, conduct research and carry on such other activities as it may deem appropriate. (CASW Constitution 1926 Article II: 3)

Two Montreal members contributed a total of $150 to support the organization to get started with a charter membership. Initially charter membership offered the opportunity for all those actively involved in social welfare to become part of the association prior to the establishment of membership restrictions. Included among the 197 charter members were James Shaver Woodsworth, Labour member, House of Commons, Winnipeg, and Ernest Herbert Blois, judge, Juvenile Court, and superintendent of Neg-

P U R S U I N G P R O F E S S I O N A L S T A T U S , 1 9 2 4 –– 2 9 31

lected and Delinquent Children, Halifax (Social Welfare 1928). The membership represented every province in Canada except P.E.I. (Clarke 1951). However, the criteria for membership soon appeared to be one of the more contentious issues and were debated for several years to come. While some social workers wanted membership to be to open to anyone involved in the work of social welfare, others felt that it should be restricted to those who identified as a social worker and had some social work education. For example, there was a discussion over whether public health nurses should be eligible for membership. Some argued that nurses, employed by Public Health in the Victoria Order of Nurses and the Red Cross, worked in remote areas and engaged in the practice of social work and therefore ought to be eligible to join the association,17and that social workers “were obligated to take the nursing group if they wish to come.”18 Others wanted to limit membership to the “caseworking group.” In the initial constitution, membership was open to “persons trained in social work who are or who have been professionally occupied with the work of social work education, organization or adjustment, and whose professional standards of behaviour are in conformity with those of the association.” Initially, five classes of membership were listed: 1. Honourary (for distinctive contribution to social work); 2. Senior (professionally engaged for not less than 36 months and not less than 25 years of age); 3. Junior (professionally engaged for not less than 24 months and not less than 21 years of age); 4. Associate (professionally engaged for not less than 12 months); 5. Organization (organizations were accepted as Charter members as long as they conformed to the professional standards of the association).19

The constitution was sent to all potential members; many declined membership on the grounds that they did not think that they met the criteria. Among the members, particularly in Toronto, there was the view that the method of classification and grading of members defeated the purpose of bringing social workers together. In a letter, R.W. Hopper (Ontario Society for Crippled Children) stated his opposition to the five classes of membership because the “invidious” grading of the membership only served to give a feeling of superiority to the senior members, and reported that the general feeling in Toronto was that the criteria needed drastic change. He attached a January 31, 1929 motion from the Toronto members, who proposed that there be only three categories for qualification for membership.20 At the final meeting on March 25, 1930, the Revision Committee in Montreal considered the motion and articles 3 21 were repealed and replaced with the following:

32

CHAPTER TWO

Regular membership in the Association is open to persons who have completed 2 years of study in a school of social work, 1 year of successful professional experience; graduated from a college or university and 2 years of experience; educational background which is sufficient to warrant expectations of progress in the profession and 3 years of experience. Associate membership is open to those who have completed 2 years of study in an approved school of social work or professionally engaged in the work of Social education, organization or adjustment, for a period of not less than twelve (12) months at the time of application.21

Four national Committees were formed to carry out the mandate of the Association: (1) Membership, (2) Publications, (3) Placement Services, and (4) Service Standards. Along with a professional association, social workers also formed the Canadian Conference on Social Work, which met for the first time in Montreal on April 24–27, 1928. This was an historic event and marked the first time that social workers from all the provinces convened. The total registration was 710, of which 424 were voting members. Six members came from the United States (Nairn 1928). The first general meeting was also held during the Conference, and eighty members attended on April 26, 1928. Major decisions made at that meeting included the following: a local branch could be organized by five members rather than ten; membership could be continued indefinitely as long as it was not allowed to lapse; to proceed with a placement service; to study and act on the inclusion of social workers as a census classification; and nurses who were engaged in public health work would continue to be eligible for membership (Clarke 1928). Social workers were also members of a number of national organizations such as the Social Service Council of Canada, the Canadian National Committee for Mental Hygiene, the Victoria Order of Nurses, the Canadian Council on Child Welfare, the Canadian Association of Child Protection Officers, the Canadian Social Hygiene Council, and the Federation of Women’s Institutes. The CASW met on April 30, 1929, during the Second Conference on Social Work at the Royal York Hotel in Toronto. The business included conducting an inquiry into the Dominion Census, with the objective of including social work, publishing in the Social Welfare journal, looking for kindred associations in the Dominion, establishing a placement service for social workers seeking employment, and recruiting members and membership transfer from the US.22 The Hospital Social Workers Association was suggested as a kindred association.23 Also, a pamphlet to recruit members called “What Does CASW Offer You?” was distributed.

P U R S U I N G P R O F E S S I O N A L S T A T U S , 1 9 2 4 –– 2 9 33

Decentralizing through Local Branches The formation of branches in communities with at least five charter members allowed social workers to participate in the building of the organization. Each branch was required to forward minutes of the general meetings, as well as the executive meetings to the secretary of the national office so that the central body was aware of developments across the country. Both the Montreal and Toronto branches were formed in 1927. The Montreal chapter consisted primarily of English-speaking members. In the case of the Montreal branch, an organizational meeting was held on February 21, 1927, at the Edinburgh Café in Montreal. In attendance were forty-five members of CASW who unanimously voted to develop a local branch. George H. Corbett (Society for the Protection of Women and Children) was elected chair and later proclaimed chair at a general meeting on May 18, 1927. At this meeting two vice-presidents, a treasurer, and a secretary were also elected. A Committee of Compilation By-laws was formed to review a draft of the bylaws for the chapter. Along with the standing committees, a Committee on Ethics and Standards was formed.24 By November 1930, four branches were organized: the Montreal branch (secretary Lyra Taylor), the Toronto branch (secretary Margaret Gould), the Hamilton branch (secretary Mary McLeod), and the Vancouver branch (secretary Zelda Collins).25A survey of service standards offers a glimpse into the nature of social workers in the beginning of the 1930s and the level of preparation of the workers. Drawing on replies from 228 social workers, of which twenty-three were men, seventy reported that they had no social service training, while eighty-one had a university course, twenty-eight a nurse’s diploma, and forty-nine some special basic training. The social workers were employed in casework and relief agencies, medical social work, church social work, settlement and recreation, and institutional work.26

The Impact of Pursuing Professional Status The early records of the CASW indicate that the formation of the association was a major activity in Canadian social work for more than a decade. The young profession was preoccupied with, among other activities, establishing a constitution, setting standards for education and training, developing codes of ethics, determining membership criteria, and recruiting members. Of equal significance, however, is the fact that the process of professionalization was not without major debate and controversy. The records of the Canadian Association of Social Workers, in fact, are rife with debates over the role of the association, its structure, and the composition of

34

CHAPTER TWO

membership. So, while there was general acceptance, if not an embrace, of the establishment of a professional association for social workers in Canada, a degree of tension has always existed between elements of social work that called for radical strategies—strategies that are seen as inconsistent with the structure and process of professional associations—and those that support the status quo. In both the US and Canada, as social workers professionalized, there was a notable shift away from social reform activities to more individual-focused casework that was influenced by Freudian psychology. Structural factors also influenced the process of becoming a profession. The very process of professionalizing means that the organization has, perhaps implicitly, agreed to play by the rules of a market economy and thereby has a conservative effect on the organization since it needs to compete to maintain a position of centrality in a competitive labour market. Discussions about restricted membership, requirements for education, standards of performance, among others, are part of the process of producing the commodity—casework—and maintaining a position of dominance and authority in its delivery. Unlike many professions, social work did not have to create a market since the market is basic human needs and there was no shortage of those who were in desperate need of assistance. This tension between claiming a professional status for its work, while at the same time recognizing the importance of advancing human welfare above the interests of the profession, has been at the centre of social work since its inception. This tension was recognized early on in its development. Individual social workers or groups of social workers consistently had dissenting voices, but they were unlikely to have the support of their association, which tended toward maintaining the status quo. Moreover, dissenting social workers had to expend extraordinary energy promoting countervailing views and presenting them to their professional association. This central tension manifested itself in at least three ways in Canada: through struggles internal to CASW, debates about policy positions that the association addressed, and through an alienation from the CASW by some left-leaning social workers who have chosen not to join the association or who were with other movements. Porter Lee, director of the New York School of Social Work, published an article in the CASW section of Social Welfare in which he observed that as social work developed into a profession, social workers inspiration declined. As social work acquired this status, he argued, there seemed to be fewer “prophetic voices, less evidence of the quickened spirit, greater interest in social work as a career than as a cause” (Lee 1928: 19). He suggested that there was a lack of confidence in constituted government that the key to inspiration is not in the social worker’s consciousness as a professional, but

P U R S U I N G P R O F E S S I O N A L S T A T U S , 1 9 2 4 –– 2 9 35

rather in an awareness of the responsibility that her position holds in responding to human need and promoting improved social conditions. Lee (1929) was critical of the shift in social work’s emphasis from “cause” to “function,” where social work’s role as an advocate for social reform was overshadowed by the task of providing a technical service. A similar point of view was put forward by a Canadian social worker, who pointed out that while social work is focused on casework and casework standards, the public knows little and cares less about casework. “What they are worried about is how we take care of the poor. Do people remain hungry? Are they cold or sick? To what degree do we function and how quickly can we effect a cure for suffering?” (Aide 1929: 223). It was argued that “the social worker must be a student of economics to discover how in the production and distribution of wealth there is such a broad gulf between the ‘haves’ and the ‘have-nots’” (Social Welfare 1929: 93). Social worker David Aide urged social workers to be less microscopic in their points of view. He offered the example of the struggle to have all kinds of occupational diseases covered by workmen’s compensation legislation. He also raised concern that “in order to protect the insurance rating, manufacturers and others have had to apply the principle of physical examination and anyone with blemish in his physical make-up is set aside in preference of the so-called perfect specimen and unless labour is at a very high premium the person who has a physical disability is finding it increasingly difficult to obtain employment” (Aide 1929: 223). While focusing on a constitution, membership, and recruitment, the CASW had little time for the ongoing social policy concerns. For example, the association missed an opportunity to engage in the debate on mothers’ allowances. Welfare legislation during this period was focused largely on supporting the “legitimate” family and preventing family breakdown. As Nancy Christie (2000: 160) noted: “In almost every province where a system of mothers’ allowances had been introduced, government benefits had been restricted to a limited category of deserving mothers—namely widows with more than two children and women with incapacitated husbands.” Family allowances were also debated during this time. J.S. Woodsworth, member for Winnipeg Independent Labour Party, first introduced the idea of family allowances into the House of Commons, although the issue was raised much earlier in Quebec. Father Léon Lebel (1928), a Jesuit priest and an early advocate of family allowances, prepared a report on family allowances entitled The Problem of the Large Family in Canada: Its Solution Family Allowances. In March 1929 he was referred to the House of Commons Committee on Industrial and International Relations and appeared

36

CHAPTER TWO

for two days, advocating for a system of family allowances. His most formidable opponent was Charlotte Whitton, executive secretary of the Canadian Council on Child Welfare, who argued that wages ought to be raised to be sufficient to support the average family rather than introducing a scheme of redistribution. Whitton was opposed to a national family allowances system because she felt that it would be a threat to the work ethic. She suggested that this issue was “one of far reaching consequences and of tremendous significance to the development of scientific social work in this country,” and recommended that CASW develop an organized and representative opinion from the Social Workers of Canada and present it to the House of Commons.27 The CASW executive considered Whitton’s request and decided that the association would not take any action on this matter because the Social Service Council of Canada was soliciting opinions from various agency boards in Canada, and that the association should confine itself to “activities more to the study of problems of a purely professional character such as professional ethics, standards, training, recruiting, and employment.”28 The onset of the Great Depression placed deliberations on family allowance on hold, but the issue would appear again in the 1940s.

Conclusion In the period between 1914 and 1929 major strides were made in the professionalization of social work in Canada. The young profession had successfully extricated itself from its American counterpart and developed educational programs and a professional association. New branches were developed and concerted efforts were made to recruit new members. The new association recognized the importance of contact with its membership in the regions and developed tools for doing this, namely, establishing a presence in the journal, Social Welfare, and planning for regular membership conferences. It also developed a solid infrastructure supported by a number of committees. It continued to engage in intellectual debate over the roles and functions of social work in Canada, and consistently acknowledged the importance of developing social work education. Social work’s focus on profession-building at the expense of grassroots reform activities soon would raise serious challenges as social workers faced the harsh economic conditions of the 1930s. However, the solid groundwork established in forming the CASW provided a means for social workers to work together as they weathered the onset of the Great Depression. In the decades to come, the CASW would continue its internal growth and development while simultaneously responding to new and urgent challenges that arose in society.

P U R S U I N G P R O F E S S I O N A L S T A T U S , 1 9 2 4 –– 2 9 37

Notes 1 Dalhousie University Archives (hereafter DUA). Maritime School of Social Work, UA 22 304 (8), Muriel W. Pumphrey, “Mary Richmond: Product and Modifier of Her Time,” paper read at the New York meeting of the Committee on the History of Social Welfare, December 29, 1960, Committee on the History of Social Welfare Newsletter 11 (May 1961): 5–11. 2 When the association formed in 1919, nine universities and colleges and five independent institutions were offering professional courses. 3 MUA, RG 2, C.62, Department of Social Services, 1918–26. J. Howard T. Falk, “A Review of the Social Work Situation in Montreal from August 1918 to October 1921 from the Standpoint of the Department of Social Service.” 4 MUA, RG 2, C.62, “A Plan for Social Training at McGill University to Commence 1919–20,” January 1919, p. 1. 5 MUA, RG 2, C.62, Department of Social Services, 1918–26, letter to Sir Arthur Currie from J. Howard T. Falk, February 3, 1922. 6 MUA, RG 2, C.62, Department of Social Services, 1918–26, letter to Sir Arthur Currie from J. Howard T. Falk, February 3, 1922, p. 4. 7 National Archives of Canada (hereafter NAC), MG 28, I 441, Vol. 3, File 12, letter to Miss Winifred Learmonth, Montreal, from J.B. Buell, organization secretary of American Association of Social Workers, March 28, 1922. 8 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 3, File 15, letter to Mr. Hopper, commissioner of social services in Ottawa, from the Family Welfare Association in Montreal. 9 NAC, MG, I 441, Vol. 3, File 12, minutes for the committee to consider formation of the CASW, March 20, 1926. 10 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 3 (13), newspaper clippings, “Social Workers Plan Corporation: Formation of Canadian Association of Professional Nature Advances Step,” Montreal Gazette, n.d. 11 NAC, MG, I 441, Vol. 3, File 12, minutes for the committee to consider formation of the CASW, March 20, 1926. Eight men met in Dr. Dawson’s office at McGill University: Dr. Dawson, Mr. G.B. Clarke (Montreal), Mr. J.H.T. Falk (Montreal), Mr. E.H. Blois (Halifax), Mr. M.C. MacLean (Toronto), Mr. D.B. Harkness (Toronto), Mr. H. Atkinson (Winnipeg), and Mr. R.W. Hopper (Ottawa). 12 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 3, Files 3–15, letter to Mr. R.W. Hopper, commissioner, Social Service Department, Ottawa, from G.B. Clarke, chair of the Organizing Committee, March 25, 1926. 13 SWHA, Family Service Association of America, Box 89, Linton B. Swift, A Special Conference at Toronto, December 3–4, 1926. 14 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 3, File 12, letter to R.W. Hopper, CASW secretary, from Ernest H. Blois, the juvenile court judge in Halifax, September 9, 1926. 15 NAC, MG, I 441, Vol. 3, File 12, letter to J. Howard T. Falk, Esq. in Montreal from Ernest H. Blois, director of Child Welfare, Halifax, March 14, 1927. 16 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 3, File 16, December 29, 1928. 17 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 3, File 17, Social Service Exchange, April 2, 1929. 18 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 3, Files 3–15, letter to R.W. Hopper, Esq., honorary secretary, CASW, Parliament Buildings, Ottawa from G.B. Clarke, chairman of the Provisional Executive, Montreal, December 11, 1926.

38

CHAPTER TWO

19 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 1, File 2, Executive Committee (Acting), Constitution 1926–28. Charter membership was possible until December 31, 1927. 20 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 1, File 3, Executive Committee Constitution, 1929–30, letter to Mr. C.A. Wylie, executive secretary, CASW, Montreal from R.W. Hopper, n.d. 21 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 1, File 3, Executive Committee Constitution. 22 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 1 (21), Council Meetings, Minutes, and Correspondence, 1929–31. 23 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 1 (21), Council Meetings, Minutes, and Correspondence, 1929–31, letter to Miss M.K. Nairn, Toronto from C.A. Wylie, January 10, 1931. 24 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 28, File 10, letter to R.W. Hopper, secretary, CASW Ottawa, from George Corbett, president, Montreal branch, May 19, 1927. 25 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 22, File 16, letter to Mr. A.D. Hardie, Convener Service Standards Committee, from executive secretary (unsigned) November 29, 1930; assumed to be from the CASW national office. 26 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 22, File 16, Service Standards, undated and no author given. 27 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 1, letter to Mr. G.B. Clarke, CASW (Montreal), from Charlotte Whitton, March 11, 1929. 28 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 1, letter to Charlotte Whitton from the executive secretary (CASW), April 15, 1929.

CHAPTER THREE

Face to Face with Poverty: Social Work in the Depression, 1930–9 Scarcely was the program launched when the stock market came tumbling down...and the Great Depression was upon us. (Maines 1959: 3)

With the collapse of the stock market in 1929 and the drought and crop failure in the West, Canada entered a period of mass unemployment, and unprecedented levels of poverty and economic uncertainty. Many municipalities went bankrupt during the Depression and increasingly pressure was placed on the federal government to assist the provinces financially. The CASW’s lack of resources and its small membership base made it difficult to advance its functions, but it not only managed to survive in the face of extreme challenges but to continue developing as a professional entity.

Social Workers Respond to Unemployment and Poverty The social impact of unemployment and poverty was quickly evident to social workers across Canada. Under the BNA Act, relief for the unemployed was a provincial responsibility, but the magnitude of the Depression made it impossible for municipal and provincial governments to carry the costs. An important new function for social work during the Depression was to work in the area of relief giving, but this work did not easily lend itself to psychological interventions, which was the primary social work technique at the time. In the context of the American experience, Jacob Fisher (1980)

39

40

CHAPTER THREE

concluded that, due to the abandonment of a focus on the social context, the profession was completely unprepared for the challenges of the Depression. The situation was similar for Canadian social workers who, like their American counterparts, were also unprepared for the magnitude of unemployment and poverty that the Depression created. In his work on social work in the Depression, historian James Struthers describes Canada as having: “entered into the greatest crisis of dependency in its history armed with only a few well-organized charities in its larger cities, a municipal relief structure built upon the nineteenth-century poor law, and an underdeveloped social work profession that viewed the whole field of public welfare with some skepticism” (Struthers 1987: 112). In most major cities, social welfare distribution continued to be provided according to religion. For example, in Toronto, along with Protestant and Roman Catholic charities, there was the Jewish Welfare Fund, which provided funding for the Jewish YMCA, the Jewish Children’s Agency, the Jewish Old Folks Home, the Jewish Hospital, and the Jewish Family Bureau. The bureau was also supported by the Jewish Federation. Dora Wilensky, appointed executive director in 1931, had been employed as a caseworker by the Jewish Social Service Bureau in Chicago from 1927 to 1930. The bureau was a member of the Family Services Association of America (FSAA) and had regular site visits in order to ensure quality of program delivery.1 In 1934, the overall situation became particularly acute as family members succumbed to illness and suffered from the inadequate food and fuel provisions. Social workers found that the Depression “reduced many to a state of most miserable poverty,” and that people were displaying amazing courage, “but nerves are getting ragged and family life is breaking under too prolonged a strain.”2 In the 1930s, social workers in Quebec found little state support for the needs of the poor and unemployed. In vain would one search the ancient laws of the Province of Quebec to find legislation comparable to the laws protecting children as they exist in other provinces of Canada; there are no Superintendent of Neglected Children in this Province, which is the only one in the Dominion where compulsory education is not in force. And this is the reason why, until a few years ago, the Government of Quebec relied entirely upon religious institutions for both the education, as well as the protection, of dependent children; the Government itself very rarely intervenes.3

The Roman Catholic Church consistently opposed public welfare on the grounds that it would be “socialistic.” Montreal had no municipal or provincial hospitals and was the only city of its size in Canada that had no municipal outdoor relief, except for the unemployed under federal legislation. In Montreal, there were four charitable financial federations: the Federation

F A C E T O F A C E W I T H P O V E R T Y , 1 9 3 0 –– 9

41

of Jewish Philanthropies (1916), the Financial Federation for Protestant and Non-sectarian Group (1922), the Federation of Catholic Charities for EnglishSpeaking Catholics (1929), and the Federation des Oeuvres de Charité Canadienne-Français (French Canadian Federation of Welfare Services) (1933). The Montreal Council of Social Agencies coordinated the non-sectarian and Protestant charities and based its methods on the Charity Organization and the distinction between the deserving and non-deserving poor. The Negro Community Centre, founded in 1926 and a member of the Montreal Council of Social Agencies, provided educational, recreational, and social opportunities for the Black population of Montreal. The centre also encouraged “a spirit of sympathetic understanding between the white and coloured races.”4 The University Settlement of Montreal offered services regardless of religion. Half of the population served was new Canadians, and the impact of the ongoing Depression was taking its toll on those in need. By 1930, due to the escalating number of people out of work, a Special Committee on Unemployment was formed and supported by the Financial Federation of the Montreal Council of Social Agencies. However, the criteria used to determine eligibility limited the number receiving relief. Applicants not only had to meet residency requirements but to produce letters from their clergy verifying need. There were also class and gender biases since white-collar unemployed workers received special attention and only unemployed women who were widows with children were deemed worthy of relief (MacLennan 1987: 4–5). Then in 1931, the committee was replaced with the Montreal Relief Committee appointed by the city. Along with administering relief to single men of all races and creeds and running a shelter, the committee provided relief for destitute families. At the end of 1931, about 2,000 Protestant families were being assisted weekly and at the close of 1932, the number had doubled.5 During the years 1930–32, agencies financed by the Financial Federation felt the impact of the depressed economy. The Family Welfare Association doubled its caseload and the Victorian Order of Nurses financed thousands of free visits. The Montreal Diet Dispensary distributed large quantities of food to destitute families.6 Leonard Marsh, director of McGill University’s Department of Social Research, conducted a survey titled “Health and Unemployment.” The findings highlighted the impact of poverty on family members. He reported that families lived in overcrowded, unsanitary living conditions, and approximately 53 percent of unemployed youth were not receiving adequate nutrition (Marsh 1938). By 1933, almost one-third of the general population was on relief. However, among the French-speaking Roman Catholic population, the rate increased to 38 percent (Horn 1976: 43). In December 1933, a landmark was

42

CHAPTER THREE

passed in the social history of Quebec. Following the unsuccessful effort of private charity to carry the unemployment relief burden, the Montreal Unemployment Relief Commission was constituted –– the first acceptance of direct governmental responsibility for social welfare in the province of Quebec.”7 However, Quebec remained the only province where there was “no Minister of Public Welfare, no Superintendent of Neglected Children, no provisions for municipal or provincial hospitals, no Mother’s Allowances or Old Age Pensions, no municipal outdoor relief ...” (The Social Worker 1935a: 5). The situation in the Prairies was equally difficult. The drought of the mid-1930s in Manitoba, for example, drove people from their homes into Winnipeg, creating the largest unemployment relief role of any city in Canada. As the Depression continued, Elin Anderson, executive director of the Family Bureau of Winnipeg, described the growing dissent in the city with a population of 310,000: The single unemployed men constitute a group who are at present having parades for better treatment. In addition, there is an enormous group of young people staying at home unable to find work. Communist and fascist groups are well developed in one section of the city. There is a great deal of talk as everywhere, about the administration of relief –– that it is over-indulgent, etc.8

During the harsh social conditions of the winter of 1931, relief agencies in Ontario were overwhelmed with people in need. For example, in Ottawa, with a population of 107,843, the Ottawa Welfare Bureau had an increased caseload of 2,412 from 1,522 the previous year, creating an average caseload of 240 per worker.9 The need for financial assistance was so urgent that social workers had little time to assess the nature of their work or to resist the rigid rules and regulations that characterized relief giving.10 The problems around the relief system, particularly the abysmally low rates of benefits, were important issues for the CASW. In 1932 Harry Cassidy produced a study that severely criticized the relief system in Ontario, particularly its low levels of benefits and the irregularities in the system (Cassidy 1932). Difficulties in obtaining relief existed across the country. For example, the process for securing relief from the government sometimes took up to ten days. The following description illustrates the tortuous process facing those in Vancouver who were destitute: First the client is required to register at the Unemployment Bureau as no Provincial Relief can be had until the person is registered for employment. Next the client puts in an application and makes affidavit at another point where his record is taken. The next step turns this record over to the “investigation depart-

F A C E T O F A C E W I T H P O V E R T Y , 1 9 3 0 –– 9

43

ment” which is responsible only for investigations. After the investigation is completed “the relief office” is authorized to give scrip for the relief and the client takes the voucher to the Provincial or Municipal office where his record is taken all over again by a different set of questions. No one worker or one set of workers follows the client all the way thru.11

In 1931, a three-day Toronto Social Welfare Conference was held with approximately 252 people in attendance. On the first day the theme was “Social Work and the Unemployment Crisis,” and Harry Cassidy, of the University of Toronto’s Department of Social Science, presented a paper on “Social Work and the Economic System.” He emphasized the devastating effects of unemployment and reliance on charities and how it “induces neglect of children, bad health, family disorganization, deterioration in housing standards, loss of morale among workers, juvenile delinquency, petty crime, illegitimacy, and a host of other problems that may make for other cases of destitution later or may plague the community and the social workers in other ways.”12 He urged social workers to not only treat the casualties but to strike out at the root of the problem. Bessie Touzel, secretary of the Scarborough District Neighbourhood Workers’ Association, spoke on the “Social Effects of Unemployment on the Family.” She examined unemployment relief administered through the Toronto’s House of Industry and found that it had increased by 447 percent between 1929 and 1931. Among the effects of prolonged unemployment on families, Touzel listed hopelessness, marital friction, and sometimes desertion and non-support, malnourishment, evictions, and deteriorating physical and mental health.13 Two prominent social work personalities, Harry Cassidy and Charlotte Whitton, embarked on studies of unemployment and arrived at different conclusions and proposals. Cassidy was involved in unemployment since the early years of the Depression. In an article published in Social Welfare in 1930, he commented on conditions in the winter of 1930 and noted that in “the newspapers, the social workers and the man on the street have their eyes fixed on those who don’t have jobs; while Ottawa is primarily interested in counting those who have” (Cassidy 1930: 105). Initially, he attributed the increase in unemployment to a combination of reduced work opportunities during the winter months and the business recession, and was optimistic that the Depression would not be a long one. However, as the Depression deepened, Cassidy criticized the federal government for giving up the work project at a time when close to 1 million Canadians were unemployed (approximately 40 percent) (Cassidy 1934a). He recommended the development of a system of direct relief with state participation and control, a system of unemployment insurance and federal government support for a

44

CHAPTER THREE

job-creation program, and a comprehensive plan to reduce unemployment in the future. He urged the federal government to establish a “Dominion Board of Employment Stabilization” in order to not only respond to unemployment but to prevent its occurrence (Cassidy 1934b). Another tack was taken by Charlotte Whitton, who focused on the inept administration of social assistance and the possibility that many unworthy citizens were recipients. She wrote to Prime Minister R.B. Bennett, suggesting that his unemployment relief policy was ineffective because it was poorly administered, resulting in provisions for those who did not qualify and suggested that trained social workers were the solution (Struthers 1987). Whitton appeared to be motivated, in part, by her goal of ensuring that social workers would have a role to play in the crises of unemployment. In 1932, Bennett requested Whitton to conduct a study on unemployment relief in western Canada. Struthers points out that since Whitton’s study was the only one that Bennett commissioned, it had tremendous potential to influence the direction of the government in response to the crisis. However, Whitton’s emphasis was on the squandering of relief rather than the hardship families were experiencing and, in the end, her conclusions supported the federal government’s position to ignore the unemployed. She argued that 40 percent of those receiving relief did not need it, and again advocated that social workers be hired to responsibly administer relief. Bennett’s solution simply was to give the provinces less money. Pressure was placed on the CASW to become involved and to spearhead a response to the growing number of unemployed. The Montreal branch was concerned about the unemployment relief situation in the city and felt that CASW ought to be studying the situation. It also encouraged the national office to secure representation on Mackenzie King’s National Committee on Unemployment. The members described how they were called on to work in a system of relief giving that was being developed “on the fly” and criticized the government for its disastrous handling of the situation.14 Impatient with the inaction of the national office, the Montreal branch formed a study group to address unemployment and relief in Canada, and released a report in March 1938 (The Social Worker 1939a: 17). It concluded that the situation of relief was exacerbated by a number of factors: the vagueness of the Relief Acts of 1932, 1933, 1934, 1935, and the 1936 Unemployment and Relief Assistance Act; the decentralization of relief, placing the responsibility on provinces and municipalities; and the lack of uniformity in definitions of the required legal residence, the distribution of relief, and shelter allowances. The result had been a growing problem of transients and homeless people, as well as transient families who could not find a

F A C E T O F A C E W I T H P O V E R T Y , 1 9 3 0 –– 9

45

municipality that would take responsibility for providing basic allowances for food and shelter. In Montreal, for example, while the cost of administration of unemployment relief was borne by the municipality, the cost of relief was shared by the three orders of government –– municipal, provincial, and federal. Under pressure from the Montreal Council of Social Agencies, the city assumed responsibility for the unemployed and appointed the first Civic Unemployment Relief Commission. However, in 1937, the Montreal Unemployment Relief Commission dropped a large number of people from its relief rolls, providing no other provisions and creating further destitution. Shortly after it was replaced by the Unemployment Relief Department, which was situated within the Department of Health (The Social Worker 1939a). Voicing similar concerns, the Toronto branch urged the national office to provide leadership on the problem of the single transient unemployed person. In response, the CASW established the Special Committee on Unemployed Transients (1938–40).15 The committee’s strategy was to send letters to the prime minister and three other party leaders, as well as to the minister of labour. The provincial branches were asked to send similar letters to their MPs. The eastern Ontario branch responded with a letter to thirteen members of Parliament in the branch area, urging that attention be given to the plight of the unemployed transients –– individuals and families within Canada. They emphasized that: because of varying residence regulations for relief eligibility, as between one municipality and another and one province and another, many families and individuals who have moved in search of work now find themselves unable to obtain the bare necessities of life and, although Canadian citizens, are debarred from rights and privileges to which other citizens are entitled.16

J.S. Woodsworth, MP from Winnipeg, responded in a letter to CASW and blamed the government for using the BNA Act to excuse its inaction: Behind the alleged reason for inaction lies the necessity of taking measures that are far-reaching and radical in character than the Government seems prepared to contemplate. Until the people are awake to the seriousness of the situation, and send to Ottawa sufficient people pledged to put the needs of men and women before that of supposedly business interests, I am afraid that we cannot look for any great improvement.17

Woodsworth closed his letter urging that a few social workers “throw themselves into politics.”

46

CHAPTER THREE

The response from Prime Minister King’s office was simply that the letter and briefs had been “carefully noted,” and that the “question is one which has been, and is, receiving the fullest consideration of the administration.”18 Letter campaigns without an organized mobilization of social workers were easily dismissed.

The Relief Crisis Across Canada, as unemployment escalated, increasing numbers of people joined the relief rolls. There was pressure to “economize in the administration of relief and of ‘regular’ welfare services at the expense of sound standards of work and at eventually much greater cost in long-time dependency, ill-health, broken morale and so on” (The Social Worker 1936a: 3). In April 1935 there were rumblings across the country that the relief-giving situation had gotten out of hand and that a crackdown was imminent. In Ontario, on July 27, Premier Hepburn announced his plan to purge the relief lists by discontinuing relief to all single men between the ages of eighteen and sixty, and possibly to women, if warranted by the situation. The plan was to transfer people from the city to work on farms. This announcement sparked mass protests across the province and a mobilization of Unemployed Councils, the Single Women’s Unemployed Association of Toronto, the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, communists and socialists, as well as the Canadian Legion and numerous churches. In the midst of the growing protest, social workers in Ontario were visibly absent (Lappe 1935).19 To contain dissent in response to relief cuts, the federal government established a system of relief camps, operated by the military, across the country to accommodate physically able-bodied, single, homeless men. As a result, those men who became transients looking for work across the country were forced into relief work camps or risk being arrested for vagrancy. Workers began to protest against the conditions in the camp, their remoteness, and labouring for twenty cents a day with no hope of employment, and formed the British Columbia Relief Camp Workers’ Union. In the spring of 1935, four thousand men in the B.C. camps went on strike and gathered in Vancouver. This militancy sparked the On to Ottawa Trek, with one thousand men setting out from Vancouver on the rails, picking up other strikers as they crossed the country. On their arrival in Regina, another three thousand strikers greeted them, and later when several hundred men met to discuss strategy, they were suddenly surrounded and brutally attacked by the RCMP, who were armed with baseball bats and revolvers. The Regina Riot, as it became known, put an end to the trek, but not to the growing organized resistance against an ineffective and punitive government (Brown 1987).

F A C E T O F A C E W I T H P O V E R T Y , 1 9 3 0 –– 9

47

Social Workers Come under Attack In 1932 the situation in Ottawa was particularly dire as “the backwash of the industrial collapse had heaped upon the Ottawa Welfare Bureau an ‘unemployment and relief ’ load which it was impossible for it to carry and which also paralyzed normal activities” (The Social Worker 1936a: 1). In January 1933 a Public Welfare Board was created in Ottawa to respond to the situation. The Canadian Welfare Council suggested two of the requirements: that an experienced social worker be appointed as supervisor of staff (Bessie Touzel), and that a board comprised of laypeople and councillors be adopted. The Ottawa Welfare Bureau provided material items, while the newly established Public Welfare Department issued relief payments. After the 1934 election of a new city council in Ottawa, there was a growing concern about the high relief costs and a survey of the Public Welfare Board was ordered. While the report suggested some administrative changes, nothing was done. Then with the April 1936 tax rate, controllers became alarmed and concluded that “Ottawa citizens on relief must be chisellers and the social workers employed by the Public Welfare Board must be visionaries and dupes” (The Social Worker 1936a: 2). Eleven “special police officers” were assigned to make home investigations and found fifty so-called “chisellers.” Under the guise of increasing efficiency and reducing costs, forty women working in the department were dismissed and replaced with a small staff of men. The decision was made to separate relief from social services, and it was concluded that “men investigators did better work than women; they were not interested in social service but in seeing that those on relief gave the city the right information and reported their earnings” (The Social Worker 1936a: 3). The November 1936 reorganization of relief administration in Ottawa drew protests from social workers and the CASW. Bessie Touzel resigned from her position as supervisor of staff of the Ottawa Public Welfare Board on October 15, 1936, and addressed the Ottawa Board of Control. She emphasized that it was not possible for families on relief to survive on the welfare rates provided. She also spoke about the issue of preference of male investigators over female, and stated, “My objection has been to the fact that employees who had given service of a good quality were dismissed without any adequate examination of their suitability to their work” (The Social Worker 1936a: 3). She went on to comment on how men secured positions without any application to the department but through political contacts, and concluded that, in this situation, supervision was impossible. The Greater Ottawa branch of the CASW held a special meeting on September 28, 1936 to discuss the change of relief policy in Ottawa. Eight members attended and decided to request that the “National Executive of the

48

CHAPTER THREE

CASW, through one of the special committees, make a careful analysis as well as criticism of the Ottawa situation from the social work point of view.”20 The CASW national office issued a response to the Ottawa Citizen and criticized the press coverage of the issue and the false impressions that were made regarding social work, “namely, that a relief department which permits the practice of social work principles is inefficient and economical; also that the social welfare point of view is not humane and has a tendency to put the recipients of relief into a position of isolation and humiliation, to create ‘a class apart.’”21 The practice of firing social workers in relief agencies who criticized policy and identified with workers and recipients of relief also occurred in the United States and “almost ceased to become news” because they were so common (Social Work Today 1935a: 26). The situation in Ottawa accentuated the practices that discriminated against women in social work. In Toronto, a study of 318 workers and 360 staff in social work between 1937 and 1938 reported that “[in] the majority of cases, men’s salaries are appreciably higher than women’s although their qualifications do not appear higher.”22 The findings also highlighted social work’s low salaries overall compared to other new professions such as teaching; the minimum salary for a caseworker was $1,020 compared to $1,800 for a teacher. Social workers would turn their attention to their working conditions in the decade to follow. Housing Conditions As the Depression deepened and the government remained uncommitted to providing adequate levels of relief, housing conditions emerged as a major concern. Bessie Touzel, of the Ottawa Welfare Board, was involved in a study of “Slum Clearance and Low-Cost Housing” in Ottawa. Statistical data were gathered on the dwellings of recipients of relief. Of the 3,529 dwelling units examined, there was general overcrowding and poor sanitation. Over 30 percent were in a bad state of repair, 25 percent did not have any play space for children, and 18.5 percent were rat- and vermin-infested. In the report, attention was focused on substandard housing’s eventual cost to the city. “Unfit” housing is extremely costly in an economic sense and, directly or indirectly, has a bearing upon the per capita expense to the City for dealing with felonies, misdemeanors, juvenile delinquency, maintaining hospitals and sanatoria, caring for venereal diseases, health clinics and nursing services, children’s aid and nursery services, distributing public relief, caring for insanity, extinguishing fires and maintaining family welfare generally.23

The situation was similar across Canada. In 1937 social workers conducted a survey of the housing situation in Vancouver and concluded that

F A C E T O F A C E W I T H P O V E R T Y , 1 9 3 0 –– 9

49

there was “a deplorable shortage of accommodation” with many people living in “slum conditions of the worst kind.” Houses were overcrowded with no toilets, baths, or heat; they were dilapidated and infested with bugs and rats. There were close to a thousand people living on houseboats or houses built on piles along the waterfront of Burrard Inlet and False Creek.24 Among the most vulnerable were the people living on Indian reserves, where poverty was prevalent and extreme. Poverty and crowded and unsanitary conditions were conducive to the spread of tuberculosis. TB was a serious problem across Canada, but the situation in B.C., especially among the Aboriginal population, was particularly acute. Dr. Douglas Galbraith, a medical practitioner in Bella Coola, gathered data on the incidence of TB within Aboriginal communities. While there were six thousand reported cases in the general population of B.C. (about one in one hundred), among the Aboriginal population the incidence was one in ten –– ten times the number in the general population. In Manitoba, with only 2.2 percent of the population of Aboriginal origin, 31 percent of all tuberculosis deaths were of Aboriginal peoples. Galbraith’s report to the provincial health minister, while containing useful findings, also reflected racist attitudes regarding Aboriginal peoples that were prevalent at the time. In an explanation for the high incidence of TB, he referred to social conditions, but placed emphasis on the “racial lack of immunity” and how over the years this “racial weakness” has been gradually corrected with “the infusion of white blood.”25 In proposing a response, Galbraith admits that while little is known about “Indian psychology,” “in general it is a matter of treating them like children but in other ways they prove to have shrewd powers of deduction that could not in any way be credited to children.”26 While the general population of TB patients was admitted to sanatoria, services for the Aboriginal population were more limited.

Stretcher Bearers or Political Activists As social conditions worsened for large segments of the population, social workers began to debate the role of social work in political activism. While some social workers held the view that social activism was not the purview of professionals, others were adamant that they had an obligation to advocate for clients and to pressure the government to respond to the growing crisis. Gale Wills (1995: 56–57) notes that two very different approaches to social change emerged during this time: (1) “slow interpretation” with a focus on fact-finding, neutrality, and the objectivity of science, and (2) “direct action,” in which social workers had an analysis of the conflict and contradictions within a social and economic context and believed in the potential for direct engagement to make changes within political systems. While the

50

CHAPTER THREE

majority of social workers preferred the slow interpretation approach and believed that social change would come about by gathering the facts, a growing number became impatient and urged the profession to become more politically engaged. Members of the Toronto branch cautioned against any form of political activism and argued that the CASW should not become “a propaganda organization.” In their view, since social workers are paid by the capitalist group to assist those less privileged, organized support of issues of a political nature “would be very difficult if not dangerous.” Instead social workers could interpret social work policy to those in leadership positions and assist people in adjusting to their environment. Although they recognized that social work had a role to play in adjusting environments to meet people’s needs, there was a perceived danger in engaging in radical attempts “since we are paid by the group who would resent such changes most.”27 This view was supported by some who were in leadership positions. G.B. Clarke, a board member, voiced concern that “while personally I have reached the state of being a political and economic radical, I am convinced that at the present time the CASW has little contribution to make in becoming involved in any national pronouncement on political and economic questions.” He felt that the association’s primary task was “to cultivate public opinion” in order to gain recognition as a profession, and he doubted that, at this point, the association had any chance of influencing public opinion one way or another.28 However, there were social workers, both inside and outside the CASW, who believed that change could occur through organized resistance and social action. A few social workers began to contribute their views in The Social Worker, and were offered anonymity by the editor. One submission, under the name “One of Them,” wondered why after thirteen years, social workers were so unpopular and asked “do we strike out for better employment services! –– better housing –– unemployment insurance –– pensions for working mothers during child-bearing period (regardless of whether the mother is married) –– for recreational facilities for all ages –– for nursery play grounds for the pre-school child –– and so many other community needs?” (The Social Worker 1933b: 3). Harry Cassidy argued that social workers have taken the role of the “stretcher bearers of society,” taking care of the casualties while doing very little to strike at the roots of the problem –– the deplorable economic conditions. He called on social workers to “wage unremitting war against the social crime of poverty” (Cassidy 1933: 2). E.J. Urwick gave an address at the 1936 Toronto Conference on Social Welfare, and voiced his deep concern

F A C E T O F A C E W I T H P O V E R T Y , 1 9 3 0 –– 9

51

that without “a new spirit in Social Work,” “some forms of social work may be headed for a paralysis of hopelessness” (Urwick 1936: 105). He urged social workers to get rid of “the odious taint of patronage which clings to much of our welfare work.” He continued in his critique: “social work is still far too oligarchic, even fascist, and if we are to meet the whole need of our clients, we must in some direct way let them share in our counsels” (Urwick 1936: 106). Urwick believed that social workers ought to work in partnership with “those for whose good the task is done.” Ethel Parker (1934) questioned how the next generation would think of the association. She feared that they might say “There stood those people in the midst of a national emergency that lasted five years, and yet never once were they found promoting as an organization, any plan for relief legislation, relief administration, extension of minimum wage regulations, unemployment insurance or any other such measure.” Her questions generated a number of responses from the membership. Lyra Taylor (Montreal) referred to the unresolved conflict in social work: “To what extent am I, a social worker, to act in the role of social reformer? Where does my responsibility lie, in my immediate job, or in the larger social issues which that job raises?” She concluded that social workers ought not to be apologetic for the lack of social reform activities, but should be unashamed of it and even glad of it and courageously claim: “We are not social reformers: we are social workers” (Parker 1934: 2). Nell H. Wark from Hamilton took an opposing position to Taylor and acknowledged that: This is a terrible indictment, yet not altogether unwarranted, when we realize as a group, though critical of government with its abuses and destructive policies which have unquestionably led us to the present economic crisis, we have not given our quota of leadership towards the formation of intelligent public opinion, and therefore, have indirectly allied ourselves with the forces which have brought about these conditions. (Wark 1934: 2–3)

She argued that the association had taken the “line of least resistance” and therefore was ignored by both the Conservative and Liberal parties, as well as Labour and identified casework to be one of the problems: After serious consideration of what we as a group have been doing over the past ten or fifteen years, I have come to the conclusion that the thing we call Case work is not sufficient to class us as a profession, –– that it is nothing more than old-fashioned, out-worn church work with a little more finesse. We define Casework as a way of living, teaching people the way of living. Obviously this is out of date because, how can people live when there is insecurity everywhere and one

52

CHAPTER THREE

million of our Canadian population is out of work? What we need today is not case work in the old sense but a new vision of social reform and leadership from the professional Social Workers, if we are worthy of the name.29 (Wark 1934: 2)

Similarly, Margaret Gould (1934: 3) of the Toronto branch stated that politicians see social workers as “uplifters” and “busybodies,” while those who are social activists considered social workers as “fence straddlers.” In response to Gould, one social worker, identified as “A Radical Speaks,” agreed that public opinion of the profession was low and suggested that the social work membership ought to contribute to socialist groups such as the League for Social Reconstruction. However, the person added that “any attempt to enter the political and economic field at the present time would mean not only the loss of a goodly number of our membership who are Conservatives at heart, but it would mean the loss of any status that social workers have already achieved” (The Social Worker 1935b: 5). Others believed that social workers failed in their duty as Canadian citizens and social workers. Dorothea M. Jackson (1934: 2) urged social workers to “lift their eyes from the horizon of their community’s individual problem, and as a professional group, think or help think some way out of the mess we are in.” Saul Alinsky, a social activist who would later become renowned for his radical techniques, addressed social workers at the 1938 National Conference of Social Work. He stated that to dig effectively for the roots of crime, we must “forsake our technical trowels and turn to the steam shovel of social action” (Alinsky 1938: 723). Similarly, in Halifax, in her annual report, Gwendolyn Shand, executive secretary of the Council of Social Agencies, commented: “We cannot keep forever hopping from one dry spot to another in this bog of unemployment and distress, but must have some plan for getting out of the bog.”30 In April 1939 the border chapters of the AASW and CASW held a conference where one of the three workshops was titled “How Far Should the Professional Association of Social Workers Sponsor Social Action? Can a Professional Base for Social Action Be Defined?” (The Social Worker 1939c). Then in June 1939 participants at a delegates’ conference addressed a number of dilemmas facing the profession. Among these was the question regarding the objectives of the association. Are they “To bring together professional social workers for such co-operative effort as may insure adequate performance and development of competence on their own part, and the protection of their professional status”? Or is the objective to lead “united action toward bettering social conditions” (The Social Worker 1939b: 16)? In both Canada and the US, there were social workers who organized and chose the latter.

F A C E T O F A C E W I T H P O V E R T Y , 1 9 3 0 –– 9

53

Left-Leaning Social Workers Although the reform tradition was present in social work before the Depression, a more radical stream emerged inspired by an analysis based on class divisions in society. Although not all class-based radical social workers identified themselves as socialists or communists, they were typically involved in activities that questioned the prevailing capitalist market economy and its role in creating and perpetuating social problems, such as unemployment and poverty. They were active in, or supportive of, the labour movement, women’s issues, child care, and were usually opposed to war. Some classbased radicals joined left-wing groups, including the early social democratic movements, or were members of socialist or communist parties in Canada, but others were simply involved in social action without espousing particular ideological views. Some of the more radical social workers of this era who were active in advancing social reforms and challenging oppressive policy and practice included Rose Henderson, Laura Jamieson, Margaret Gould, Dora Wilensky, Bessie Touzel, and Mary Jennison. Margaret Gould was a journalist and social worker, as well as a member of the Toronto branch of the League for Social Reconstruction, an organization that set out to develop a Canadian brand of socialism. Prior to her entry into social work, she was a union organizer of the needle-trade workers. She then worked for the Toronto Welfare Bureau and became full-time secretary of the Child Welfare Council. Gould became a regular speaker for the Toronto Progressive Women’s Association and wrote for the Toronto Star, mainly on issues relating to the status of women in the family (Sangster 1989: 157). She was one of the few social workers to visit Russia and write about the positive changes to health care after the 1917 Revolution. In 1935, Gould studied the status of women in England, the US, and Russia, and challenged the common beliefs that women take men’s jobs, that they don’t take their jobs seriously, and that their employment has a negative impact on the marriage rate, childbirth, and on the women themselves. She applauded the changes in Russia, and noted that there is “a tradition of comradeship, of sharing dangerous tasks, hard work, study and achievement between men and women” (Gould 1935: 156). Gould, an advocate of social action, was among those who signed a petition that charged the York CAS with not responding effectively with regard to child protection. The petition resulted in a judicial inquiry headed by a senior county court judge, James Parker, and in his 1934 report, he concluded that the CAS had been negligent in its work. Judge Parker concluded that the superintendent of the society was incompetent and impaired due to drinking at work. Parker found the society terribly understaffed and condemned

54

CHAPTER THREE

“the manner in which children were mail-ordered out to bachelors and mental delinquents” (Toronto Daily Star 1934). Gould’s radical style of social action was criticized by social work colleagues, and rumours that she was a communist began to circulate during the Parker Inquiry (Wills 1995: 73). Margaret Gould, Rose Henderson, and Bessie Touzel were also among the radical social workers who worked actively on behalf of the unemployed and the poor in this era (Lewey 2006: 135–36). Laura Jamieson was a social work activist in B.C. who would later become a judge and a CCF member of the British Columbia Legislature. She was also founder of the B.C. branch of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF) (Hale 1981: 294). Dora Wilensky, the executive director of Jewish Family Services in Toronto, was the wife of Joe Salzberg, a prominent leader in the Canadian Communist Party. Mary Jennison, an active member of CASW and a peace activist, would later find herself without a job and monitored by the RCMP because of her political perspectives and involvement, as we will discuss later. In the US, in response to the Depression, social workers grew impatient with the professional association –– the American Association of Social Workers (AASW) –– and formed the rank-and-file movement, which soon became an organization that engaged in a critical analysis of social issues of the day. The movement emerged out of social work discussion groups in Chicago, Cleveland, New York, Boston, and Philadelphia, and later joined organized labour in order to work for social change. One member explained the importance of solidarity between workers and clients: “I’d be a client today if it wasn’t for the job. We’re both in the same boat. If the relief people cut, they cut both ways –– my wage and the client’s relief.”31 The growth of the movement was spontaneous, gathering fifteen thousand members, a membership that exceeded that of the AASW. In March 1934 the journal Social Work Today was released as the voice of the rank-and-file in social work. The movement was financially supported by donations from individuals known as Social Work Today Cooperatives from across the US and Canada. Unlike their American counterparts, left-wing social workers in Canada did not organize into anything like the rank-and-file movement, but some Canadian social workers contributed to the journal and financially supported it. In 1939, for example, six Canadian social workers made financial contributions to the movement. They included Sophie N. Boyd, Kathleen Gorrie, Margaret Gould, Mary Jennison, Dora Wilensky, and Kathleen Would (Social Work Today 1940b). There was regular communication between radical social workers in Canada and the US, and members of the rank-and-file attended the Cana-

F A C E T O F A C E W I T H P O V E R T Y , 1 9 3 0 –– 9

55

dian social work conferences, published in Canadian journals, and were invited as speakers. One of the most articulate, theoretical, and inspiring members was Mary van Kleeck, director of the Department of Industrial Studies at the Russell Sage Foundation. In 1933 the CASW invited her to speak to the Federation for Community Services in Toronto (Lewey 2006: 138), and on June 7, 1935 she addressed social workers in Toronto. In her presentation “Social Security or What?” Van Kleeck was clear in her left-wing orientation: I think the interesting fact is that those who are really most radical in their thinking are the ones who are most aware of this necessity for the process of struggling. Of course it is just another way of describing what has been known in Europe as the Class Struggle. I don’t know if you object to the word “class struggle” as some of our citizens in the United States do.... The class struggle stands as a process. It is a process whereby we see the constant effort of the dispossessed in relation to the possessor and the possessor owns the machines and the means of production and the dispossessed does not own and our social outlook, our attitudes today have to be based it seems to me upon the recognition of what is involved in the process of working for social security, that is for the security of the whole people.32

At the 1934 National Conference of Social Work in Kansas City, van Kleeck again captured the attention of social workers with her address, which attacked social work’s stretcher-bearer philosophy and placed social action onto the profession’s agenda. Her address urging social workers to align with other workers rocked the conference, and social workers responded with extended applause (Social Work Today 1934). Van Kleeck was deeply dedicated to advancing the social condition of the working-class and immigrant populations. She earned the reputation as “the only prominent American who could claim, for better or for worse, a simultaneous and leading reputation in the worlds of social science, Christian social action, and Communist fellow-traveling” (Alchon 1999: 158). The CASW treated the American rank-and-file with caution. When an article by Jacob Fisher (1934a) on the practitioner movement appeared in The Social Worker, the editors were quick to distance themselves from the movement and prefaced the article with a statement indicating that its inclusion in the journal did not imply that the association or the Publications Committee was in agreement with, or committed to, the movement.

Social Casework Challenged As increasing attention was directed at the economic context of people’s lives, the relevance of social casework based solely on psychoanalytic concepts

56

CHAPTER THREE

was questioned. There were deep divisions between those who adhered to a psychiatric approach and those who advocated for social action measures. The preoccupation with the intra-psychic conflicts shifted attention from the structural conditions (objective reality) to exploring how clients interpreted that reality. The inadequacies of casework became increasingly apparent. Jacob Fisher, an active member of the rank-and-file, argued that the mental hygiene movement was liberalism’s answer to the problems of the day in the climate of the prosperous 1920s. He questioned the profession’s shift from a focus on the environment to studying the individual (Fisher 1934b: 11). Bertha Reynolds (1938) made the point that psychiatric social workers and the mental hygiene movement viewed clients in similarly destructive ways as their moralistic predecessors. In the context of the destitution wrought by the Depression, social workers in Canada also began to question the utility of a psychiatric approach. In July 1935, Montreal hosted the sixty-second National Conference of Social Work, and six thousand social workers from both Canada and the United States gathered. Although the conference was held in Canada, very few Canadian social workers presented papers. The conference was regarded as a turning point in the social work profession because the utility of a psychiatric approach to casework was hotly debated. Also, along with the usual agenda and delivery of several provocative papers, a memorial service for Jane Addams was held to celebrate her immense contribution to social work and to recognize her as the first woman and thirty-seventh president of the conference. Two forces were evident during the conference: “the trend towards a preoccupation with casework specialization and the equally strong trend towards the rank and file movement” (Lowell 1935: 7). Leaders of the American rank-and-file movement had a prominent presence at the conference, and many social workers were introduced to the organization for the first time. The National Coordinating Committee issued a letter to all social workers who supported social justice, who opposed “a program of reduction in the standards of living of the people of Canada and America; who stand fast against attacks on civil liberties; against racial discrimination; against all devices leading to fascism in America, whether open or disguised” (Social Work Today 1935c).33 The conference proceedings reflected the unsettled and uncertain period, the limits of social casework as it was being practised, and the importance of social group work for promoting social change. The new conference struc-

F A C E T O F A C E W I T H P O V E R T Y , 1 9 3 0 –– 9

57

ture organized papers into four sections: (1) social casework, (2) group work, (3) community organization, and (4) social action. Dr. Grace Coyle, an assistant professor of group work at Western Reserve in Cleveland, Ohio, won the Pugsley Award for her paper “Group Work and Social Change.” In it Coyle emphasized that social action was an essential function of group work. It was the first time that a formal paper on social group work was presented at the conference, and in 1936 the American Association for the Study of Group Work was organized. Among papers on social casework was “The Status of Social Work Today” by Grace Marcus (1935) of the Charity Organization Society. It was a defence of psychoanalytic insights and the study of deep emotional difficulties as vital to social casework, and it included a rebuttal by Bertha Reynolds (1935), associate director of Smith College School for Social Work. In her discussion of the paper, Reynolds pointed out that Marcus referred to a small minority of social workers who were able to acquire educational preparation in psychoanalytic theory and who have the opportunity to practise it. Mary van Kleeck delivered three addresses at the 1935 National Conference of Social Work. In her presentation at the general session on “Social Work in the Economic Crisis,” she reviewed the current crisis, the inadequacy of the relief program, and outlined the promises that remain unfulfilled by government and industry. “We are,” van Kleeck (1935: 65) addressed her Canadian and American colleagues, “in a period of continuously prolonged unemployment, of stabilized poverty and declining standards of living; that this decline is producing, and will produce, ever greater distress for which social work, in its private capacity, cannot possibly provide the remedy.…” Increasingly more social workers were beginning to realize that the standards of professional works largely depended on industrial production and industrial workers. One problem faced by social workers in both Canada and the US was that both professional associations represented only a minority of those who were practising social work. At the conference van Kleeck also raised the issues of the presence of fascism. Fascism, she stated, was: the recoil from democracy by those interests which seek to prevent this day-today struggle of workers, it is put forward in the name of “red scares,” the public is led to believe that there is a bomb around the corner, whereas the real fear of what is around the corner is the fear of the able trade union leader who is seeking to protect the wage scale of miners, the automobile workers, the steel workers.34

58

CHAPTER THREE

Van Kleeck was not the only one to directly address class conflict at the conference. Others, such as Gregory Vlastos (1935: 110), spoke to the tenets of capitalism and the essence of class conflict: the tension between the owner and the worker: The owner wants cheap labor and high prices; the worker wants high wages and low prices. The worker wants powerful and independent labor unions, able to bargain for higher wages and better conditions. The employer wants labor unorganized, or else assembled into company unions which will be more pliable to the master’s will.

In her 1935 article “Social Case Work: What Is It? What Is Its Place in the World?” published in The Family, Bertha Reynolds questioned the relevance of the individual casework focus of social work in a society where human life is not valued, and suggested that the profession was going through a period of “day dream and disillusion.” Reynolds (1994: 454) urged social workers to gain a broader perspective: The possibility of an environment conducive to healthful living for all has come about through the technical advances in production in recent years. The actuality awaits a social organization that can own the means of production and distribute its material resources for social good. It awaits a change of attitude of mind more urgently than any other change –– an abandonment of the competition for profits which is constantly throwing back to the law of the jungle every attempt at better social organization. It must have a clear acceptance of the principle that co-operation is the only condition under which survival is possible in an independent world.

The positions of the rank-and-file raised questions among the Canadian association’s members about whether a professional body with restricted membership ought to lend support to labour organizations and movements (Social Work Today 1933). Jacob Fisher (1937: 3–4) suggested that the “two major blocks to the acceptance of trade unions by those social workers who can’t bear them are tendency to regard casework as a philosophy of life rather than as a tool in treatment, and a morbid concern over the status of social work as a profession.” The mood of the conference was severely affected by overt racism that Black social workers faced when they were refused accommodation in Montreal hotels. Mary van Kleeck raised the incident publicly during her address, and rank-and-file social workers took up the issue. The Executive Committee of the conference arranged for accommodation elsewhere for the social workers, but refused to go beyond issuing a statement against the action

F A C E T O F A C E W I T H P O V E R T Y , 1 9 3 0 –– 9

59

(Lowell 1935). Such incidents of racism were not unique to the Montreal conference. The 1936 conference was moved from Washington to Atlantic City because accommodations could not be guaranteed for Black social workers. Despite such arrangements in Atlantic City, there were two incidences of racial discrimination reported. Along with ensuring equal access, it was pointed out that Black social workers ought to be represented in the governing bodies of the conference, and issues concerning the Black population ought to be included in the conference program (Siegal 1937). There is no indication that the CASW spoke out against the racism. As the Depression dragged on, increasing emphasis was being placed on coordination of services and comprehensive social planning, rather than social action and social reform (Wills 1995: 78). This was accompanied by the separation of casework and community work. While community work was identified as a distinct method at the 1939 National Conference of Social Work, it was not formally approved by the AASW until 1962. Overall, social workers in Canada, other than a handful of activists, were generally absent from organized social action and maintained a focus on casework and the individual, and on professionalism. There were protests by the Toronto and Montreal branches of the CASW against the “Padlock Law,” the 1937 Quebec Act to Protect the Province against Communistic Propaganda, which curbed all civic liberties. Also the Social Service Council of Canada submitted a petition to the governor-general-in-council asking that the Quebec Act be disallowed, but it clarified that this position in no way endorsed the spread of Communism in Canada (Social Welfare 1938). However, social workers were not active participants in the few organized movements among the wage earners, the unemployed, the housewives, and youth groups (Gould 1938). One factor may have been that there were only four hundred social workers at the time in a vast geographic area.

Developments in the CASW The deteriorating social and economic conditions created a difficult situation for the new social work profession. Social workers attempted to continue developing the professional base, while at the same time responding to the desperate situation facing their clients and their communities. On the professional end, attention turned to the need for a journal that was solely for social workers in Canada. The function of Social Welfare was to interpret social work to the churches, labour, and private charities, and it had served as a useful magazine for social workers, but the time had come for the CASW to produce its own journal.35 For too long it had been “a

60

CHAPTER THREE

clearing house for thought on social work principles, policies and practices,” and in 1932 the time was right for the CASW to have its own bulletin as the voice of the association. Also, social work lecturers had raised concerns that there was insufficient material on a Canadian context that could be used in social work education. The Publications Committee attached a ballot to the “Report to the Membership,” asking whether members wished to continue with Social Welfare, to negotiate with the Canadian Council on Child and Family to get a section of their bimonthly publication, or to have a special bulletin published by the CASW.36 The membership decided on the latter, and in October 1932 The Social Worker’s first publication was a four-page leaflet under the editorship of Mary Jennison. The journal was to be published eight times a year. Reciprocal one-year guest membership with members of the American Association of Social Workers was arranged so that Canadians residing in the US would continue to pay dues to the CASW, but could affiliate with the American association, and American colleagues could do likewise if living in Canada. This temporary arrangement provided all privileges of membership except the right to vote or hold office. Membership was growing and reached 380, with branches in five provinces by the time of the biennial meeting in June 1932. However, the fact that only thirty-nine members were in attendance reflected the challenge of building an organization within a large geographic area such as Canada. All branches were represented, except for the Maritimes, and of the seventeen elected representatives, ten were from Ontario and Quebec (The Social Worker 1932). This is not surprising, since most of the members were from those two provinces. On May 1, 1934, the revised constitution came into effect, establishing three classes of membership: senior, junior, and honorary. However, there were more practising social workers who were non-members, either by choice or ineligibility. Also, a number of the leaders in social work were not graduates of professional schools of social work. Considering this dilemma, Joy Maines, chair of the Committee on Membership, asked the members to consider how the association ought to relate to these non-members and whether or not eligibility criteria ought to be broadened (Maines 1935). The pressure from some members to broaden the basis of membership was related to a desire for greater impact on social conditions, as well as a desire to avoid a possible split in the membership, such as occurred with the rankand-file in the US (The Social Worker 1936b). The continuing question of opening membership to non-social workers who have the skills and experience was on the agenda of the 1939 delegate conference in Toronto under

F A C E T O F A C E W I T H P O V E R T Y , 1 9 3 0 –– 9

61

the general topic “Is the Constitution of the CASW Suitable and Operable?” (The Social Worker 1939b). No changes were made to the membership criteria, but the issue would surface again in the future.

Conclusion At the close of decade, nine local branches were established (four in Ontario, two in British Columbia, and one each in Manitoba, Nova Scotia, and Quebec). The Depression years highlighted the need for the state to provide for its citizens. In the decade to follow, the Canadian government embarked on the development of a strategy for social welfare, and social workers became instrumental in its delivery. While social work did turn its attention to unemployment and poverty, unfortunately, limitations in resources and membership curtailed effective engagement in these issues. For the most part, the CASW relied on joining with others and seldom initiated an action on its own. The CASW national office tended to accept social action strategies that had official recognition and consideration, and rejected those that were viewed as political (Latimer 1972: 94). The prevailing goal was to not alienate the more conservative members of the profession or jeopardize the gains made in professional status. Nonetheless, the contributions of social workers did not go unnoticed –– five of the thirty-two women on the King’s Honours List in 1934 were social workers.37 Notes 1 SWHA, FSAA, Box 89, Ralph Ormsby, interview, October 24, 1941. 2 MUA, Financial Federation of the Montreal Council of Social Agencies, Welfare Work in Montreal in 1934 (annual report of the agencies in the Financial Federation), “The University Settlement of Montreal,” pp. 99–101, quote p. 100. 3 SWHA, FSAA, Box 89, Family Welfare Association of Montreal, reply to questionnaire from the Family Welfare Association of America, 1937, pp. 2–3. 4 MUA, Financial Federation of the Montreal Council of Social Agencies, Welfare Work in Montreal in 1936 (annual report of the agencies in the Financial Federation), “The Negro Community Centre,” pp. 82–84, quote p. 82. 5 MUA, Financial Federation of the Montreal Council of Social Agencies, “Welfare Work in Montreal in 1932,” p. 37. 6 MUA, MG 4233, C.1, Box 1, “Welfare Work in Montreal in 1931.” 7 SWHA, FSAA, Box 89, Family Welfare Association of Montreal, reply to questionnaire from the Family Welfare Association of America, 1937. 8 SWHA, FSAA, letter to Mr. Francis McLean, Family Welfare Association of America, New York City from Miss Elin Anderson, executive director of the Family Bureau, Winnipeg, October 27, 1936. 9 SWHA, FSAA, Box 89, Ruth Hill, consultation visit, March 19–21, 1931. 10 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 22, File 23, Canadian Association of Social Workers, “Report of Service Standards Committee,” April 15, 1940, p. 2.

62

CHAPTER THREE

11 SWHA, FSAA, Box 89, “A Summary of the Situation in Vancouver, British Columbia, January to June 1933.” 12 University of Toronto Archives (hereafter UTA), Accession no.: A79-0036, Toronto Social Welfare Conference Proceedings, April 21–23, 1931, H.M. Cassidy, “Social Work and the Economic System,” pp. 63–65, quote p. 63. 13 UTA, Accession no.: A79-0036, Toronto Social Welfare Conference Proceedings, April 21–23, 1931, Bessie Touzel, “Social Effects of Unemployment on the Family,” pp. 6–14. 14 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 28, File 15, minutes, Montreal branch, CASW, December 2, 1935. Forty-seven members were in attendance. 15 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 23, File 12, letter to Miss C. Jean Walker, executive secretary, CASW Toronto, from Joseph E. Laycock, corresponding secretary, Toronto branch, CASW, n.d. 16 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 23, File 12, letter to Dear Sir, from eastern Ontario branch per Elizabeth Hall, L. president, January 23, 1939. 17 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 23, File 12, letter to Miss C. Jean Walker, CASW Toronto, from J.S. Woodsworth, January 19, 1939. 18 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 23, File 12, letter to Miss C.J. Jean Walker, executive secretary, CASW Toronto, from H.R.L. Henry, private secretary, Office of the Prime Minister, Ottawa, January 19, 1939. 19 There is no mention of the situation in the Social Worker or in the CASW files in the NAC. 20 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 28, File 3, minutes of the Greater Ottawa branch of the Canadian Association of Social Workers, September 28, 1936. 21 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 23 (8), letter, Ottawa Citizen, from C. Jean Walker, executive secretary, Canadian Association of Social Workers, Relief Service in Ottawa, November 3, 1936. 22 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 35, File 8, “Report on Qualifications of Staff, Salaries, and Personnel Practices in 19 Agencies in Toronto and 1 Agency in York County, 1937–38,” prepared by a Special Committee of the Toronto Branch of CASW, pp. 1–6. It also appeared in The Social Worker 7, 3 (May 1939): 11–15. The conveners were Dora Wilensky and Kathleen Gorrie. 23 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 54, File 6, Housing 1935–41. The National Construction Council of Canada, “Report on Relief: Housing Conditions in the City of Ottawa, November 1935,” pp. 1–10, quote p. 5. 24 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 27, File 9, “CASW Report Survey on Vancouver Housing Situation,” June 28, 1937. 25 B.C.A, GR 108, Box 3, File 6, Dr. J. Douglas Galbraith, “Some Aspects of the Indian Tuberculosis Problem in British Columbia, 1938,” pp. 1–10, quote p. 1. 26 B.C.A, GR 108, Box 3, File 6, Dr. J. Douglas Galbraith, “Some Aspects of the Indian Tuberculosis Problem in British Columbia, 1938,” pp. 1–10, quote p. 8. 27 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 28 (7), “The Relation of Social Workers to Politics,” pp. 1–3, summary of the discussion at the general meeting of the Toronto branch, January 29, 1932.

F A C E T O F A C E W I T H P O V E R T Y , 1 9 3 0 –– 9

63

28 December 1, 1934, letter to the CASW executive secretary [Joy Maines] from G.B. Clarke, cited in Latimer (1972: 94). 29 Miss Wark was later appointed as assistant deputy in the province of Ontario and was placed in charge of welfare work for women. 30 PANS, MG 20, Vol. 407, No. 1.2, Council of Social Agencies, “Annual Report,” February 6, 1939, pp. 1–5, quote p. 5. 31 SWHA, Jacob Fisher Papers, The Rank and File Movement in Social Work 1931–1936, published by The New School of Social Work, New York, 1936, 1–49 pages, quote p. 32. Fisher, a member of the rank-and-file, provides a comprehensive history of the movement. 32 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 22, File 23, CASW, “Report of Service Standards Committee,” April 15, 1940, p. 2. 33 National Coordinating Committee, “A Letter to the Social Workers of America,” Social Work Today (July 1935), p. 4. 34 SSC, Smith College, van Kleeck Fond, Box 19, “Sources of Power for the Social Work Programme,” National Co-coordinating Committee of Rank and File Groups of Social Workers, Montreal, June 10, 1935, 30 pages, quote p. 29. 35 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 1 (6). 36 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 1 (22), General Meetings, Reports 1930–1936, report from the Publications Committee of CASW, June 3, 1932. 37 They were Miss Charlotte Whitton, executive director, Canadian Council on Child and Family Welfare; Miss Laura Holland, Vancouver, for developing outpost welfare services; Miss Gertrude Childs, supervisor, Department of Public Welfare Manitoba; Miss Josephine Strothard, Truro, NS, for work in the Maritimes Home for Girls; Mrs. Graham W. Coghlin, Montreal, for Welfare Services. In The Social Worker 2, 3 (January 1934): 4.

This page intentionally left blank

CHAPTER FOUR

Social Work in the War Years, 1939–45: Expansion and Consolidation The Depression was barely over and memories of World War I still lingering when Canada entered World War II in 1939. The war generated an atmosphere of vulnerability in the civilian population. With close to 150,000 Canadian soldiers fighting overseas, many families were left with fear, uncertainty, and tremendous stress.1 Although unemployment and poverty continued to define much of social work at the beginning of the decade, the scope of the profession’s work expanded to include the extra demands related to the war effort and postwar reconstruction (Bancroft 1940). By the mid-1940s approximately one-quarter of professional social workers were employed in agencies related to the war (The Social Worker 1943c: 3). The war effort required a strong and stable workforce that pulled together to support Canada’s role overseas. The wartime economy focused mainly on the provision of munitions and related supplies and, as this industry expanded, unemployment ceased to be a problem and a labour shortage ensued. There was an increased demand for social workers as new areas of work opened up and regular peacetime demands continued. The CASW seized the opportunity to guide the growing social work profession. It continued its efforts to consolidate branches and members across the country, establish standards for practice, set ethical guidelines, and study the problems related to the social work shortage and the related issues of training and education. This chapter examines the profession’s role in the war effort and the challenges it faced as it simultaneously continued to 65

66

CHAPTER FOUR

juggle its new roles with the more regular demands of peacetime social work. The shortage of qualified social workers at this time placed an additional pressure on the profession as it attempted to consolidate the CASW and expand its base to other regions of the country.

Contributing to the War Effort Canada’s involvement in the war raised new concerns and challenges for social workers and the CASW; these sentiments were expressed clearly in The Social Worker in the early stages of the war: During the months of anxiety and distress that lie ahead of us as a nation, it would appear that social workers will be tested as never before. New problems, and old problems intensified, will face us individually and in our agencies. All our acquired skills and all our understanding of human emotions will be required in their finest form if we are to render to our people the services they will need in this time of crisis. (The Social Worker 1939d: 2)

The Councils of Social Agencies in major Canadian cities began coordinating their services to meet the imminent demands of war (The Social Worker 1939d: 3–7). The social welfare community was apprehensive over the survival of private agencies, such as the community chests and federations that came into direct competition for funds with agencies related to the war effort (Robinson 1941: 7). It had to fight the public misperception that fewer social services were required during a time of war (Toronto Evening Telegram 1940; The Social Worker 1940: 2). Social workers co-operated with the Councils of Social Agencies in Vancouver, Winnipeg, Hamilton, Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, and Halifax. The CASW tried to foresee the extent to which the war would “disorganize” community, family, and personal lives. It anticipated a massive migration of young people from rural to urban centres to work in munitions plants, with the attendant considerations of family separation and breakdown, the employment of married women, and the need for child care, housing facilities, and a host of related considerations (The Social Worker 1939d: 8). The CASW identified five immediate strategies for the profession: (1) to assist government departments in finding qualified social workers; (2) to establish a special committee in Ottawa to keep the board of directors updated on where social workers would be required, emphasizing the importance of qualified social workers; (3) to co-operate fully with councils and other agencies in the delivery of services; (4) to maintain regular CASW activities (a roster of qualified social workers who were informed of issues of relief, homelessness, fatherless families, salary standards, student recruit-

S O C I A L W O R K I N T H E W A R Y E A R S , 1 9 3 9 –– 4 5

67

ment); and (5) to maintain standards of practice in the social work community (The Social Worker 1939d: 2). The CASW was eager to offer its services to the federal government, and the offer was quickly accepted.2 The social work profession’s message to government was unequivocal: Canadian social workers had important and unique skills that they could contribute during and after the war, but qualified personnel, the “main asset” of the CASW, was central to the provision of quality services.3 One of the first war-related endeavours of the CASW was assisting in the process of placing and settling “British guest children.”4 In 1940, 7,000 British children between the ages of five and fifteen were evacuated and settled in Canada (Jennison 1940; Grubb 1941). Social workers at the Children’s Aid Society had the responsibilities of receiving, placing, and supervising children, as well as investigating and selecting private homes for them.5 The evacuation and settlement of the British guest children became controversial within the social work community, with questions raised about favouring children whose parents could afford the exorbitant costs of sending their children overseas. Criticisms were also waged against both the Canadian and British government for the confusion of the plan. One critic described the evacuation plan as “an hysterical, sentimental rush to offer homes to war-guests, possibly at the expense of our own neglected children” (Robinson 1941: 9). During the war the CASW addressed most of its issues related to the demands of a wartime economy through national committees of the association. Between 1940 and 1948, various committees existed. The initial Special Committee on War and Post War Services was active in the early years of the war. The Committee on Canada in the War and Post War Period (also referred to as the Canada Committee) existed until 1945, when a committee was struck to reflect the fact that the war had ended. The Committee on Canada in the Post War Period eventually became the National Welfare Planning Committee in 1948. The Special Committee on War and Post War Services was appointed in 1941 to plan for future activities of the CASW.6 It was established during the early years of the war, reflecting optimism that the war would be brief. The committee was charged with two large tasks: to determine how best Canadian social workers could assist the British meet their social needs under wartime conditions, and to assist social workers in understanding current conditions and to prepare to work under changed conditions.7 The second objective would require further research and study. The first objective, to assist overseas, required quick and definitive responses, but allocating resources overseas when there was a shortage in Canada was highly controversial among social workers.8

68

CHAPTER FOUR

In May 1941, the overseas subcommittee reported that the National Council of Social Services in London, England, had responded favourably to the CASW’s offer of assistance.9 One of the first functions of the overseas subcommittee was to develop a program for raising money to send Canadian social workers to Great Britain. In collaboration with the National Committee on Mental Hygiene, the CASW sent Stuart Jaffary from the School of Social Work, University of Toronto, to Great Britain to assist in the relocation of evacuated families, particularly children during the Blitz.10 Jaffary reported on conditions of life in Britain and the challenges of the social work profession during the war; it was “an almost heartbreaking story of a profession overwhelmed by mounting human need” (Jaffary 1942: 11). A few years later, Canadian social workers sent money to help finance recuperative vacations for European social workers.11 The Committee on Canada in the War and Post War Period (the Canada Committee) addressed a range of social issues in Canada during the war and in the postwar reconstruction phase.12 It made efforts to connect with other social planning groups to determine common interests and identified areas to which the CASW might give particular attention. The focus changed as the war progressed, but in general, social workers were involved in a broad set of issues, including family relations, youth and child welfare, treatment of young offenders, probation and parole, issues of a medical and psychiatric nature, maternal welfare, “illegitimacy,” poverty, housing, city planning, resettlement of immigrants and refugees, dejected soldiers, services to discharged soldiers, and resettlement issues.13 Social work specifically related to wartime services and postwar reconstruction included: active military service, working for the Dependents’ Allowance Boards, day nurseries, women’s voluntary services, the Red Cross, the Immigration Department and Wartime Prices and Trade Board, War Time Housing, the Department of National Health and Welfare, the Committee for Allied Victory, and the International Labour Organization (The Social Worker 1943b: 20). At the provincial level, social workers were also employed in public sector work, such as working on staff of mothers’ allowances commissions, old age pension departments, veterans’ affairs, unemployment insurance, children’s aid societies, and welfare departments.14 This may have been the first time that social workers in any country were enlisted directly into the armed forces so that “men and women in uniform might have the direct or indirect benefit of professional services for their social problems.”15 In Canada, in 1943 seven women were appointed to serve. All of them had social work degrees and were enlisted as lieutenants. Among other things, their jobs involved interviewing prospective recruits,

S O C I A L W O R K I N T H E W A R Y E A R S , 1 9 3 9 –– 4 5

69

dealing with the welfare of men rejected on medical grounds, and directing men to appropriate clinics and agencies (Wallace 1943). In a tribute to social workers in wartime, Baldwin Reichwein, a member of Edmonton’s Retired Social Workers’ Interest Group, identifies the wartime contributions of nine social workers from Alberta: Clara Mintz, Ted Kibblewhite, Isabel Monroe, Craig Reid, Mary Morrison Davis, Bill McFarland, Verna Vince, Bob Gray, and Peter Morris (Reichwein 2004a: 18–19). While actively participating in the war effort, social workers, like most Canadians, longed for peace and postwar reconstruction. The 1944 biennial conference, held in Winnipeg, adopted the theme “The Way to Lasting Peace.”16 The conference focused on the new roles of social workers in the international community: “we who are always seeking to remove the fears in which so many thousands dwell, who are always striving to bring opportunity for a fuller life to those who do not have it, are now among the essential agents for the winning of a peace that shall remove these fears and bring life more abundant to all.”17

The Continuation of Peacetime Social Work The demands of war placed unique pressures on social workers. On the one hand, there was a preoccupation with supporting the war effort; on the other hand, social workers had to respond to the more regular social welfare issues. An article in The Social Work summarized this point: It is natural enough that patriotic and emotional appeals connected with our war effort should fall on very fallow ground and be responded to with abundant generosity. Yet most social agencies must enlarge the scope of their activities in these days to provide services made necessary in one way or another by war-time emergencies, in addition to needing the usual support for their everyday activities. (Wallace 1940: 3)

Once the war effort was under way and employment opportunities increased, provincial governments began to change the eligibility criteria for people on relief (Boyd 1940: 7). Immediately a system of relief roll reduction occurred across the country as single unemployed men and families without children were declared ineligible, and mothers’ allowances and old age pensions were reduced. Margaret Robinson (1941: 8), an accredited social worker, documented the situation in a US social work journal; however, she was hesitant to provide biographical information for fear of losing her job. Robinson reported that in Canada, the number of people receiving relief payments was dramatically reduced in the early years of the war. In December 1939, for example, the Dominion relief commissioner reported that

70

CHAPTER FOUR

681,000 Canadians received government aid (Robinson 1941: 7). A year later, this number was cut almost in half, with the Canadian Welfare Council reporting that 355,000 people were receiving relief payments (Robinson 1941: 7). The provinces were first to act and their cuts to relief were rapid and severe across the country. In March 1941 the federal government announced that it would no longer contribute to direct relief.18 Governments justified these actions on the basis that employment opportunities were now abundant, and that anyone who wanted to work could find work. In Ontario, all families without children and all single men were declared ineligible for relief. Acting Premier Nixon was of the firm conviction that no employable person should have trouble finding a job and that the issue of relief was “in the category of minor problems.”19 Nixon moved to have all physically fit, employable unemployed persons conscripted, ahead of all others, to home defence or to work in agriculture.20

In Ottawa the Direct Relief Department decreased its total budget by 53 percent between November 1939 and November 1940. For this same period, the number of employable families receiving relief decreased by 79 percent and employable individuals by 84 percent.21 The situation was similar in Vancouver and in Halifax, where, in April 1940, all single unemployed men were cut off relief (Robinson 1941: 7). But Montreal had the most restrictive measures –– no able-bodied man could receive relief, except in return for work. This meant that men who were ill or had a physical ailment were required to work so their families would not starve (Robinson 1941: 7). Gladys Fulford, of the Montreal branch of the CASW, described the magnitude of the cuts in Montreal: “To date, approximately 10,000 of these cases have been refused and another 3,000 male breadwinners have been cut off because they have failed to fit into the rather rigid and unjust regulations of our Bouchard work for relief scheme, making a total of 13,000 cases.”22 The CASW Special Committee on the Relief Situation in Canada called on its regional branches to keep it apprised of developments in the various regions of the country. Although most of the branches that responded noted that people were being moved off relief, there was a general consensus that employment opportunities had in fact improved and there was tacit support for “employables” to be taken off relief.23 One exception to this came from the Montreal branch. In 1939, in reaction to the rising cost of living, the Montreal branch of the CASW established a group on “Nutrition and Relief.”24 Any rise in the cost of living was regarded as a severe assault on those who already lived on inadequate levels of relief. The group noted that some price increases were

S O C I A L W O R K I N T H E W A R Y E A R S , 1 9 3 9 –– 4 5

71

necessary because of unusual conditions in times of war, but that some increases were a result of business profiteering. It believed that social workers had an important role in monitoring the status of poor people and promoting increases in relief rates because the effects of malnutrition and breakdown in health and morale, and constant threats to low-income families, had to be avoided. 25 In 1940 the Montreal branch conducted a study on increases in the cost of living in Montreal. Subsequently, the branch became the nucleus of a special national committee on “the Rising Cost of Living,” and it conducted a comprehensive research project with input from social service agencies across Canada.26 The study of the Rising Cost of Living Committee recommended both short- and long-term strategies to assist low-income Canadians, including co-operation among social agencies in helping people live on limited incomes, a national survey on the cost of an adequate living standard, a study of family allowance and organized pressure on government for its implementation, and a continuing committee on the cost of living.27 The Montreal branch also prompted the national office to lobby the War Time Prices and Trade Board in Ottawa to draw attention to its concern over the implications of rising prices and what this meant to low-income Canadians.28 The government assured the branch that the issue would be considered.29

Shortage of Qualified Social Workers An acute shortage of social workers existed during and after the war. New social services were developed, and demands on many of the existing services intensified. In addition to the regular peacetime work, social workers now went into the armed forces, some of them working with physicians and psychiatrists; others worked in England in overseas projects (Wallace 1943). Social workers were also employed in the Dependents’ Allowance Board, Dependents’ Trustee Fund, Veterans Welfare Divisions, Unemployment Insurance, and other newly developed agencies of government. The CASW established the Standing Committee on Recruiting and Training in 1940 to more accurately determine the demands for social workers across the country. In 1942 the standing committee was replaced with the Committee on Education for Social Work, which continued to monitor the status of the profession.30 In the biennial period, 1940–42, the committee focused largely on methods for recruiting students to schools of social work and for invigorating its recruitment program. It also studied the curriculum of schools of social work and ways to develop in-service training programs.31 Concern over a shortage of social workers to meet the staff requirements of private agencies and the increasing demand of public agencies for welfare

72

CHAPTER FOUR

services led the Montreal branch of the CASW to hold a Round Table on Recruitment in 1942.32 Branches from across the country reported a shortage of social workers, particularly in private agencies.33 The group concluded that action was indicated, and that the committee should follow up by bringing the issue to the attention of the federal government, as well as holding a conference on the question of recruiting. In the summer of 1942 the committee presented a brief to the federal government requesting aid to professional social work education.34 A Continuing Committee on the issue of personnel in social work continued to present briefs to the federal government departments, requesting financial assistance to develop short-term emergency social work training courses and to assist in placing qualified social work personnel in postwar reconstruction plans.35 In 1943 the Canada Committee of the Montreal branch identified priorities in social work allocation. It rated the services of social workers according to their value to the war effort. Services to people in the armed forces and to industrial workers were given priority, for example, over services to people with disabilities or seniors. The highest priority, it argued, should be given to “existing and anticipated services which seem most essential and basic to the war effort and the national welfare and where social skills may be used most effectively.”36 Four new schools of social work were established during and shortly after the war: the Maritime School (1941), Laval (1943), the University of Manitoba (1943), and the University of Ottawa (1948).37

Growth and Consolidation in the CASW In the 1940s seven additional regional branches of the CASW were formed: Essex County (1941), Kingston (1942), Nova Scotia Mainland (1942), and Saskatchewan (1944) were set up in the first half of the decade (Battle 1953: 16–17). In the second half of the 1940s, branches were formed in Quebec City (Chapitre de Québec de l’association Canadienne des Travailleurs Sociaux) (1946), Cape Breton (1947), and New Brunswick/Prince Edward Island (1948), making a total of sixteen branches across Canada by the end of the decade.38 In addition, in 1949 the Montreal branch was divided into two sections, French and English. This development and the formation of the chapter in Quebec City marked the increased growth of French social workers and their engagement in the social work profession. The growth in membership and regional branches was a good indicator that the association was expanding. But with this expansion came numerous struggles and conflicts that had to be overcome in order to have a cohesive, well-functioning association that could provide direction and leadership to its members and exert its views in a newly developing welfare state.

S O C I A L W O R K I N T H E W A R Y E A R S , 1 9 3 9 –– 4 5

73

An ongoing struggle existed in determining a balance between the authority and centrality of the national office and the autonomy and independence of regional branches. This issue was not an easy one to settle and was exacerbated by vast distances, serious communication challenges, and a relatively small membership spread throughout the country. The national board of the CASW, located in Ottawa, was keenly aware of the importance of staying in touch with its regional membership. An important milestone was reached in 1938, when the biennial meeting was held in western Canada (Vancouver) for the first time, and for the first time in the history of the association, there was a larger representation at the conference from western Canada than from Ontario. One of the main recommendations from this conference was to promote expansion and development of branches and to have more inter-branch contact in the CASW. The branches and the national office had as their objective the promotion of the “Progressive Program,” which continued into the 1940s. The Progressive Program had four main objectives. The first was to build stronger unity within the CASW and to develop a “national point of view” (Boyd 1939: 4) To accomplish this, the national office proposed an increased exchange of ideas, facilitated by sending board members to branch meetings, holding inter-branch meetings, delegate conferences, and improved communication among branches and the national office. The branches were to keep the national office informed of regional studies being conducted and to disseminate such work, while the CASW was to conduct regular national studies of interest to all regions. Despite these attempts to strengthen the association, there were ongoing concerns that francophone social workers in Quebec were unhappy about the language issue. The “French fact,” as it was called, led to plans for a French Catholic Association of Social Workers in Montreal in 1942. The CASW national board attempted to quell the dissent, but some members left the CASW. The language division was recognized as an issue, and in 1949 two sections of the Montreal branch were formed –– one French and one English (Latimer 1972: 138–39). The second objective of the Progressive Program was to develop better professional standards. Initially this would require collecting information about present practices regarding training, salaries, and working conditions. Furthermore, the CASW would have to establish what would be approved practices and what could be done to promote better standard and conditions (Boyd 1939: 4). The third objective of the Progressive Program was to develop an awareness of political and social trends and to support progressive movements to

74

CHAPTER FOUR

improve social conditions. To achieve this goal, local CASW groups would need to engage with other local groups, such as the labour movement, and be ready to express opinions of issues that affected the clients with whom social workers worked. And “even if not in a position to do research work, the CASW may join in general movements for the adoption of more progressive social measures” (Boyd 1939: 4). The CASW also had to be ready to approach government directly when circumstances called for this action, and it should have representation in national movements and national conferences. The final objective of the Progressive Program stressed the importance of self-development in which branch activities would focus on organizing studies and discussion groups, provide refresher courses, and attend international association meetings. The focus on inter-branch stability proved useful for the profession during and after the war. The demands of the war effort and rebuilding the country happened quickly, and the profession had little time to spend debating how to coordinate and provide services or to make recommendations on government policies and programs. With a basic infrastructure in place, the CASW was able to play an important role. It maintained a level of interbranch cohesiveness through a number of strategies. Regional representatives sat on the national board, biennial social work conferences were held in various Canadian cities across the country, the national office staff travelled regularly across the country in an effort to stay in contact with its membership, and The Social Worker provided an inclusive forum for discussion of regional issues (Maines 1959).

Conclusion At decade’s end there would be a network of sixteen CASW branches and eight schools of social work across Canada. Both the branch offices and the national office began to enter into public debates of major policy issues of the day, including commissions of inquiry and postwar reconstruction programs and services. Policy positions were sometimes articulated through, or in conjunction with, the Canadian Welfare Council, but increasingly the CASW presented its own views as a separate organization. By the end of the 1940s, the CASW had established itself more clearly as a professional organization with an important role to play in the social and economic development of the country. This would prove to be a comfortable role for the association as it began a co-operative relationship with the Canadian state. Although the CASW criticized aspects of government policy and its inattention to social issues, it tended to work within the parameters established by the government. During this era there was also a shift in social work’s per-

S O C I A L W O R K I N T H E W A R Y E A R S , 1 9 3 9 –– 4 5

75

spective on social action. The term was no longer used in reference to radical reform, but rather came to be regarded as a more modest critique of state policy, as discussed in the following chapter.

Notes 1 SWHA, FSAA, “Field Trip in Eastern Canada, October 29, 1941.” Impressions of a US staff member. 2 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 38, File 26, British Guest Children, 1940, letter from the board of directors, CASW, to Prime Minister Mackenzie King, May 29, 1940. 3 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 38, File 26, British Guest Children, 1940, letter from the board of directors, CASW, to Prime Minister Mackenzie King, May 29, 1940. 4 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 38, File 26, British Guest Children, 1940, letter from the board of directors, CASW, to Prime Minister Mackenzie King, May 29, 1940; letter from H.R.L. Henry, private secretary, Office of the Prime Minister, to Jean Walker, executive secretary, CASW, May 31, 1940; letter from F.C. Blair, director, Department of Mines and Resources, to Jean Walker, executive secretary, CASW, June 13, 1940. 5 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 38, File 26, British Guest Children, 1940, “British Guest Children,” July 1940. 6 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 10, File 10, Canada in War and Post War Period Committee, includes minutes, c.1941, minutes of a meeting of the Special Committee, Canadian Association of Social Workers, on War and Post War Services, April 8, 1941. 7 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 10, File 10, Canada in the War and Post War Period Committee, includes minutes, c.1941, minutes of a meeting of the Special Committee, Canadian Association of Social Workers, on War and Post War Services, held on April 8, 1941. 8 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 29, File 5, Montreal branch, 1940–41; Gladys Fulford, “Highlights from the Board,” Calling All Social Workers, Montreal branch, CASW, June 1941, pp. 9–10. 9 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 10, File 10, Canada in War and Post War Period Committee, includes minutes, c.1941, recommendations from the “Overseas” Section of the Special Committee on War and Post War Service to the Board of Directors, May 18, 1941. 10 Archives of Ontario (hereafter AO), F4175, 1-0-2, Canadian Association of Social Workers, Hamilton branch –– minutes, 1939–44, “Some Highlights from Recent National Board Meeting, Canadian Association of Social Workers,” n.d. 11 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 38, File 20, [board of directors] Swiss Project, 1946–47, letter to H.J. Howard Langille from the executive secretary, CASW, July 26, 1946. 12 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 10, File 9, Canada in War and Post War Period Committee, includes minutes, biennial report, 1940–42, minutes of a meeting of the Committee on Canada in the War and Post War Period, November 5, 1941. 13 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 10, File 10, Canada in War and Post War Period Committee, Special Committee on Rising Cost of Living, 1939–42, minutes of a meeting of the Special Committee, April 8, 1941.

76

CHAPTER FOUR

14 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 21, File 1, Publication Committee, includes biennial report, 1944–46, 1951–52, “Monograph on the Social Worker,” September 1946. 15 NAC, MG 28, I10, Canadian Council on Social Development, Vol. 70, Social Services in Canada, “The Problems of Social Service –– Canada,” 1946. 16 B.C.A, GR 883, Box 8, File 35, B.C. Child Welfare Division, Canadian Conference on Social Work –– Winnipeg, May 1944. 17 Ibid. 18 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 21, File 1, Publication Committee, includes biennial report, 1944–46, 1951–52, “Relief Situation in Canada, February to June, 1941,” p. 15. 19 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 22, File 6, “Ontario Moves to Get Fit Men off Relief Rolls,” 9/1/40. 20 Ibid. 21 NAC MG 28, I 441, Vol. 22, File 6, “Corporation of the City of Ottawa, Direct Relief Department, Comparative Statement of Expenditure, Numbers on Relief and Distribution as to Employability”; calculations of data by authors. 22 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 22, File 6, Relief Situation in Canada Special Committee, includes biennial report, 1940–42, letter from Gladys Fulford, Montreal branch, CASW, to Sophie Boyd, chairman, Special Committee on Relief Situation in Canada, September 24, 1940. 23 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 22, File 6, Relief Situation in Canada Special Committee, includes biennial report, 1940–42, letter from Mrs. Reid, chairman of Special Committee on the Relief Situation, CASW, eastern Ontario branch, to Sophie Boyd, chairman of Special Committee on Relief Situation in Canada, CASW, February 25, 1941; letter to Miss Boyd from Mary Barss, Hamilton branch, February 27, 1941; letter to Miss Boyd from Kathleen Would, Toronto branch, March 8, 1941. 24 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 10, File 8, Canadian War and Post War Period Committee, Special Committee on Rising Cost of Living, 1939–42, “Report of the National Committee on Rising Cost of Living,” prepared by the committee as a biennial report; it was considered too long for publication, but was retained as a record of the activities of the committee for 1940–42, 1942, p. 20. 25 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 10, File 8, Canadian War and Post War Period Committee, Special Committee on Rising Cost of Living, 1939–42, “Nutrition and Relief,” Calling All Social Workers, Montreal branch, CASW, October 1940, pp. 16. 26 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 10, File 8, Canadian War and Post War Period Committee, Special Committee on Rising Cost of Living, 1939–42, “Report of the National Committee on Rising Cost of Living,” prepared by the committee as a biennial report; it was considered too long for publication, but was retained as a record of the activities of the committee for 1940–42, 1942. 27 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 10, File 8, Canadian War and Post War Period Committee, Special Committee on Rising Cost of Living, 1939–42, “Report of the National Committee on Rising Cost of Living,” prepared by the committee as a biennial report; it was considered too long for publication, but was retained as a record of the activities of the committee for 1940–42, 1942, p. 20.

S O C I A L W O R K I N T H E W A R Y E A R S , 1 9 3 9 –– 4 5

77

28 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 10, File 8, Canadian War and Post War Period Committee, letter from the board of directors (on behalf of the Montreal branch) to Hector McKinnon, chairman, Wartime Prices and Trade Board, April 29, 1940. 29 NAC, MG 28, I 441, letter from H.B. McKinnon, the Wartime Prices and Trade Board, May 1, 1940. 30 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 14, File 19, Licensing and Registration Committees, includes annual report, 1933, 1938, 1945, 1945–49, reports for biennial period, 1944–46, board of directors, CASW. 31 Ibid., pp. 7–8. 32 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 48, File 5, Canadian Conference on Social Work, Recruiting, 1942, Montreal branch, “Round Table on Recruiting,” forwarded to CASW, June 13, 1942. 33 Ibid., p. 3. 34 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 48, File 5, Canadian Conference on Social Work, Recruiting, 1942, “The Serious Shortage of Social Workers,” a brief for Dominion Aid to Professional Education for Social Work, by the extension of the Dominion-Provincial Youth Training Scheme, prepared by the committee continuing from the Round Table Conference on Recruiting at the Canadian Conference, 7-5-42. 35 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 39, File 16, Education, Ottawa Conference of CASW, CWC, and Schools of Social Work, aid for social work training, and submission to federal government, 1943–44, minutes of Continuing Committee appointed by the Conference on Social Work Personnel, held in Ottawa on December 6, 1943. 36 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 11, File 5, Education for Social Work Committee, 1943, 1946–48, report of the Committee on Canada in the War and Post War Period, Montreal branch, CASW, November 1943. 37 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 21, File 2, [Publication Committee], “Draft of the Profession of Social Work,” 1948; “Draft –– Proposed Revision of the Profession of Social Work,” 1947, p. 5. 38 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 5, File 9, Board of Directors, Correspondence with Other Organizations (2), 1948–50, letter to Miss Beaudry, Montreal, from Joy Maines, CASW, June 22, 1949.

This page intentionally left blank

CHAPTER FIVE

Postwar Reconstruction and Civil Defence, 1940–60 Canada turned its attention to the process of postwar reconstruction shortly after World War II began. With the experiences of the Depression still fresh, and anxious to avoid the devastating experiences following World War I, the Canadian public, in line with sentiments expressed in the Atlantic Charter, were eager to work toward improved conditions of life for the population. Creating a better society included the development of a system of social security, and Canadians were prepared to embrace a more active role for government in order to achieve these objectives. Mackenzie King’s Liberal government was determined to mitigate conditions that could lead to a postwar Depression. Well aware of union militancy that had developed in Canada since the Depression, King wanted to avoid further confrontation with labour (Finkel 2006: 126; Struthers 1983: 211). This concern, combined with the popularity of the new social democratic party, the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation (CCF), helped paved the way for the construction of the postwar liberal welfare state. During this period the federal government engaged in an extensive review of social and economic conditions in Canada. For part of this process it relied on the advice and counsel of social scientists, many of whom were directly connected to the field of social work or social welfare, and almost all of whom were men. For the nascent social work profession, this was an opportunity to voice its views on social issues with which it was very familiar. In many respects, the 1940s were the glory days for the profession; it was a time of hope for a new social order, a time of massive growth and continued demand for social workers, and a period of enthusiasm and optimism 79

80

CHAPTER FIVE

for the future of the professional association. No longer based only in private charity, trained Canadian social workers were pursued for work in the public sector as well as internationally. The CASW embraced this newfound status and worked actively to consolidate itself as a profession and to broaden its influence in social welfare. One important way that it did this was to develop policy positions on social issues of the day and to state, clearly and repeatedly, that social workers had an integral role to play in the process of social reconstruction. Most of its efforts in this regard were in reaction to government initiatives, but the association consistently lobbied for what it perceived to be in the best interests of the most disadvantaged groups in society. Although its responses were reactive, they often provided a unique and important dimension to the issues under debate. Sometimes the CASW national office worked jointly with other organizations, particularly the Canadian Welfare Council (CWC),1 but increasingly it adopted separate policy positions. The CASW branches were also actively involved in broadbased social welfare issues, and the term “social action” essentially became synonymous with social policy development during this era. At the turn of the 1950s, the federal government continued its postwar, peacetime reconstruction plans. However, the postwar period carried with it the international threat of war, particularly atomic warfare with the onset of the Cold War. This threat could not be ignored and the Canadian government in the early 1950s again focused its attention on civil defence, as it had done in World War II. And, as before, civil defence services were provided primarily through existing agencies and in line with federal–provincial jurisdictional arrangements. This chapter examines social work’s role in postwar reconstruction and development of the welfare state, as well as its role in civil defence.

Social Work and Postwar Reconstruction In the postwar period, government, particularly the federal government, began to examine many of the social and economic problems that social workers had witnessed for decades –– unemployment, poverty, low incomes, inadequate housing, and compromised health care. Several commissions, advisory committees, and studies to assist in the social planning of the postwar period occurred in this decade. Four major reports were produced (authored by Rowell-Sirois, Marsh, Heagerty, and Curtis), which provided an important framework for discussing the future of social security in Canada. Rice and Prince (2000: 63) identify a number of common themes in the reports: a recognition that the economy was not self-regulating; individual self-reliance was incongruent with a modern industrial society; and gov-

P O S T W A R R E C O N S T R U C T I O N A N D C I V I L D E F E N C E , 1 9 4 0 –– 6 0

81

ernments, both federal and provincial, would have to become active players in protecting people from income disruption. The state’s new role in this process was to stabilize the economy to minimize the risks to wages; create employment opportunities; and develop a social security net (Rice and Prince 2000: 63). All of these issues were central to social workers and the CASW, which began to participate in the government process in an attempt to influence the direction of social policy. The Royal Commission on Dominion–Provincial Relations (Rowell-Sirois), 1937–40 The CASW’s first formal foray into the federal social policy field was its involvement with the Royal Commission on Dominion–Provincial Relations (the Rowell-Sirois Commission). This commission resulted from the social and economic problems of the Depression and provincial and municipal governments’ inability to address them adequately because of their limited financial resources. It became increasingly clear that social issues, the domain of the provinces, were costing extraordinary amounts of money, precipitating a need to overhaul the fiscal arrangements between the dominion government and the provinces. To this end the federal government appointed a Royal Commission on Dominion–Provincial Relations in 1937 to examine, for the first time since Confederation, the constitutional division of power between the between the Dominion and provincial governments.2 The commission examined a broad range of government activities with a central focus on the economy, particularly the financial distribution of power between the two orders of government. This issue came under serious scrutiny during the Depression when the relatively small provincial revenue base was unable to sustain the massive financial burden of unemployment relief in the 1930s, leading to a collapse of public financing in some provinces and many municipalities.3 Between 1921 and 1930, public welfare expenditures by governments in Canada had increased by 130 percent, with 80 percent of the total costs in 1930 carried by provincial and municipal governments. Acceptance of the notion that the state should play a stronger role in social welfare was “hastened considerably” by the war, and social welfare became a primary focus of the commission.4 The commission travelled across the country, holding eighty-five days of hearings between 1937 and 1938. During this time, briefs were submitted and testimonies were heard from Dominion and provincial governments, municipal associations, and numerous private organizations. The CASW made four submissions; three came from the provinces and one from the national office. The Ontario branches,5 the B.C. mainland branch (The

82

CHAPTER FIVE

Social Worker 1938a), and the Montreal branch6 all made points similar to those of the national, but from the perspective of their local regions. The CASW national made a presentation in January 1938 when the hearings were held in Ottawa.7 This was the first time that the association had made a presentation to the federal government, and it would represent the beginning of a new trend for the CASW. This initial presentation had little substantive to say about Dominion–provincial relations other than it supported more public welfare services for people in need. Instead, it made a strong case for the importance of hiring qualified social workers within the expanding machinery of government: “the Canadian Association of Social Workers wishes to stress one paramount point, namely, the need for adequate fully qualified personnel in the administration and functioning of the social services.”8 Through their involvement with the Canadian Welfare Council (CWC), social workers had another avenue for input into the Royal Commission on Dominion–Provincial Relations. The CWC made substantial submissions to the commission, including six separate papers on various aspects of the commission’s work. While these submissions were presented under the name of CWC, there was significant involvement from social workers, including Dorothy King, Harry Cassidy, George Davidson, and Joseph Laycock. The final report of the commission was presented to Parliament in May 1940.9 Among other things, it emphasized the importance of a clear division of power between the Dominion and provincial governments, with adequate financial resources to fulfill their responsibilities. A number of important recommendations were made regarding social welfare policy in Canada. It was recommended that some functions of the Dominion government needed to be expanded so that more uniform standards could be applied across the regions of the country. The Dominion government, for example, would assume responsibility for unemployment relief for employables, but the remaining health, welfare, and social insurance services were to be financed and operated by the provinces and municipalities. In order for the Dominion government to support this function, it had to expand its revenue base; the commission recommended that the provinces withdraw from three important revenue-generating fields that would be taken over by the federal government –– the fields of income, inheritance, and corporate taxation. The federal government would also assume existing provincial debts and discontinue the Dominion General Subsidies and conditional grants, but it would pay provinces an Annual Adjustment Grant as needed. The Dominion government would have authority over minimum wages, maximum hours of work, age of employ-

P O S T W A R R E C O N S T R U C T I O N A N D C I V I L D E F E N C E , 1 9 4 0 –– 6 0

83

ment, and would implement conventions of the International Labour Organization. The commission further recommended that to facilitate Dominion–provincial relations, there should be regular conferences with a permanent Dominion secretariat in place. Shortly after the Rowell-Sirois Commission released its final report to Parliament, the CASW national office made its formal response to the report in a letter to Prime Minister Mackenzie King.10 It emphasized three main points. It expressed concern that the distinctions between employable and unemployable people did not take into account the fact that an individual could move from one category to another. The recommendation of the Rowell-Sirois Commission meant that a person deemed unemployable would have to remain in that category.11 The CASW further recommended that the Dominion service for the “employables” and the provincial–municipal services for “unemployables” should come under a single administrative unit. Besides making financial sense, this would aid in avoiding problems that could arise in unique situations or when people moved from one category to another. The CASW, finally, recommended further use of grants-in-aid. It is, therefore, respectfully suggested that the Dominion should, without interfering with provincial autonomy, assume such leadership as is necessary to make the provinces aware of their responsibility for providing certain reasonable, minimum levels of service for all groups in need of aid, and of assuming this minimum before following such supplementary lines of activity as their inclinations and convictions may dictate.12

The Montreal branch of the CASW sent a similar letter to the premier (premier ministre du Québec) of Quebec, Adélard Godbout, in January 1941, expressing concerns similar to those of the national office of the CASW, mainly the jurisdiction division between “employables” and “unemployables.”13 The division of responsibility whereby the federal government had jurisdiction over employables and the provinces over unemployables was likely to create serious problems for those who did not fall neatly within either category; the jurisdictional division, the branch argued, did not make financial or administrative sense. A second focus was on the importance of setting uniform standards across the country, and a third suggestion cautioned the government not to let the war effort “submerge” services to people in need.14 One of the immediate consequences of the Rowell-Sirois Commission was the constitutional amendment that transferred jurisdiction for unemployment insurance from the provinces to the federal government in 1940. Moreover, the notion of national standards and importance of equalization

84

CHAPTER FIVE

payments, hallmarks of the Canadian welfare state, made their first appearance. In the context of the war economy, the federal government eventually convinced the provinces to transfer personal and corporate income taxes to the federal government. Most of the commission’s other recommendations were studied at the January 1941 Dominion–Provincial Conference, but were not accepted. And although the federal government attempted to assure provincial autonomy, no agreement could be reached between the federal government and the provinces. For the next several years, World War II would take central stage, but the issues raised by the Rowell-Sirois Commission would eventually reappear. Unemployment Insurance Act, 1940 Since the Depression, social workers had become acutely aware of the problems created by unemployment. The federal government was increasingly pressured to deal with unemployment in Canada. In 1935 the Bennett Conservative government, in what was likely an election ploy, made an attempt to introduce a federal policy of unemployment insurance and health care (Struthers 1983: 209). The legislation failed because it fell outside of federal jurisdiction (Struthers 1983: 124–37; Rice and Prince 2000: 50–51). Unemployment was still on the public agenda in 1940. In that year the Liberal government of Mackenzie King introduced an Unemployment Insurance Act to be funded jointly by workers and employers. Following an amendment to the BNA Act to enable a jurisdiction transfer of responsibility, the legislation was passed in August 1940 (Struthers 1983: 202). It covered a small part of the working population, excluding, among many others, women, domestic workers, and farm labourers. Benefits were constructed on the basis of salaries and weeks worked, which effectively eliminated part-time and lowwage earners (Finkel and Conrad 2002: 307). In May 1940, the CASW sent a memorandum to King and the minister of labour expressing its support of the Unemployment Insurance Act.15 The memorandum included a five-page brief based on research of the American and British systems of unemployment, conducted by the CASW.16 It began with a statement about the severity of unemployment and its impact on individuals and families, and how social workers constantly witnessed the devastating effects of reduced standards of living on people’s health and selfrespect, and their family lives. It argued that unemployment must not be regarded as accidental or temporary: The tremendous productivity of the modern machine, combined with the competitive basis on which industry is organized has led to lowered wages, unemployment and consequent reduced purchasing power. Reduced purchasing

P O S T W A R R E C O N S T R U C T I O N A N D C I V I L D E F E N C E , 1 9 4 0 –– 6 0

85

power means decreased ability to purchase goods and inevitably to further unemployment. Thus it appears that so long as our economic life is organized as at present –– that is, for profit rather than for human need –– unemployment is certain to be an integral part of the system.17

Unemployment insurance, it was clear to the state, could not be expected to reduce the extent of unemployment, but through increasing people’s purchasing power, it could check the downward swing of an unemployment cycle and could be an effective measure for reducing the destruction of human values. The existing system of relief that assisted people only at the point of destitution, it argued, had taken a heavy toll on unemployed workers. The association made a number of recommendations. It proposed that unemployment insurance should be “organized and financed nationally” even if this involved a constitutional amendment. The major costs of the program, it argued, should be covered by the government and the employer; a smaller contribution by workers should be determined by their salary levels, number of dependants, and should be high enough to support an adequate standard of living. Unemployment insurance, moreover, should be a matter of right and not involve the stigma of the means test. It should be closely coordinated with an efficient, national system of employment and staffed with qualified personnel hired on a competitive basis. The CASW also recommended that the legislation include an impartial appeal board with direct worker representation and that an advisory board of citizens be involved.18 While strongly supporting unemployment insurance legislation, the CASW was firm in its conviction that such a policy would need to be part of a broader plan to provide security for Canadian citizens. Unemployment insurance legislation on its own would fail unless it became part of a larger, comprehensive system of social security that included provisions for retraining, work opportunities, and a coordinated administration of public relief. This forward-looking policy position of the CASW emphasized that a broad-based system would be the only way to ensure the social security of Canadians.19 Report on Social Security for Canada (Marsh Report), 1943 An important impetus for postwar planning in Canada was the anticipated problems related to the resettlement of war veterans at the end of the war. With this in mind, in August 1940, the federal government established an Advisory Committee on Demobilization and Re-establishment (Marsh [1943] 1975: xviii). It soon became clear, however, that resettlement of

86

CHAPTER FIVE

soldiers was complicated and integrally related to a number of broader social issues such as employment, housing, health, and social services. Therefore, in 1941 a separate Advisory Committee on Reconstruction was struck to examine a wide sweep of social and economic issues. Cyril James, president of McGill University, would become chair of the committee, and Leonard Marsh was appointed research adviser (Horn 1976: 200). The Advisory Committee on Reconstruction included several subcommittees addressing a range of issues, including postwar employment opportunities, agriculture, conservation, natural resources, and the issues of concern to women (children’s allowance, maternity benefits, protection during old age) (Marsh [1943] 1975: xix). In addition, numerous research studies were commissioned; one of these was a study on social security for Canada headed by Leonard Marsh. Marsh and his team, including social workers Bessie Touzel, George Davidson, and Stuart Jaffary, worked for less than one month to prepare a draft. The final Report on Social Security for Canada (the Marsh Report) was submitted to the House of Commons Committee on Reconstruction and Rehabilitation in March 1943. Although this report is often referred to as a blueprint for social security in Canada, when Marsh submitted the report to Cyril James in February 1943, he explicitly referred to it as “a preliminary appraisal; not a final blueprint with all the details filled in.”20 It recommended development of a national employment program that would attempt to maintain full employment. It called for the establishment of a federally operated social insurance program to protect people from earnings interruptions (“employment risks”) and a social insurance system to protect people from “universal risks,” such as old age, disability, or death. Marsh further suggested that the government establish a comprehensive health insurance system (including medical, dental, pharmaceutical, and optometrist’s services) to be administered provincially but financed jointly by the Dominion and provincial governments, as well as a system of family allowances (Marsh [1943] 1975: xxi). The Marsh Report received a great deal of publicity in Canada, and the social work community was no exception since three prominent social workers were researchers on the committee. When the Marsh Report was released in 1943, the CASW prepared a brief in response to it. The association generally agreed with the report’s recommendations. It was particularly appreciative of the focus on family needs and the recognition that a major “social distress” in Canada was a result of inadequate income. It strongly endorsed the report’s focus on work and unemployment, but argued that unemployment benefits were too low and should be extended immediately

P O S T W A R R E C O N S T R U C T I O N A N D C I V I L D E F E N C E , 1 9 4 0 –– 6 0

87

to cover those workers not included (estimated to be one-third of the workforce). It also urged that immediate attention be given to public housing; the wise use of natural resources; and the construction of new public buildings, such as schools, mental hospitals, town halls, and community centres. The CASW further supported the combination of work projects with retraining as had been developed in the US during the Depression, and identified the importance of public investment in education and culture.21 The association approved the principle of family allowances (sometimes referred to as children’s allowances) as identified in the Marsh Report, but was critical of the low scale of grants that were recommended. It also pointed out that the family allowance should constitute but one integral part of a larger national social security system. Family allowances, moreover, should not replace adequate minimum wages, and the CASW was critical of Marsh for not including a clear statement on the importance of this issue.22 It also noted that the Marsh Report was limited to social insurance, and that it needed to include issues related to the provision of social assistance and welfare administration and suggested, in particular, that residency laws for social assistance required re-examination. The issue of residency for mothers’ allowance, medical care, and other services was an issue that social workers were in regular contact with at the local level, where individuals were not provided with services because of conflicting residency requirements.23 The CASW brief supported Marsh’s recommendations regarding provisions for people who were old or disabled, but was critical of the low, insufficient benefit rates. It also suggested that consideration be given to a sickness cash benefit to maintain family incomes in cases where a wage earner was sick, as well as provisions for vocational rehabilitation.24 Two issues were raised in the CASW’s brief with regard to administration: (1) the Unemployment Insurance Commission could be expanded into a social security commission or department effectively linking unemployment to other issues of social security, and (2) qualified personnel should be hired. And again, the CASW promoted its own members, stating that steps should be taken to assist in training social workers and awarding them scholarships as prospective staff members in the area of social security.25 The CASW saved its sharpest criticism for governments’ failure to provide adequate research and planning for social security in the past. Canada, it argued, suffered heavily from this. Both the absence of planning in the past and the current limitations of the Marsh Report were noted: “This illogical and clumsy process of putting the cart before the horse in security

88

CHAPTER FIVE

planning is indefensible; Canada cannot afford to perpetuate the blunder of other countries, when knowledge is available to prevent it.”26 The Canadian Welfare Council was supportive of the intent of the report and gave it credit for paying attention to women, but it was critical that the report was done so hastily (Guest 1999: 114). Labour gave it mixed reviews –– some elements of the labour movement applauded it, while others ignored it (Guest 1999: 114). For the most part, the business community was critical of it. Some elements of business called it an experiment with socialism or communism; others were concerned that Canadians would become too dependent on the state, which would stifle individual initiative (Guest 1999: 113; Horn 1976: 203). The leader of the Conservative Party commissioned Charlotte Whitton, recently retired as director of the Canada Welfare Council, to prepare a critique of the Marsh and the British Beveridge reports and to provide her own program of social security for Canada. In The Dawn of Ampler Life, Whitton (1943) disagreed with the direction of the Marsh Report and argued that it was based too heavily on the 1942 Beveridge Report, a foreign model that would not work in Canada. Basically she was opposed to Marsh’s focus on social insurance and the role of the federal government in social welfare. One month before the Marsh Report was released, Harry Cassidy’s book, Social Security and Reconstruction in Canada, was published. Cassidy adopted a middle-of-the-road position between Marsh and Whitton. According to Nancy Christie, Cassidy was afraid that Marsh would “scoop” his ideas, so he sided more with Whitton, effectively shifting the debate over social security somewhat to the right (Christie 2000: 282). One of the major differences from the Marsh Report was that Cassidy argued against moving responsibility for unemployed employables to the federal government. Rather, he supported the use of conditional grants as a method of distributing resources and power between the two orders of government when it came to social welfare (Irving 1982: 386). The Liberal government of Mackenzie King was not favourable to the Marsh Report. No sooner was the report released than the government began to distance itself from it, arguing that it reflected the views of individuals and that it was simply the basis for future discussion, not for immediate policy action. Since the report was written hastily and by an outside academic and not by members of Parliament or public employees, it did not have a constituency inside government to promote it. The Marsh Report, however, made an important impression, and although nothing immediate materialized from it, it brought forward important issues of social security for Canadians that continued to be topic of future political debates.

P O S T W A R R E C O N S T R U C T I O N A N D C I V I L D E F E N C E , 1 9 4 0 –– 6 0

89

Advisory Committee on Health Insurance (the Heagerty Committee), 1942–43 In 1942, as another part of its postwar reconstruction plan, the federal government established the Advisory Committee on Health Insurance and Public Health, headed by Dr. J.J. Heagerty. The Heagerty Report, as it came to be known, was released in 1943 alongside the Marsh Report. The main recommendation was to establish a national health insurance program in Canada that covered both medical care and public health (Rice and Prince 2000: 62). The plan was to be administered by the provinces, with federal conditional grants-in-aid established to offset some of the financial burden to the provinces. Under the British North America Act, health care was a provincial responsibility; the federal grant-in-aid to the provinces would be a device that gave the federal government a role in a provincial area of jurisdiction without having to amend the BNA Act.27 The CASW monitored the activities of the Heagerty Committee closely. The eastern Ontario branch (specifically Frieda Held, Eurith Goold, Joy Maines, George Davidson, and Joseph Leacock) were asked by the board of the CASW to analyze the proposals and, in this process, they examined the draft health insurance bill, as well as the minutes and evidence of all of the proceedings that were held by the Special Committee on Social Security.28 On April 27, 1943, the branch sent its recommendations to the CASW national office. The CASW did not present directly to the Health Insurance Committee, and there appears to have been a misunderstanding over who was to present its position. In a letter to Elisabeth Wallace, executive secretary, from the chair of the committee, J.J. Heagerty expressed his “very great regret ... that the recommendations of the Canadian Association of Social Workers were not presented to [him].” The CASW, he stated, was one of the first organizations to be contacted and he was counting on them “because I felt that their immediate contact with those who are in the greatest need of health insurance and the information they had gleaned thereby would be of the greatest assistance in formulating plans.”29 The CASW responded that it too regretted not having presented its original recommendations to Dr. Heagerty, and that until recently it was under the impression that its submission was to be made “the usual way by representatives of the Canadian Welfare Council.”30 The CASW regularly collaborated with the CWC on briefs and policy positions presented to the federal government, but was increasingly moving toward independent submissions. In the fall of 1943, however, a written brief, including the CASW’s recommendations on health insurance, was sent to the Special Committee on Social Security.31

90

CHAPTER FIVE

The CASW gave its support in principle to a national health insurance scheme outlined in the Heagerty Report, but it recommended some alterations.32 It was critical of the fact that the proposed health insurance legislation was “enabling legislation,” which meant that the plan would not be adopted unless the provinces agreed to adopt and administer it. Some of the provinces, the CASW argued, would be unwilling or financially unable to enter into such a scheme; provinces with low per capita incomes would be particularly affected. A national health policy, the association stated, should work to eliminate and not perpetuate inequalities.33 The CASW took further exception to the Heagerty proposals because they did not adequately coordinate health insurance with other aspects of national social security. It made four concrete proposals for changes to the Heagerty bill. The first proposal was for additional grants to provinces on the basis of need so that the financially disadvantaged provinces would be able to provide the same services as the wealthier ones. Only through this measure would all Canadians have access to equal health opportunities. A second recommendation was for a simplified and fairer contributory scheme. The CASW also called for simplification of the administrative bodies at both the federal and provincial levels, and suggested that these bodies would be more accountable to government and, at the provincial level, should include laypeople who are the consumers of the health services. The association was opposed to the administration of health insurance resting solely or largely in the hands of the medical profession. Its final recommendation was to include a sickness cash benefit in the proposed health insurance plan. This proposal was based on the fact that families with an ill wage earner were doubly disadvantaged –– they lost their income and, at the same time, expenses to provide for medical care increased. The proposed scheme, the CASW argued, would cover medical care, but not income, yet an income is what families require particularly during periods of illness. To this end, the CASW called for a national social insurance plan, as proposed by the Marsh Report, in which sickness benefits and other benefits would be combined in one national program.34 The association pointed to the particular anomaly of a person who becomes ill while receiving unemployment insurance benefits. The unemployed sick person is not able to work, so unemployment insurance benefits are cut off for the period of illness. This leaves the family without an income even though the person is insured. Finally, the CASW reiterated its appreciation that the nation’s health was receiving attention and it applauded the work of the Heagerty Committee, but considered that it was:

P O S T W A R R E C O N S T R U C T I O N A N D C I V I L D E F E N C E , 1 9 4 0 –– 6 0

91

unfortunate, however, that the health insurance measure was planned and considered independently of a national scheme of social security, of which it is an essential part. Because of the necessary connection between health and social security measures, our Association endorses the proposals of the Marsh Report that close coordination of all future planning is essential. The resulting health insurance measures would then be an integral part of a truly national and effective scheme of social security for every Canadian citizen. 35

The Heagerty proposals endured a series of changes and were eventually referred to the Dominion–Provincial Conference on Reconstruction of 1945. The Committee on Housing and Community Planning (the Curtis Committee), 1944 The Committee on Housing and Community Planning (the Curtis Committee) was another subcommittee of the Advisory Committee on Postwar Reconstruction that reported to the government in 1944. The committee had a mandate to examine and propose recommendation for housing and community planning in postwar Canada. It was comprised of a group of economists, sociologists, architects, town planning specialists, and civil servants, under the chairmanship of C.A. Curtis, an economics professor at Queen’s University. The report contained a comparative review of housing legislation in Canada, the UK, and the US, pointing out that Canada was clearly behind in terms of both housing legislation and adequate housing. The report provided an analysis of the extent of the urban housing problem, including the extent of overcrowding, substandard housing units, and the relationship between income and rent. Most of the housing problems were contained within twelve metropolitan areas –– Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver, Winnipeg, Ottawa, Quebec, Hamilton, Windsor, Halifax, Saint John, London, and Victoria. Based on these statistics, the report prepared an estimate of the number of postwar housing units that were required. It further compared rents with family income, noting that low-income families could not pay required rents without threatening their nutrition and other basic needs. It concluded that “a very large and long range program of low-rental housing must be contemplated, is an inescapable conclusion from the available facts.”36 One of the most significant aspects of the Curtis Committee was that it represented the first time that there was discussion over the need for a federal presence in the area of housing and town planning (Rose 1980). The report called for a mixture of private and public involvement in the provision of housing for Canadians. It also called attention to the importance of

92

CHAPTER FIVE

careful planning in the use of both urban and rural land in order to advance the economic and social welfare of Canadians. The report expressed a particular interest in the provision of low-cost rental housing, a problem that social workers had repeatedly identified as a social concern for many years.37 The problem of affordable housing was an ongoing concern among social workers. In 1939, an article in The Social Worker (1939a: 12–15) criticized the private sector’s inability to provide adequate housing, and it called for the federal government to become more involved through the establishment of a national housing commission. Acuteness of the housing problem was again raised as the topic of discussion in the social welfare community in Ottawa in 1943.38 The Montreal branch of the CASW, in conjunction with the Montreal Council of Social Agencies, took the lead in critiquing the Curtis Report in March 1946, probably because of the scope of the housing problems in Montreal.39 In the “Highlights of the Curtis Report,” the Montreal branch and the Council of Agencies provided some very broad recommendations, with a particular focus on low-income housing as the key concern of social workers. Housing policy to date, it reported, focused mainly on housing as a financial investment and gave little attention to the “the welfare aspect.”40 With this in mind, the two agencies made some very broad proposals. The CASW and the Montreal Council of Social Agencies should continue to lobby governments and the public to recognize the long-standing need for “sound and sanitary” rental housing units for low-wage earners. Federal, provincial, and municipal governments should work toward the immediate development of agencies to put this in place. Further, the two agencies proposed that in co-operation with other local agencies, they should disseminate information about the provision of low-cost housing that existed in the US, UK, and other European countries. The National Housing Act of 1944, it argued, failed to meet the recommendations set out in the Curtis Report.41 The Curtis Report was an impressive study that provided clear guidance for housing policy in postwar Canada, yet it met with disappointing results, and very few of its recommendations were acted on (Rice and Prince 2000: 63). For social workers, however, the absence of adequate, affordable housing continued to be an urgent problem. In March 1947, for example, the Canada Committee of the Montreal branch of the CASW conducted a survey of 298 low-income families in the city, finding that almost 30 percent of its sample were living in substandard housing. The problems identified in the Curtis Report persisted –– overcrowding, disproportionately high rents, improper ventilation and lighting, inadequate plumbing and kitchen facilities, and infestations of vermin.42 The Canada Committee urged the federal

P O S T W A R R E C O N S T R U C T I O N A N D C I V I L D E F E N C E , 1 9 4 0 –– 6 0

93

government to re-examine its housing policy in an effort to improve conditions for low-income Canadians. It reiterated the call for an increase in the supply of low-rental units and the establishment of agencies, backed by adequate funding, to support them. It also recommended that low-rental housing projects be given priority for building materials.43 The Family Allowances Act, 1944 Family allowance, or children’s allowances as it was often called, was prominently featured in the Marsh Report at which time the CASW, while having some concerns with it, was supportive of the principle.44 In 1944 the federal government passed the Family Allowances Act. This government initiative was motivated primarily by economic and political considerations, but for a society that was eager for the development of social security, the Family Allowances Act was well received by Canadians. The family allowance provided a universal, tax-free benefit to families with children under the ages of sixteen years, regardless of family income. The benefit was provided monthly and, in most cases, was distributed to mothers. The amount varied with the ages and number of children in the family. This legislation was the first universal social program in Canada. The CASW’s national office supported the notion of family allowances in its brief to the Marsh Committee. As well, a subcommittee of the Committee on Public Welfare Services of the Montreal branch of the CASW presented a report on family allowances, which was subsequently submitted to The Social Worker for publication.45 It advocated for family allowances “not only as a device to help the social insurance system function adequately, but also as a way to abolish want created by our failure to relate income earnings to family size.”46 It gave unanimous approval to the principle of the state paying a non-contributory cash payment to families for each dependent child, regardless of family income. Similar to the position adopted by the CASW in response to this aspect of the Marsh Report, the committee called for additional services, such as housing, medical care, better educational opportunities, and other services for children. But, most importantly, it stressed the need for an adequate minimum wage: “any true exponent of children’s allowances believes that minimum wage legislation ensuring decent wages is absolutely essential, and no other device can be substituted for it.”47 Family allowance legislation led to heated debate in the social welfare community. Charlotte Whitton was openly critical of a universal plan that would provide benefits to those who may not need them (Guest 1999: 121–22). Moreover, she argued, this policy would not provide health, education, housing, or other “social utilities” that children required.48 Whitton

94

CHAPTER FIVE

attacked family allowances in Saturday Night in August 1944, causing the national office of the CASW to issue a strong rebuttal;49 her critique later formed the basis of a publication, Baby Bonuses: Dollars or Sense? (Whitton 1945). Among her concerns was the effect that family allowances could have on the nature of the family, the “intelligent maternity and responsible paternity” upon which the Canadian home was built (Whitton 1945: 1). The merits of family allowance were also strongly debated in the Ottawa Citizen. In the last half of July 1944, for example, there were daily editorials, letters to the editor, and news stories on family allowances.50 This included an exchange of letters between Whitton and Elisabeth Wallace, executive secretary of the CASW.51 Wallace clearly articulated the views of the CASW in a letter on July 13, 1944: The Canadian Association of Social Workers –– a professional organization representing some eight hundred social workers across Canada –– in a recent submission to the Dominion advisory committee on social security, warmly commended the proposed introduction of the family allowances. We should accordingly appreciate being allowed space to state some of the reasons why we believe that the majority of Canadian social workers regard family allowances as the cornerstone of a comprehensive social security program. … It is not so much a question of whether Canada can afford to provide family allowances and other social security measures, as whether we can continue to afford not to provide adequately for our children; thus bearing the cost of neglect, juvenile delinquency, malnutrition and the long train of attendant ills stretching beyond childhood to adult life.52

In 1945 Margaret Gould, editorial writer for the Toronto Star and former executive secretary of the Child Welfare Council of Toronto, produced a well-researched pamphlet as part of the “Canada Must Choose” series. Titled “Family Allowances in Canada: Facts versus Fiction,” Gould’s study was based on research of child welfare programs that she conducted on a recent visit to England, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, and the Soviet Union (Gould 1945). Drawing on the front-line experiences of social workers in Canada, she carefully constructed the case for family allowances, systematically identifying and challenging twenty-one myths that surrounded this policy. Experienced social workers, she stated, are in favour as indicated in the formal position of the CASW: As a group of social workers coming into daily contact with the devastating effects of insecurity and poverty upon Canada’s families, we submit that family allowances, buttressed by decent wages and a relatively full measure of employment, are a necessity if this country is to provide any real measure of social security for its citizens. (Gould 1945: 23)

P O S T W A R R E C O N S T R U C T I O N A N D C I V I L D E F E N C E , 1 9 4 0 –– 6 0

95

Gould estimated that the Family Allowances Act would affect around 3,400,000 children or 1,400,000 families in Canada (Gould 1945: Preface). It would assist parents in meeting the costs of raising their children and, as a rule, was paid to mothers. Gould (1945: 36–37) described it as a “profound humanitarian measure” that would prevent families from falling into destitution and pauperism. Based on the principle of democracy, the act would treat all children equally: “To the children in the country the government has stated through this Act, that it is resolved that they shall not suffer a return to the ‘hungry thirties’” (Gould 1945: 37). The Dominion–Provincial Conference on Reconstruction, 1945 In addition to commissioning studies by independent advisory committees, the federal government also proposed its own government plan for social development. In 1944 it released a White Paper underscoring the government’s commitment to full employment and a high level of income to Canadians as a postwar objective. This would be supplemented with a social security system (Guest 1999: 127; Rice and Prince 2000: 64). This strategy was developed with the “King government’s optimism about the capacity of private sector investment and enterprise to create sufficient jobs” (Rice and Prince 2000: 64). Shortly after the release of the White Paper, the federal government prepared a broader set of issues, the Green Book Proposals, and presented them at the Dominion–Provincial Conference on Reconstruction. The Green Book Proposals made no reference to Marsh’s report, but reiterated the Dominion government’s commitment to full employment, a high level of income, and a national social security system that would offer protection against unemployment, old age, and illness. Specifically, it proposed a system, supported by federal funds, of health insurance, old age pensions, and unemployment insurance (Rice and Prince 2000: 65). Comparing the recommendations of the various advisory committees, Rice and Prince argue that the Green Book Proposals were much more limited and based less on the notion of broad-based social security (Rice and Prince 2000: 65). At the Dominion–Provincial Conference on Reconstruction, the Green Book proposals were rejected primarily because the provinces were unable to reach an agreement with the federal government over fiscal arrangements (Guest 1999: 132; Rice and Prince 2000: 66; Collins 1976: 6). A special Committee of the CASW was established to review the federal government’s proposals to the conference on reconstruction. The brief was largely a summary of the various positions the CASW had developed in response to the advisory committees. In summary, the CASW endorsed the

96

CHAPTER FIVE

government’s initiative toward improving the social security of Canadians, and applauded old age security pensions that were not means-tested. It suggested, however, that to ensure full employment, the government needed to develop a public works program and a clear employment strategy. It called for more low-rental housing and firmly endorsed a national health insurance program, with particular attention to the provision of services in rural areas. The association emphasized the need to extend unemployment insurance coverage of the entire working population, as well as increase the benefit rates. A range of other suggestions were offered in the CASW brief: cash sickness benefits, disability and survival compensation programs, maternity benefits, uniform residential standards for social assistance, and the establishment of, at least, minimum standards of welfare through grants-in-aid from the federal government. The CASW reiterated its call for more social research and for more professionally qualified staff facilitated through government subsidization.53 In particular it called for federal assistance in training medical and psychiatric social workers in the health field. In addition to developing policy responses to the advisory committees established by the federal government, the CASW gave its attention to a wide range of other social matters. At times it offered opinions in a letter or in partnership with the Canadian Welfare Council in a submission to government. Often one or two branches would develop and submit joint policy positions. In 1943 it urged the federal government to modify the income tax exemption to all dependent children, including those born out of wedlock.54 In 1942, the Montreal branch of the CASW, in conjunction with the Montreal Council of Social Agencies, prepared a memorandum in response to the Quebec Public Charities Act.55 The Quebec Public Charities Act provided funding to institutions dealing with indigent people; the memorandum expressed concern over aspects of the administration of the act, including the interpretation of indigence, the inadequacy of the funding schedule, and the process of selection of cases admitted to institutions.56 In 1944 the Ontario branches of the CASW submitted a brief to the Ontario government’s Committee on Social Security and Reconstruction, reiterating the views it had already expressed to the federal committees on postwar reconstruction, particularly to the Marsh and Heagerty committees.57 In 1945 the CASW sent a letter to Prime Minister King, expressing deep concern over the plight of interned Japanese Canadians and urging the establishment of an impartial tribunal to review the situation.58 In that same year, it sent a letter to the minister of labour about the duration of a strike in Windsor and expressed concern over its impact on the welfare of the families.59

P O S T W A R R E C O N S T R U C T I O N A N D C I V I L D E F E N C E , 1 9 4 0 –– 6 0

97

In the mid-1940s two branches of the CASW expressed interest in a Canada-wide labour code. The eastern Ontario branch developed an internal labour studies group, and produced a report that promoted a Canadawide labour code.60 The B.C. mainland branch adopted a similar policy. The positions of both branches were in response to the passing, in 1944, of PC 1003, a federal government initiative under the War Measures Act. PC 1003 was considered a temporary measure developed under emergency conditions of war. The federal government effectively took over an active role in labour relations and approved the rights of workers to organize, bargain collectively, and strike (Ursel 1992: 201; McCrorie 1995; Baragar 1995; Forrest 1995). In anticipation of the war ending and jurisdiction over labour relations returning to the provinces, the two CASW branches urged that it was time to examine the entire issue of labour relations and develop a labour code for Canada. They argued that a labour code should fall within federal jurisdiction so that consistent standards could be applied across the provinces.61 In 1947 the Manitoba branch proposed improving policies and procedures for the adoption of children in order to ensure the rights of both the child and the birth mother.62 The CASW also provided input into Canada’s immigration policy, particularly with respect to displaced people in Europe. In 1947 it prepared a brief for the Senate Committee on Immigration, arguing, among other things, that it should be more liberal in its admission of displaced people to Canada, and that the government needed to develop immigration policies that did not discriminate on the basis of race or religion.63 That same year, 1947, in conjunction with the Canadian Welfare Council, the CASW prepared a brief to the Special Joint Committee appointed to examine the Indian Act. While full assimilation of Canada’s Aboriginal population was an end goal that was promoted, the emphasis was on the importance of independence and the extension of provincial services in health and education.64 The employment of qualified personnel (social workers) in the provision and administration of services for Aboriginal peoples was also stressed.65 Reporting on the position of the national office, the Montreal branch reported that: “It was felt we, as Canadians, should rid ourselves of the idea that Indians should remain dependent. It was pointed out that the Indians accepted responsibilities entailed in their Canadian citizenship and yet Canada, on the other hand, failed to provide the Indian population with services comparable to other sections of the population. The brief recommended that the Canadian Government undertake a progressive program to improve conditions of living for the Indians.”66 The following year, the Manitoba branch produced an extensive study on the “Problems of the Métis in

98

CHAPTER FIVE

Manitoba” in an effort to highlight the particular concerns of this group, primarily the destitution caused by poverty.67 Keeping an Eye on Child Welfare Although the Canadian Welfare Council, and in particular the ubiquitous Charlotte Whitton, took the lead in guiding child welfare in Canada, the CASW also monitored activities in the provinces. Particular attention was given to child welfare in Alberta and New Brunswick, two provinces that were far behind the others in establishing standards of care for children and hiring qualified workers (Rooke and Schnell 1983: 336–86). In response to a request for information about child welfare services in Canada, Joy Maines indicated that social workers were unhappy about child welfare in Alberta; she further described child welfare services in New Brunswick as spotty.68 Following the Poor Law tradition, neglected children in New Brunswick were housed in alms houses alongside adults. There were no special facilities for children who were “mentally defective,” and neither the understanding nor treatment of juvenile delinquency had kept up to developments in most other parts of the country. And although Whitton and the CWC had studied the situation in the 1920s and recommended changes, these practices were slow to be abandoned and in some communities continued well into the 1940s (Rooke and Schnell 1983). Child welfare had also been a central social welfare concern in Alberta since the 1920s and became somewhat sensational in the 1940s (Reichwein 2005c: 21). In 1943, in response to newspaper reports of the appalling state of child welfare, the Aberhart government established a child welfare commission to investigate the situation. The following year, a new Child Welfare Act was passed, which created a permanent Child Welfare Commission with a mandate to act in the interests of children at risk. But concerns about the care of children remained and in 1947, the Alberta chapter of the Imperial Order Daughters of the Empire (IODE) undertook a study in the field of child welfare (Mildon 1990: 40–42). Initially the IODE, with Charlotte Whitton at the helm, approached the welfare branch of the Alberta government to participate, but a Cabinet decision was made to not co-operate in the study. Moreover, the Alberta government directed its municipalities not to participate with the IODE study.69 The IODE decided to go it alone and began to inquire into child welfare throughout the province. The report, released in 1947, was a scathing indictment of both the Child Welfare branch generally and individuals who worked in the branch, and it made a number of allegations.70 One of the most sensational allegations was that the Alberta government was exporting adoptive babies across the border to the

P O S T W A R R E C O N S T R U C T I O N A N D C I V I L D E F E N C E , 1 9 4 0 –– 6 0

99

US.71 This spurred the Social Credit government to appoint a Commission of Inquiry to, among other tasks, investigate the “charges, allegations and reports relating to the Child Welfare Branch of the Department of Public Welfare, and its officials.”72 One of many important issues addressed by the commission was the IODE’s allegation that the welfare department had no trained social workers on its staff. The report of the commission addressed this issue in the following manner: In Alberta we have set up standards of proficiency in a wide range of human endeavor. . . . In the Department of Health we find doctors, dentists, nurses, trained stenographers, and many other classifications. It would seem very strange that if in the most difficult, tangled and intricate field, that of human relationships, no training would be required save that furnished by experience on the job. Yet that seems to be the position taken by the Child Welfare Branch in relation to its employees.73

But despite the strong endorsement to hire and assist in training qualified social workers in the province, the Alberta government continued its policies of ignoring professional workers for another two decades (Reichwein 2005c: 21). However, this endorsement of the profession provided ammunition for the professional association’s base in Alberta. A year after the commission’s report, discussions began about setting up a CASW branch in Alberta in 1950.74

Social Work and Civil Defence in Times of Peace The intensification of the Cold War in the 1950s had a chilling effect in Canada, bringing with it the fear of nuclear war. John Moore, of the McGill School of Social Work, cogently captured the mood of this time period: The hopelessness of the depression had given way to the agony of war, out of which there had arisen again the hope of a united and peaceful world, this in turn to be replaced by disillusionment, suspicion, cynicism. There was not only the insecurity of the cold war but also the impending military and nuclear arms race. (Moore n.d.: 65–66)

Although the federal government continued its postwar, peacetime reconstruction plans, the international threat of war, particularly atomic warfare, forced it to again direct its attention to civil defence. In March 1949 the federal government established a civil defence organization within the Department of National Defence. Following a Dominion–Provincial Conference in February 1951, this responsibility was transferred to a Civil Defence Division within the Department of National Health and Welfare,

100

CHAPTER FIVE

where it was considered to have a more appropriate home. In addition to civil defence, the new division also had the responsibility of dealing with natural disasters (fires, floods, storms) as they arose. The responsibilities of the federal and provincial governments were clearly delineated, with the federal government responsible for conducting research, providing training and equipment, and giving direct financial aid to provinces and municipalities. One important function of the Civil Defence Division was to plan for the health and welfare of civilians in the event of a nuclear war, and this involved co-operation from the social work community. The Canadian Welfare Council played a central role in mobilizing social agencies around the issues of health and welfare during this time, and was responsible for appointing a planning committee to facilitate this work.75 A conference was held in conjunction with the annual meeting of the CWC in May 1951. Topics discussed at the conference included: mental health in a period of stress; the economic setting of defence preparation; some aspects of welfare planning and defence; welfare needs of the armed forces and their dependants; recreation for the armed forces; and ongoing community services. A number of papers were presented by social work educators Charles Hendry, John Morgan, and Albert Rose –– all from the School of Social Work at the University of Toronto –– and John Moore, director of the McGill School of Social Work.76 In the early 1950s a national committee for civil defence was established within the CASW. Before this occurred, some branches (Edmonton, Halifax, and Windsor) had already set up such committees and were also represented in local civil defence planning groups.77 The role of social work in civil defence and any type of emergency planning was easily accepted by the CASW. Executive secretary Joy Maines expressed it clearly: “It seems as though modern social work was born in emergency (First World War and Halifax Disaster), fed on emergency (Post war rehabilitation, flu epidemic of 1918–19), crept through and learned to walk during emergencies (Depression and World War II), and has gone through fire and flood (Noronic, Rimouski, Fraser Valley, and Winnipeg) and now faces another form of disaster.”78 Several CASW branches held workshops on the role of social workers in civil defence; meetings were held in Montreal, Windsor, Edmonton, Winnipeg, and Halifax.79 The civil defence authorities in Ottawa strongly encouraged the director of each municipal welfare department to be closely associated with the organization of civil defence welfare services.80 In 1955 the Department of National Health and Welfare, Civil Defence Welfare Services initiated special welfare courses related to civil defence and welfare for various levels of personnel. In April 1956 special courses were designed for

P O S T W A R R E C O N S T R U C T I O N A N D C I V I L D E F E N C E , 1 9 4 0 –– 6 0

101

senior social work executives and social work educators. The urgency for this training was the “‘H’ Bomb threat.” The catastrophe of atomic warfare, it was felt, would unleash the need for coordinated services –– the provision of emergency clothing, lodging, food, registration, and enquiry. Many of these services would be provided by social workers and, in preparation for this, the Department of Health and Welfare initiated the defence training program.81 The government’s concerns with protecting citizens developed within the context of a Cold War ideology in which the world was perceived to be divided into two camps –– one good and one evil. According to the government, the evil communist camp was unwilling to change, and tensions emanated from this. George Davidson, deputy minister of welfare, clearly expressed this position in an appeal to social workers in 1956: We have in the world today, a basic cleavage in attitude and point of view toward the ways in which the society of man should be organized. There is a basic distrust between the two camps into which this one world of ours is divided. We, in the democratic camp, must be careful not to allow ourselves by wishful thinking to be deluded into imagining that changes in attitudes are taking place in the communist camp to a greater extent than in fact they are. I don’t believe that any thinking person can look upon this situation objectively without coming to the conclusion that there is a dangerous state of tension which has in it the potential of disaster for both sides. (Davidson 1956: 1–2)

He spelled out in graphic detail the horrors of an H-bomb attack: If a bomb of this destructive power [5–10 megaton] were dropped on the Parliament Buildings in Ottawa –– Ground Zero –– a fire-ball would be formed about 3¼ miles across. Beneath which a crater would be created in the ground approximately one hundred and seventy-five feet deep, and which would extend outwards from the point of impact for a half-mile or more in every direction. All of the earth and material that was within that area would be sucked up into the air in the familiar mushroom-shaped cloud, and would in due course fall out as fine radioactive dust over an area approximately two hundred miles long and forty miles wide. In addition, complete destruction would be caused for an area 3 miles in radius from Ground Zero; for the next 3 mile radius there would be severe damage where part of only the most heavily structured buildings would remain standing; then another 3 mile radius within which area there would be moderate damage; and then an additional 3 mile radius where there would be light damage. (Davidson 1956: 3–4)

His article closed with an appeal to social workers to commit their professional skills and resources to mobilizing for civil defence (Davidson 1956: 5). Both the CASW and schools of social work took the tasks of civil defence and welfare seriously. In April 1956, directors and members of faculty from

102

CHAPTER FIVE

schools across Canada met to learn more about the Civil Defence Division, particularly the role of the welfare services section (The Social Worker 1956b: 39). At the biennial meeting of 1956, the assistant executive secretary of the CASW reported on the civil defence training courses, and the membership adopted a resolution that outlined the responsibilities of social workers in civil defence.82 The resolution acknowledged social workers’ ethical responsibility to assist wherever human and social welfare values were jeopardized, and because of the potential hazards to well-being derived from both natural disasters (floods, fires, hurricanes) and from “the catastrophe of nuclear war,” the skills of social workers must be put to use. But social workers were adamant that participating in civil defence was not an endorsement of war, and the resolution included the clause that “the CASW holds the abiding conviction that war in any of its forms is a reprehensible instrument for the resolving of international difference.”83 Because social workers still had the obligation to help, the resolution declared that the CASW would willingly collaborate in whatever way it could, with the civil defence organization nationally, provincially, and locally. As international tensions in the world escalated, the federal government, in 1959, initiated a “new” Civil Defence arrangement.84 With this new arrangement, the minister of national health and welfare was given the civil defence powers, duties, and functions of providing assistance to provincial and municipal governments in preparation for emergency accommodation, food, supplies, and guidance and welfare assistance for people who lost or left their homes as a result of war or apprehensions of war.85 In a letter to the CASW from the welfare administrator of Civil Defence, Gladys Dunn identified two main civil defence issues of concern in the area of welfare –– the evacuation of people and the provision of shelters from fallout. In the event that Canada received a “strategic warning,” evacuation plans would have to be initiated immediately and would involve the evacuation of welfare institutions, as well as preparation of the receiving units. Any part of Canada may be subject to lethal fallout, as fallout will cover an area of thousands of square miles downwind from each 5 megaton H Bomb which bursts. Welfare-wise, this possible situation creates the need for considering the contents of fallout shelters which are essential to the survival and well being of the persons who will be required to remain in them from 48 hours to 2 weeks –– especially in relation to Welfare Institutions and unattached children and dependent adults.86

The letter identified some of the problems that “professional welfare people” would need to consider in participating in planning and organizing of the civil defence welfare services. These included the need for social workers to be trained in adapting their skills to disasters, and the need to develop

P O S T W A R R E C O N S T R U C T I O N A N D C I V I L D E F E N C E , 1 9 4 0 –– 6 0

103

plans for evacuation of welfare institutions and plans for reception units. Moreover, planning was required for safeguarding documents related to social welfare and a need to become educated on the psychological implications of shelter life.87 The letter to the CASW ended with a request to raise the subject of the civil defence welfare services with members at the CASW meeting in September 1959. Specifically, the welfare administrator requested that the CASW revisit its resolution of 1956 with the view of strengthening it and proposing specific measures for making the resolution operational.88 At an annual meeting in September 1959, the issue of reaffirmation of its 1956 resolution was brought to the membership.89 In the presentation leading up to the resolution, the board of directors of the CASW addressed the fact that, for the most part, social workers were employees of agencies, and that their involvement in civil defence would be circumscribed by the convictions of the boards of directors of those agencies. The proposed resolution included the 1956 version with additional clauses –– that the CASW would again bring the issue to the attention of its members (through publications), and that branches would be asked to inform themselves on civil defence planning in their specific areas and to consider, in conjunction with other local planning bodies, how social workers can work best in their regions; the resolution was adopted at the meeting.90

Conclusion The 1940s was a decade of optimism in terms of social security in Canada. The role of government, particularly the federal government, in matters of social welfare had expanded significantly, and the social work profession was ready and eager to participate in it. The CASW, through its national office and branch offices, had become a regular and active participant in the early discussions over the future directions of the Canadian welfare state. Its responses to a broad range of issues, including health, housing, welfare, employment, among others, were consistent and practical. Typically the CASW proposed a coordinated set of programs and services, reflecting strongly its recognition that housing, health, employment, and family functioning were closely related. It consistently prompted government to raise its benefit rates and regularly brought to the attention of policy-makers the importance of avoiding stigmatization in social policies; both issues reflected social workers’ front-line experiences with the recipients of government programs and services. And it tirelessly promoted social workers in all areas of the newly constructed welfare state. The strength of the CASW’s responses to government lies in the fact that it was clearly committed to improving the material conditions of the people who were most affected by the policies. It fell short, however, in having a

104

CHAPTER FIVE

clearly developed infrastructure for adopting positions on issues. At times the branches responded to issues of national concern; other times it was the regional offices. Moreover, it was unclear when and why the association would choose to respond to one issue and not another. A second limitation of the profession’s involvement during this era was that its position was always reactive; it seemed unable, at this time, to initiate discussion on issues, even if felt strongly about them. The reasons for this are speculative. It was still a young organization; the welfare state was still new; the CASW did not have the resources to be more active; or perhaps it lacked the political will to risk alienating itself from the state at this early stage of professionalization. The association took every opportunity to offer leadership in all aspects of social welfare, including civil defence services. The issue of civil defence in Canada, and social workers involvement in it, continued into the 1960s. In the late 1950s and early 1960s, the federal government constructed a number of emergency fallout shelters for selected people. And while the public remained concerned over the threat of the bomb, fortunately, it never materialized and eventually the threat dissipated and social workers’ roles in civil defence became more focused on the effects of natural disasters.91 Although the professional association had been eager to assist the federal government in civil defence, its concern over nuclear war was never translated toward working for peace. Nor would it support social workers’ initiatives in this regard as discussed in the following chapter. Its emphasis on gaining credibility and recognition as a profession was assisted by its new role in the welfare state, but this new role prevented the CASW from becoming a more radical social action force.

Notes 1 This organization has gone through several name changes: the Canadian Council on Child Welfare (1920–30), the Canadian Council on Child and Family Welfare (1930–35), the Canadian Welfare Council (1935–68), and currently the Canadian Council on Social Development (1968). As the name changes suggest, the council began with a focus on children, but eventually changed to a focus on the family and then on more general social welfare and social development issues. See Splane (1996). 2 The Royal Commission on Dominion–Provincial Relations, often referred to as the Rowell-Sirois Commission, consisted of Joseph Sirois, J.W. Dafoe, H.F. Angus, R.A. Mackay, and was initially chaired by Hon. Newton Rowell. After Rowell fell ill, the chairmanship of the commission was turned over to Sirois. 3 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 1, File 27, General Meeting, Reports and Correspondence, 1940. Harry Cassidy, “Implications for the Social Services in The Report on Dominion–Provincial Relations: I The Rowell-Sirois Report and Social Services in Summary,” prepared for the Canadian Welfare Council, 1940.

P O S T W A R R E C O N S T R U C T I O N A N D C I V I L D E F E N C E , 1 9 4 0 –– 6 0

105

4 Ibid., p. 7. 5 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 40, File 20, Royal Commission on Dominion–Provincial Relations, CASW Briefs and Related Material, 1938–40, the Ontario branches of the Canadian Association of Social Workers, submission made to the Royal Commission on Dominion–Provincial Relations, Toronto, April 1938. 6 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 40, File 20, Royal Commission on Dominion–Provincial Relations, CASW Briefs and Related Material, 1938–40. CASW, Montreal branch, “To the Royal Commission on Dominion–Provincial Relations,” n.d. 7 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 40, File 21, Royal Commission on Dominion–Provincial Relations, CASW Briefs and Related Material, 1938, 1941, brief presented to Royal Commission on Dominion–Provincial Relations, January 17, 1938 –– at Ottawa. 8 Ibid., p. 2. 9 Ibid., pp. 3–4. 10 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 23, File 29, Special Committee to consider the best procedure regarding CASW and the Sirois Report and to instigate necessary activities, includes minutes, 1940–1941, letter to the Right Honourable W.L. Mackenzie King, prime minister of Canada, from board of directors, CASW, December 18, 1940. 11 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 23, File 29, Special Committee to consider the best procedure regarding CASW and the Sirois Report and to instigate necessary activities, includes minutes, 1940–41, letter to the Right Honourable W.L. Mackenzie King, prime minister of Canada, from board of directors, CASW, December 18, 1940. 12 Ibid. 13 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 40, File 21, Royal Commission on Dominion–Provincial Relations, CASW briefs and related material, 1938, 1941, letter to the Honourable Adelard Godbout, premier of the province of Quebec, from Gwyneth Howell, CASW, January 10, 1941. 14 Ibid. 15 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 20, File 9, [Progressive Program Committee], Unemployment Insurance Studies, 1934, c.1935, 1936–37, 1940. Canadian Association of Social Workers, memorandum on unemployment insurance to the Government of Canada, May 1940. 16 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 20, File 9, [Progressive Program Committee], Unemployment Insurance Studies, 1934, c.1935, 1936–37, 1940. Canadian Association of Social Workers, brief on unemployment insurance to the Government of Canada, n.d. 17 Ibid., p. 1. 18 Ibid. 19 Ibid. 20 Leonard Marsh, letter to Dr. Cyril James, chairman, Advisory Committee on Reconstruction, February 17, 1943, in Report on Social Security for Canada, 1943 (reprint) (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1975), p. 2. 21 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 10, File 11, Canada in War and Post War Period Committee, Health Insurance, Marsh Report, and minutes of western Ontario branch, 1942–44. Canadian Association of Social Workers, brief by the CASW on the Marsh Report, 1944, p. 1.

106

CHAPTER FIVE

22 Ibid., pp. 2–3. 23 PANB, RS 147, E 12.2, letter to F.C. Squires from Peter Hughes regarding Mrs. Currie, June 17, 1944. 24 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 10, File 11, Canada in War and Post War Period Committee, Health Insurance, Marsh Report, and minutes of western Ontario branch, 1942–44. Canadian Association of Social Workers, brief by the CASW on the Marsh Report, 1944, p. 4. 25 Ibid., p. 4. 26 Ibid., p. 4. 27 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 10, File 11, Canada in War and Post War Period Committee, Health Insurance, Marsh Report, and minutes of western Ontario branch, 1942–44, letter to Elisabeth Wallace, executive secretary of the CASW, from Frieda Held, eastern Ontario branch, CASW, April 27, 1943. 28 Ibid. 29 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 10, File 11, Canada in War and Post War Period Committee, Health Insurance, Marsh Report, and minutes of western Ontario branch, 1942–44, letter from J.J. Heagerty, chairman of the Advisory Committee on Health Insurance, to Elisabeth Wallace, executive secretary, CASW, July 13, 1943. 30 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 10, File 11, Canada in War and Post War Period Committee, Health Insurance, Marsh Report, and minutes of western Ontario branch, 1942–44, letter from Elisabeth Wallace, CASW, to Dr. J.J. Heagerty, Advisory Committee on Health Insurance, July 14, 1943. 31 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 10, File 11, Canada in War and Post War Period Committee, Health Insurance, Marsh Report, and minutes of western Ontario branch, 1942–44, brief of the Canadian Association of Social Workers on the Draft Health Insurance Bill, 1943. 32 Ibid., p. 1. 33 Ibid., p. 1. 34 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 10, File 11, Canada in War and Post War Period Committee, Health Insurance, Marsh Report, and minutes of western Ontario branch, 1942–44, brief of the Canadian Association of Social Workers on the Draft Health Insurance Bill, 1943. 35 Ibid., p. 2. 36 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 40, File 3, Housing, 1939–47, Canada Committee, CASW, Montreal branch, “Some Highlights of the Curtis Report: A Memorandum Concerning the Report of the Sub-committee on Housing and Community Planning (of the Federal Advisory Committee on Reconstruction) Together with Certain Recommendations,” March 1946, p. 4. 37 Ibid., p. 4. 38 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 54, Housing, 1942–46, “Panel Discussion on Housing,” presented to the eastern branch, CASW, May 7, 1943. 39 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 40, File 3, Housing, 1939–47, Canada Committee, CASW, Montreal branch, “Some Highlights of the Curtis Report: A Memorandum Concerning the Report of the Sub-committee on Housing and Community Planning (of the Federal Advisory Committee on Reconstruction) Together with Certain Recommendations,” March 1946. 40 Ibid., p. 7.

P O S T W A R R E C O N S T R U C T I O N A N D C I V I L D E F E N C E , 1 9 4 0 –– 6 0

107

41 Ibid., p. 6. 42 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 40, File 3, Housing, 1939–47. Canada Committee, CASW, “Housing Survey,” March 1947. 43 Ibid., p. 2. 44 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 10, File 11, Canada in War and Post War Period Committee, Health Insurance, Marsh Report, and minutes of western Ontario branch, 1942–44. Canadian Association of Social Workers, brief by the CASW on the Marsh Report, 1944, p. 1. 45 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 39, File 25, Sub-committee of the Committee on Public Welfare Services, Montreal branch, CASW, 1944, “Family Allowances.” 46 Ibid., p. 6. 47 Ibid., p. 6. 48 Ibid., p. 4. 49 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 39, File 25, Family Allowance, Correspondence and Clippings, 1942–45, letter from Elisabeth Wallace, executive secretary, CASW, to Dr. S.K. Jaffary, School of Social Work, University of Toronto, September 1944. 50 See NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 39, File 25, Family Allowance, Correspondence and Clippings, 1942–45, for a series of newspaper articles from the Ottawa Citizen, July 1944. 51 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 39, File 25, Family Allowance, Correspondence and Clippings, 1942–45. 52 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 39, File 25, Family Allowance, Correspondence and Clippings, 1942–45. Elisabeth Wallace, “Wages and Family Allowances,” The Ottawa Citizen (July 13, 1944). 53 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 23, File 14, [Social Action Committee], brief to the Dominion Conference on Reconstruction, 1945. CASW, “A Brief Prepared by a Special Committee of the Canadian Association of Social Workers to the Dominion Provincial Conference on Reconstruction,” December 1945. 54 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 40, File 4, Income War Tax and Illegitimate Children, 1943, letter from Elisabeth Wallace to Prime Minister Mackenzie King, June 10, 1943. 55 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 29, File 8, Montreal branch, Quebec Public Charities Act, 1942. Montreal Council of Social Agencies and the CASW, Montreal branch, “The Quebec Public Charities Act: A Memorandum,” June 1942. 56 Ibid., pp. 10–11. 57 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 33, File 17, CASW, Ontario branches, “Brief on Social Security and the Public Welfare Services in Ontario,” January 1944. 58 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 4, File 12, Board of Directors, General Correspondence and Printed Matter, n.d., 1944–46, letter to Prime Minister Mackenzie King from the CASW, October 24, 1945. 59 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 4, File 12, Board of Directors, General Correspondence and Printed Matter, n.d., 1944–46, letter to Honourable Humphrey Mitchell, minister of labour, from the CASW, 1945. 60 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 10, File 24, Canada in War and Post War Period, Committee, Labour Code, n.d., 1945–47, report of the Labour Studies Group of eastern Ontario branch of the CASW, n.d. 61 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 10, File 24, Canada in War and Post War Period Committee, Labour Code, n.d., 1945–47. Sub-committee of the Canada Committee,

108

62

63

64

65 66

67

68

69 70 71

72 73 74 75

76 77

CHAPTER FIVE

B.C. mainland branch, CASW, “Some Considerations of Present Day Legislation in the Field of Labour Relations and Its Application to a Possible Labour Code for Canada,” 1946. NAC, MG 28, I 44, Vol. 23, File 11, Social Action Committee, Unmarried Parenthood, 1937, 1947, 1949, 1953. CASW, Manitoba branch, “Report of the CASW, Manitoba Study Group on Unmarried Mothers and Adoption,” 1947. NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 38, File 16, Board of Directors, Social Workers with UNRRA and Abroad, Correspondence, 1946–48, c.1958, “Social Workers,” n.d.; letter to the Right Honourable W.L. Mackenzie King, prime minister of Canada, from Joy Maines, April 17, 1946; CASW, “Brief presented to Senate Committee on Immigration and Labour,” June 25, 1947. NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 5, File 7, Board of Directors, Correspondence with Federal Department, 1948–50, letter to H.L. Keenleyside, deputy minister, Department of Mines Resources from R.E.G. Davis, executive director, CWC, June 20, 1949. NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 5, File 6, Board of Directors, General Correspondence (President), n.d., 1948–50, letter to Stuart Jaffary, August 1949. NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 29, File 17, Montreal branch, includes minutes and biennial report, 1947–50, “Minutes of a Meeting of the Montreal Branch of the CASW held at Montreal School of Social Work, 12/3/1947,” p. 2. NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 31, File 5, Manitoba branch, Métis in Manitoba, 1947–49. Manitoba branch, CASW, “Problems of the Métis in Manitoba,” October 1948. NAC, MG 288, I 441, Vol. 5, File 4, Board of Directors, Correspondence with Board Members and Others (1), n.d., 1948–50, letter to Mrs. Florence Clifton from Joy Maines, executive secretary, CASW, November 8, 1949. Alberta, Report on the Child Welfare Branch, Department of Welfare, Province of Alberta, (Chairman Howson), Edmonton, 1948, pp. 9–13. B.E. Krewski, “The Alberta Department of Social Services and Community Health: A History,” unpublished paper, March 23, 1979. Karen Hill, Oral History of Social Work in Canada, “Interview with Father Pat O’Byrne,” Oral History Project (Ottawa: CASW, 1984), p. 13; The Advocate (newspaper of the AASW) 3, 3 (1978). Alberta, Report on the Child Welfare Branch, Department of Welfare, Province of Alberta (Chairman Howson) (Edmonton: Department of Welfare, 1948). Ibid., p. 66. ACSW, Records of the Alberta branches, minutes of the meeting held Wednesday, July 15, 1950, at the home of Miss Isobel Munroe, Edmonton. NAC, Canadian Council on Social Development Fonds, MG 28, I 10, Canadian Welfare Council, “Report of Meetings on Social Welfare and Defence Held in Toronto,” report by Henry Stubbins, secretary, Committee on Social Welfare and Defence, Canadian Welfare Council, May 4, 1951. Ibid. NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 40, File 26, Joy Maines, “The Tasks Facing the Canadian Association of Social Workers and Their Implications for Branches of the Organization,” address given to joint meeting of Ontario branches, CASW, Toronto, September 13, 1951.

P O S T W A R R E C O N S T R U C T I O N A N D C I V I L D E F E N C E , 1 9 4 0 –– 6 0

109

78 Ibid., p. 7. 79 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 30, letter to Esther Kerry, October 23, 1952; MG 28, I 441, Vol. 40, File 26, “Address Given to Joint Meeting Ontario Branches,” CASW, Toronto, September 13, 1952. 80 British Columbia Association of Social Workers, Records, address by S.J. Bailey, civil defence welfare administrative officer, “The Place of Welfare in Civil Defence,” British Columbia Welfare, Social Welfare Branch, Department of Health and Welfare, Victoria, B.C., November 1952, pp. 3–5. 81 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 38, File 28, Civil Defence, 1951, 1955–56, letter to Joy Maines, executive secretary, CASW, from Gladys Dunn, welfare administrator, Civil Defence, Department of National Health and Welfare, December 8, 1955. 82 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 23, File 13, excerpts from minutes, Biennial Meeting of CASW, Edmonton, June 18, 1956. 83 Ibid. 84 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 2, File 12, letter to Joy Maines, executive secretary, CASW, from Gladys Dunn, welfare administrator, Civil Defence, Department of National Health and Welfare, September 1, 1959. 85 Ibid. 86 Ibid., p. 2. 87 Ibid. 88 Ibid. 89 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 23, File 13, “Proposed Resolutions,” 1959. 90 Ibid. 91 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 23, File 13, “Proposed Resolutions,” 1959.

This page intentionally left blank

CHAPTER SIX

Social Work in the Cold War Era, 1940–60: Radicalism and Repression The Cold War covered a period of approximately four and a half decades from the mid-1940s to 1991 (Bartels and Bartels 2006: 265), but it was particularly harsh in the 1950s. Along with a focus on civil defence, this period in Canadian history was characterized by severe restrictions on freedoms of expression and assembly imposed by the state and supported by other elements in society. Repression took many forms: spreading rumours, ostracizing individuals or groups, censorship and monitoring activities, Red-baiting, blacklisting, firing or stopping job promotions, prosecuting, incarcerating, deporting, and conducting selective immigration practices. It also had the insidious effect of creating a climate of fear, driving radical ideas and activities underground, creating suspicion among the population, turning people against each other, isolating people, generating misinformation, and creating and perpetuating a general ignorance about life in “enemy countries.” And although the Canadian state had been involved in repressive activities before this time, state repression increased during the Cold War and, for those who grew up in this era, the Cold War became “the very air we breathed” (Whitaker and Hewitt 2003: 6). Individuals or groups whose ideas or actions were considered by the state to deviate too far –– either to the left or the right –– were targets of state repression. Western Cold War ideology, however, tended to support the forces of wealth and power and undermine those that stood in opposition to it (Whitaker and Marcuse 1994: xi). This meant that, in Canada, the left –– particularly 111

112

CHAPTER SIX

socialists, communists, left-leaning trade unionists, and peace activists –– were the main targets of political repression. During World War II, the Canadian government had “quasi-totalitarian powers over domestic political affairs” (Whitaker 1986: 135) through the Defence of Canada Regulations, which were enacted under the authority of the War Measures Act. These powers included limiting freedom of expression and political dissent; and curtailing the freedoms of many Canadians, including those of German, Italian, and Japanese descent, members of religious organizations, gay men, communists or those assumed to be communists, including trade unionists on the left (Whitaker and Marcuse 1994). Approximately 325 newspapers and periodicals were banned, people were deported or interned, and the Communist Party of Canada was outlawed (Whitaker and Marcuse 1994: 7). The repression of social workers through history, for the most part, reflects what was occurring in society generally. There is no evidence to suggest that the professional association was ever identified as a security risk, but individual social workers who spoke against state policies, and who advocated for social and economic justice and peace, were within easy reach of the long, repressive arm of the state. Political activists were driven underground, out of their jobs, and sometimes out of the country, but the histories of most of these people have not been recorded. Unlike their counterparts in the United States, Canadian social workers did not form anything similar to a rank-and-file movement (which had 15,000 members at its peak) (Abramovitz 1998: 515) within their profession, and this presents challenges to uncovering an organized radical history. Canadians, in fact, tend to be more aware of the undemocratic nature of the McCarthy era and the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) (Andrews and Reisch 1997) than they are about events that unfolded in Canada. Repression of Canadians during the Cold War occurred under a cloak of secrecy. Many people were unaware that they were considered security threats. Moreover, Canadians who were objects of state repression had very few protections; there was no human rights legislation nor did the Charter of Rights and Freedoms exist. This chapter focuses on some of the activities and consequences for social workers who were considered subversive by an increasingly paranoid state and the supporters of the state. While there are likely other examples of social activism and repression, there is clear evidence to support the targeting of their activities in the postwar daycare movement in Toronto, as well as the peace movement. In this chapter we also document the case of repression against social worker Mary Jennison for her political work as a social worker in the community, and later for her active involvement in the peace movement.

S O C I A L W O R K I N T H E C O L D W A R E R A , 1 9 4 0 –– 6 0

113

The Daycare Movement Women’s entry into the paid labour force increased dramatically during World War II. As men were sent to fight, female workers were called on to help with the war effort. With this trend, debates over the role of mothers working outside the home, their roles in the nuclear family, and the desirability of state-funded child-care centres resurfaced with a new intensity.1 During the war, the federal government introduced a cost-sharing arrangement with the provinces for the development of state-funded nurseries (for infants) and daycare centres (for children over the age of five). Ontario and Quebec took advantage of this arrangement. By the end of the war, nearly 2,500 children in Ontario had spots in twenty-eight daycare nurseries (nineteen of them in Toronto) and forty-four programs attached to schools (Prentice 1995: 259). In the 1940s some sections of the social work community actively promoted the extension of daycare centres.2 In 1941, the Day Nurseries Committee of the Welfare Council of Toronto commissioned a study of the childcare arrangements of a group of women who had been unsuccessful in placing their children in the West End Crèche (Finkel 1995a: 108). At the National Social Work Conference in 1942, the Toronto Welfare Council reported that most of the women they interviewed were poor, and that daycare centres were important in assisting those women who required employment in order to survive (Finkel 1995a: 108). That same year, the executive secretary of the Welfare Council of Toronto, Bessie Touzel, submitted a plan to the federal and provincial governments for the provision of daycare (Finkel 1995a: 97, fn. 28). For the most part, social workers’ support of daycare was based mainly on their commitment to alleviating poverty in the family. By providing childcare support, women would be able to work and avoid poverty and destitution. Alvin Finkel (1995a) argues that this maternalist social work perspective tended to reinforce the notion that women should have primary responsibility for the care of their children, a prevalent view reflected in social work articles. For example, in a 1951 article of The Social Worker, the author discusses the fact that some women have to work for a living, but, she states, there is always a small group of women who are not satisfied with the role of housewife and mother; there is an implication that this is something unusual and that women should always want to be homemakers (Harrison 1951: 11). A smaller and more radical feminist position was espoused by Laura Jamieson and Dorise Nielsen, who publicly supported child care based on women’s fundamental right to employment (Finkel 2006: 203; Finkel 1995a: 108).3 Although the extension of child-care centres was actively promoted

114

CHAPTER SIX

by some social workers, it was never fully endorsed by the social work and social welfare communities. George Davidson, executive director of the Canadian Welfare Council from 1941 to 1946, for example, refused to support these social workers’ initiative (Finkel 1995a: 108), and there was little discussion of daycare in the records of the CASW and its journal, The Social Worker, before the 1960s. In 1944 the federal government made a commitment that after the war ended, the government’s domestic priority would be social and human welfare (Prentice 1995: 259), but a year after the war ended, it eliminated its provincial funding arrangement for child care. The federal government’s withdrawal from funding was accompanied by a propaganda campaign by the state, employers, and the media that emphasized mothers’ main responsibilities as full-time motherhood, and that those women should be removed from the workforce (Finkel 1995a: 94). In an attempt to keep the child-care centres open and to expand the numbers, a broad-based, strong, and influential coalition was formed. The Day Nurseries and Day Care Parents Association, created in February 1946, was comprised of mothers of children in the centres, women’s groups, welfare agencies, and members of the CCF and Communist Party; it also had the support of civic politicians and school trustees (Finkel 1995a: 95). Social workers were included in the ranks of some of these organizations. Hazel Wigdor (1986), a social work activist and author, was one such school trustee in 1946 who supported keeping the daycare centres after the war ended.4 In fact, Wigdor advocated for an expanded Marxist analysis and organized response to women’s inequality in general (Sangster 1989: 181). For the first few years of its existence the Day Nurseries and Day Care Parents Association received widespread community support. The association was successful in convincing the Ontario government to fill the funding gap created by the federal government’s withdrawal. The association adopted the view that daycares were essential for the economic survival of women raising children, and that it was also an important preventive measure against juvenile delinquency. For a few years these views were strongly supported in the community, but that ended in the late 1940s when the association became the target of an anti-communist attack by daycare opponents. Taking advantage of the well-known fact that communist women played an important role in the development of the association, this information was now used to discredit it. The opponents of daycare argued that the centres represented women’s abdication of their motherhood responsibilities, which would lead to the eventual demise of the nuclear family. Moreover, the centres were attacked on the basis that they represented a

S O C I A L W O R K I N T H E C O L D W A R E R A , 1 9 4 0 –– 6 0

115

Soviet-style state-centred approach to child rearing that was regarded with suspicion. This Red-baiting and “anti-communist frenzy” led to the demise of the association, and by 1951, over half of the daycare centres were closed and the Day Nurseries and Day Care Parents Association was dissolved (Whitaker and Marcuse 1994: 292); it was a victim of the Cold War. During the postwar reconstruction period, K. Phyllis Burns, secretary of the Child Welfare Division of the Canadian Welfare Council and first permanent secretary of the Canadian Conference on Social Work, continued in her efforts to make adequate child-care provisions for working mothers a priority for Canadian social workers. In spite of these efforts, with the exception of an occasional article (Harrison 1951), child care was not taken up as a priority for social workers before the late 1960s (Finkel 2006: 205; Finkel 1995a: 110).

The Peace Movement For some social workers there has always been a close relationship between social welfare and peace.5 This was demonstrated as early as 1915, when Jane Addams assisted in the formation and became the first president of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF) (Bussey and Tims 1965; Sullivan 1993). The WILPF was an international women’s peace organization that had branches and members in Canada. Laura Jamieson, considered by mainstream society at the time as a “dangerous woman,” organized the B.C. branch of the WILPF in 1921 (Roberts 1989: 287). In 1925, Agnes MacPhail, CCF member of Parliament, and four other Canadian women attended the WILPF Congress (Bussey and Tims 1965: 49). Historically the Canadian state had viewed the peace movement in Canada as subversive –– a “foreign” movement that was seen to undermine the existing social, political, and economic order. This was particularly the case during the Cold War era. The Canadian Peace Congress While the WILPF had, and continues to have, a presence in Canada, the most influential peace organization in postwar Canada was the Canadian Peace Congress, formed in 1948. For several years, the Peace Congress was synonymous with the peace movement in Canada. At the founding convention, Dr. James Endicott, a United Church minister, was the chairman; Eva Sanderson was the vice-chairman; and former social worker Mary Jennison was the executive secretary (Endicott 1980: 264). Social workers Margaret Gould and Eva Kenyon were also present at the founding meeting and were later Red-baited for attending.6 The main objective of the Peace Congress

116

CHAPTER SIX

was to work toward avoiding nuclear war, a threat that dominated the Western world during the Cold War period. According to the Congress, disagreements between nations that threatened world peace should be dealt with through the United Nations (Endicott 1980: 265). Its objectives resonated with a Canadian population concerned over the threat of nuclear war, and the peace movement grew quickly in Canada in the late 1940s and early 1950s. At the second annual gathering of the Canadian Peace Congress in 1949, for example, there were 1,706 paid, registered delegates in attendance.7 Hundreds of meetings were held across Canada; in one gathering at Maple Leaf Gardens in Toronto, there were 12,000 people assembled. That same year the Peace Congress collected 200,000 signatures for its “Ban the Bomb” campaign (Endicott 1980: 264). This mass support was taken seriously by an increasingly paranoid state. The Canadian Peace Congress was connected to the international peace movement and was affiliated with the World Peace Council. In 1948 and 1949, James Endicott and Mary Jennison travelled to peace gatherings in Poland, New York, Italy, and Mexico City on behalf of the Peace Congress.8 In 1950 Dr. Endicott travelled to a conference in Stockholm, Sweden, and it was there that the historic “Stockholm Appeal” was drafted. It called for the banning of atomic weapons and stated that governments using atomic weapons would be declared war criminals. The Stockholm Appeal was circulated throughout the world, and in Canada, 300,000 signatures were collected by the peace movement’s door-to-door efforts (Endicott 1980: 267). The mainstream Canadian press, for the most part, attempted to discredit the peace movement, calling it naive, gullible, and open to manipulation and exploitation by foreign powers. Since the Labour Progressive Party (formerly the Communist Party of Canada, which was banned in 1940) was the only political party in Canada to consistently support the peace movement, it is not surprising that the Congress became the target of anti-communism and Red-baiting by the media: “the press in general encouraged the public to label peace workers as ‘fellow travelers,’ and to dismiss the peace movement as a ‘communist front’” (Endicott 1980: 265). The Canadian government’s concern over the strength of the peace movement intensified when, in 1948 and 1950, the Canadian Peace Congress hosted two visits from the Very Reverend Hewlett Johnson, dean of Canterbury Cathedral. Attendance at the presentation of the “Red dean,” as he came to be known, surpassed all expectations in both Canada and the US. Five thousand people gathered in Winnipeg to hear him speak; twenty thousand gathered in Madison Square Garden, New York, and in Toronto, 5,000 people were turned away from a meeting that already had three thousand

S O C I A L W O R K I N T H E C O L D W A R E R A , 1 9 4 0 –– 6 0

117

attendees. According to Stephen Endicott, son and biographer of James Endicott, interest in Reverend Johnson’s speeches “reflected the concern felt among the people about the growing danger of war and their desire for leadership towards peace” (Endicott 1980: 265). Many of the issues raised by the dean of Canterbury were considered controversial: he insisted, for example, that the USSR wanted peace as much as Canada and other nations, and he spoke of different, but complementary, perspectives of liberty between East and West. The dean’s visits did not go unnoticed by the Canadian and American governments, and efforts were made to block his entry into the US, but public pressure forced the government to abandon its plan (Endicott 1980: 268). While in Canada, the dean’s public meetings were disrupted by organized protestors and hooligans.9 Later, in 1950, when the Peace Congress requested to meet with the government of Canada to present the “Ban the Bomb” petition, it was refused (Endicott 1980: 273). The peace movement in Canada created controversy in a number of communities. For example, some religious orders felt that the Congress endorsed atheist societies, such as China and the Soviet Union. For other Christians, the peace movement was a positive force that brought groups together. There were “defiant clergy” to be found on every committee of the peace movement, and the Congress collected the signatures of more than one hundred ministers on the Stockholm Appeal (Endicott 1980: 269). The CCF was also split in its support of the peace movement of the 1950s, and Endicott was denied renewal of his membership for being too soft on communists (Endicott 1980: 269). Many in the leadership of the CCF were more closely aligned in their viewpoints with the Liberals and Conservatives in their support of US policy and the view that the peace movement was a conspiracy by the USSR. Included in this group were M.J. Coldwell, Angus MacInnis, David Lewis, and Donald MacDonald.10 M.J. Coldwell refused to sign the “Ban the Bomb” petition, calling the petition “an instrument of Russia.”11 Other members of the CCF, including William Irvine, Eva Sanderson, and Mrs. Rae Lucock, played active roles in the movement, and T.C. Douglas was also supportive of it.12 The Peace Congress was a target for the RCMP, who regarded it as a pawn of the Soviet Union; these sentiments also were regularly expressed in the mainstream media (Roberts 1989: 294). The activities of James Endicott, Mary Jennison, and numerous other people were regularly monitored by the RCMP, and the federal government considered trying Endicott for sedition (Whitaker and Hewitt 2003: 103, 105). The combined anti-communist attacks by the state, the media, and anti-peace forces took their toll on the

118

CHAPTER SIX

Peace Congress, and by the late 1950s the movement became increasingly marginalized and membership began to decrease, but it managed to survive for several more decades. Social Workers for Peace The extent to which Canadian social workers were active in the peace movement is difficult to gauge with any accuracy. In the United States, the relationship between social work, the labour movement, anti-fascist protest, and pro-democracy movements were much clearer. Initially it was the rank-andfile movement, followed by continued progressive leadership of individuals such as Mary van Kleeck and Bertha Reynolds that kept a radical left-wing analysis of national and international politics alive. At the outbreak of World War II, Mary van Kleeck wrote an article in Social Work Today in which she provided an analysis of the causes of the war and encouraged social workers to understand their work in terms of the broader international struggle for peace and justice (van Kleeck 1940: 5–8). A few months later Bertha Reynolds wrote an article in the same journal in which she described fascism as a result of a profit system that “can no longer be made to work without destroying democratic civil rights” (Reynolds 1940: 9). Social work trade unions, she argued, linked the profession to other workers (Reynolds 1940: 11). In 1941 Social Work Today published an issue titled Social Work, Peace, and the People’s Well-Being (pamphlet no. 7), edited by van Kleeck, Reynolds, Hetzel, and Bancroft. It included articles on social work and the world crisis, social work and civil rights, defence and unemployment. It was intended to assist social workers in being able to “keep its keel even, to keep its itself identified with the will of the American people for peace, for social progress, for defense of our dearly won and dearly maintained civil liberties” (van Kleeck et al. 1941: 3). Throughout the 1940s and into the 1950s, Reynolds and van Kleeck continued to promote a left-wing critique of World War II, the Cold War, and world events generally.13 In Canada, while individual social workers were active members of the peace movement, the professional association distanced itself. There is some indication that the Canadian Peace Congress requested the CASW representation at a forum addressing the effects of war on world peace, but there is no indication that the CASW, as an organization, ever responded or participated in it.14 Mary Jennison, Hazel Wigdor, Eryl Court Levers, Kaye Gorrie, Ethel Ostry, Jean Woodworth, and Gilbert Levine were among the social work peace activists. In 1953, in Toronto, efforts were made to organize a Social Workers’ Peace Association. Using the slogan “Welfare, not Warfare” the

S O C I A L W O R K I N T H E C O L D W A R E R A , 1 9 4 0 –– 6 0

119

Social Workers’ Peace Association identified its role in the first edition of Peaceways: Social workers are engaged in a profession of service, in the highly sensitive area of human relations. Their work is based upon the premise that conflicts can, and indeed must be settled by peaceful discussion and negotiation. It is for this reason that we have been feeling as keenly as any, that we have a real part to play, wherever these same principles are being wielded, in defence of peace.15

In Peaceways, the Social Workers’ Peace Association expressed concern over the violation of civil liberties in Canada and the fear that people now had about the peace movement. Peace is becoming a subversive word, somehow a topic one does not mention, constitutes itself a denial of the democratic process. There is certainly something amiss with a free society when a whole large area of a nation’s affairs, that of its external policy, is excluded from the arena of public discussion.... The fact that people are afraid to discuss issues openly for fear of being “labeled,” to venture a dissenting opinion regarding the policy in force, to seek aid and to demand information from all sides and to examine it critically, and finally, not to accept piecemeal views and opinions which are handed down to them by others, but to exercise the right to make up their own minds; all of this is an indication that something is wrong, that somewhere our vaunted traditions are failing. (Lewey 2006: 191)

Despite the efforts of the Social Workers’ Peace Association to engage the CASW with issues of peace, this did not happen. The CASW remained firmly outside the controversy, and little mention of the peace movement made its way to the pages of The Social Worker in the 1940s and 1950s. In 1953 the Social Workers’ Peace Association requested that the CASW publicize its newsletter, Peaceways, in The Social Worker. When this did not happen, the CASW was called to account for its decision. In a letter dated March 16, 1953, Eryl Court Levers, secretary of the Toronto Social Worker’s Peace Association, wondered why its notice “regarding its purposes and activities” had not been printed in the February 1953 issue of the Social Worker. She wished to be advised if there was some reason why the notice would not be printed.16 In the spring of 1953, the Toronto Social Workers for Peace wrote to the Toronto branch of the CASW, requesting its mailing list. The request was discussed at an executive committee in June and was denied because the list was the property of the national office of the CASW.17 It is clear that during its brief, two-year history, the Social Workers’ Peace Association made efforts to engage the membership of the CASW and to

120

CHAPTER SIX

solicit its support. Besides attempting to launch and expand its peace group, it attempted to introduce resolutions on peace and nuclear warfare at general meetings (Lewey 2006: 180). It was unsuccessful in these efforts and peace never became a pressing issue for the CASW during these years, although issues related to peace continued to be addressed at the branch level.18 In April 1957, for example, the B.C. mainland branch unanimously adopted a motion to end nuclear testing. It urged other branches and the national board to take action and lobby the federal government on this issue.19 In a recommendation the branch criticized the national office for having no statement of policy on the issue of peace. Social workers, it argued, with their long tradition of practising non-violent resolution to problems, “have a moral obligation to give some leadership in the need for peaceful solution to world problems.”20

The Case of Mary Jennison: A Victim of the Anti-Communist Witch Hunts Mary Jennison (1892–1970) was a social worker who made an enormous contribution to the profession, social justice, and the peace movement. In 1947, at the age of fifty-five, she was fired from her job as a social worker by the board of the Dale Community Centre in Hamilton, Ontario, for her alleged left-wing political convictions. Unable to find a job as a social worker again, she continued her political work in the peace movement. The records of the RCMP reveal that Jennison was under surveillance for her activities as early as the 1930s, and she continued to be monitored until her death in 1970. Mary Jennison started her career as a schoolteacher, but soon moved into the social work profession. She entered the Department of Social Sciences at the University of Toronto (later to become the School of Social Work), was awarded the Alumnae Scholarship, and was class president in 1927. She graduated in 1928 with a social work diploma along with classmate, Bessie Touzel. By 1929 Jennison was appointed to the executive of the Social Service Council of Canada as assistant secretary, and she was already a member in good standing of the Canadian Association of Social Workers. In a few years she would become the convenor of publicity for the CASW, as well as the editor of The Social Worker. She was a regular contributor to The Social Worker and, in addition, documented the early history of social work and social welfare, including a history of settlement work and a history of the Ontario Welfare Council.21 For eight years she worked as an assistant secretary to the Federation for Community Services in Toronto, where she was distinguished as “one of the most active social workers in that city.”22 In 1937 Jennison moved to Montreal to become the director of the Central Volunteer Bureau, the first of its kind in Canada. The bureau’s main

S O C I A L W O R K I N T H E C O L D W A R E R A , 1 9 4 0 –– 6 0

121

purpose was to bring volunteers and social workers more closely together so that their work could be coordinated. While in Montreal, Mary Jennison continued to work actively in the CASW, and in 1938 she was vice-president of the Montreal branch. In the early 1940s she became active in the Quebec Committee of Allied Victories, she appeared before a special committee on the Defence of Canada Regulation, and she supporting lifting the ban on the Communist Party of Canada, which had been made illegal in 1940.23 Her involvement in these and other activities would eventually be used against her and contributed to her firing.24 In 1943 she left Montreal and moved to Hamilton, Ontario, to become the director of the Dale Community Centre. While in Hamilton Jennison became the president of the Hamilton branch of the CASW, and was a representative on its board of directors. It was during her time at the Dale that she became “one victim of local McCarthyism” (Whitaker and Marcuse 1994: 292). During and after the Depression, community centres were established in Canada to assist unemployed people stay in contact with their communities. In Hamilton, an industrial centre of 150,000 people, the Dale Community Centre served this purpose. Initially it was funded by the Family Service Bureau, but later became a separate agency and a member of the Community Chest, a body of twenty-two agencies. The Dale was a popular centre renowned for its work with children and youth and its support for the unemployed. Mary Jennison worked at the Dale for about four years before any problems surfaced. In 1947 rumours began to circulate that Jennison, the director, and her staff at the Dale, were communists. Shortly thereafter, the Community Chest decided to discontinue its financial support of the Dale Community Centre (Johnson 1947: 1, 23). The board of the Dale responded with a resolution that it would not have knowingly hired anyone who was a communist or a communist sympathizer (Johnson 1947: 2). When approached by the board with the resolution, Jennison said she was not in support of it and that she would support the hiring of a communist as long as the person was a wellqualified social worker doing her job (Johnson 1947: 1) Following deliberations that lasted until midnight on the night of July 22, 1947, the twenty-one-member board made a decision to fire her. That evening, petitions containing the signatures of four hundred parents, children, and other supporters were submitted to the board. One member of the board went so far as to question parents’ authority to sign the petition, to which came the response “This is a democratic country, and every person is entitled to an opinion as long as no force is used to cram it down other people’s throats” (Johnson 1947: 1). Jennison was approached by the Dale’s board of directors to answer questions about her personal life, but she

122

CHAPTER SIX

refused to answer and simply stated: “If my work and the work of my staff during our tenure of office at the Dale is not sufficient guarantee of devotion and integrity, no questioning about our private lives or past employment is of any value now” (Johnson 1947: 1). Jennison’s firing became a cause célèbre for a number of days. The Civil Liberties Union expressed concern over it, and the Congress of Canadian Women sent the chair of the board a resolution, which had been unanimously passed at an executive meeting, voicing its concern over the reported dismissal of Jennison. It emphasized how the Dale Community Centre had become a model throughout the country because of Miss Jennison’s achievements: “We understand that there are no complaints against Miss Jennison’s competence or loyalty to the Dale, but that, on the contrary, she has gained Canada-wide distinction as a very competent professional worker in the field of social service, and has won a sincere appreciation for her services from the people in her community” (Toronto Daily Star 1947a: 2). The Congress of Canadian Women also drew attention to the “apparent undemocratic and un-Canadian procedures” adopted by the board since the decision was made in private sessions without consulting the membership to whom the board was accountable (Toronto Daily Star 1947a: 2). Kenneth Woodsworth, representative of the United Office and Professional Workers of America, released a statement, stating that it was “big business” interests that threatened to cut off contributions to the chest if Mary Jennison was not fired. He argued that this was an example of an attack of big business against the trade union movement, and that “this time more subtly and more underhandedly [directed] against their family needs” (Toronto Daily Star 1947b: 2). The Dale Community Centre served a working-class community, and in the previous summer it had supported the steel workers’ strike. The Dale’s staff provided coffee for strikers coming off night pickets, and the centre organized free activities for their children. “Miss Jennison’s crime was not in her expounding any partisan political views, but in helping working people, among them trade unionists and their families, to meet the bitter privations of a strike situation.” Woodsworth asked, “What has the social work profession to say to this?” (Toronto Daily Star 1947b:2). While Jennison received support from a number of agencies and individuals, the Canadian Association of Social Workers responded reluctantly and only after being pressured by its branch members.25 In December 1947, national representative Nora Rowe, at a branch meeting in Manitoba, indicated that Mary Jennison had not asked the board for assistance and she implied that Jennison had breached social work ethics. She suggested that the role of the Manitoba branch might best be “one of urging National to take up a study of professional ethics.”26

S O C I A L W O R K I N T H E C O L D W A R E R A , 1 9 4 0 –– 6 0

123

In light of the fact that Mary Jennison had been a member of the board of directors of the CASW, that she had provided years of dedicated service to the CASW, and had a stellar reputation as a social worker, it would not have been out of the ordinary to expect the CASW to have organized a committee in her support, or at least to have spoken out publicly against her firing, particularly since Jennison’s case hit the major newspapers of the day. Instead the association chose to investigate the issue internally by striking a special committee27 that travelled to Hamilton to meet with the executive committee of the Dale and the executive director of the Hamilton Community Chest, the funding body (The Social Worker 1948a: 16–17). Following the meeting, the CASW special committee published its conclusions in a report in The Social Worker. Of the nine points raised, three are of particular importance. The CASW stated: (1) unequivocally that Mary Jennison was dismissed because of suspicions about her political affiliation; (2) that there was no evidence that she failed in her professional duties, but she was fired because the executive committee of the Dale could not reconcile her political views; and (3) “that while political affiliations of social workers are a matter of personal conscience, and should not be the reason for dismissal, social workers must realize that the result of their affiliations and actions politically are their individual responsibility, and the CASW can uphold them only in matters pertaining to professional social work. Your committee is convinced that Miss Jennison can be upheld in regard to professional competence and performance in her duties as Director of the Dale Centre” (The Social Worker 1948a: 16–17). The Social Worker published a letter to the editor from Mary Jennison in its October 1948 issue. In it Jennison spells out the circumstances of her firing, as well as her beliefs and values. I was dismissed because I was alleged to be a Communist. That is all.... The point is that the allegation was not proved. Certain circumstantial evidence with reference to persons I knew and places I had been was produced in support of the charge. Some of the evidence was false, some was half true and taken out of context, and the parts which were true were practically all known to at least some members of the Board at the time on my appointment in 1943. (The Social Worker 1948b: 33–35)

In the letter she expressed that her political convictions did not include violence as a means to overthrow governments, nor did she believe in minority rule. People, she argued, are infinitely more important than profits, and every human should have the right to a home, education, work, leisure time, and health and security throughout life. She outlined her view of democracy as including racial, religious, and political equality in a world free of war, and she expressed her strong concern that these views were

124

CHAPTER SIX

regarded as a dangerous influence on children and youth (The Social Worker 1948b: 33–35). Records indicate that Jennison applied for a social work position a year later in Nova Scotia, and that the agency to which she applied contacted the CASW national office for information about her. Joy Maines, executive secretary of the CASW, responded with a candid letter that elaborated the crises at the Dale, but was supportive of Jennison. Maines wrote that there was no evidence that Mary Jennison was lacking in professional competence; she further noted that the Dale served a working-class population and therefore was regarded as suspect by those who did not see themselves as part of the working class.28 While the CASW was reluctant to support Jennison and did nothing to endorse her social justice convictions, Jennison received encouragement from social work colleagues, and the CASW records indicate that her membership fees were paid by other members into the 1960s.29 However, their attempts to have her career in social work recognized were futile. A suggestion had been made to the CASW by another member that Jennison should be made an honorary member of the association, to which Maines replied: “We can’t do that, as we have no such category!”30 And so ended the luminous, seventeen-year career of an outstanding Canadian social worker. At the age of fifty-five Mary Jennison was without a job and had little prospect of continuing a career in social work. Her 1948 letter to the CASW, printed in The Social Worker, foreshadowed the problems she would encounter in finding employment in the profession she loved: Chances of finding employment in social work seem, at the present, to be nonexistent. I regret this for personal reasons, because I have enjoyed my social work experience, association with my professional colleagues and whatever contribution I have been able to make to the theory and practice of our profession.... I regret even more the fact that I am not by any means the only group worker who has recently been forced out of the profession.... (The Social Worker 1948b: 35)

The experiences of Mary Jennison were a tragic and, in all likelihood, not a unique occurrence during the height of the Cold War in Canada, but equally tragic is how the CASW dealt with the issue. After a dedicated and active life as a social worker and a tireless contributor to the development of the CASW, the CASW board approached her circumstances at the Dale as either a “personnel issue” or an issue separate from any personal impact –– the “Hamilton situation.” The national office of the CASW never defended Jennison; it never issued any public statements about the dangers of Redbaiting and the threat it posed to social workers or any social activists; and

S O C I A L W O R K I N T H E C O L D W A R E R A , 1 9 4 0 –– 6 0

125

it never commented publicly on the issue. In fact, it sternly cautioned social workers that they could not count on the CASW if they chose to take these “individual actions.” Following Jennison’s letter to the editor in 1948, the CASW, in fact, closed the whole affair with the following statement: “The publication of the above letter closes discussion of the ‘Hamilton situation’” (The Social Worker 1948b: 35). The RCMP “Red List” The firing of Mary Jennison was anything but an isolated event. It represented part of a North America-wide witch hunt perpetrated against politically active left-wingers. Members of the CPC, the CCF, trade unions, women’s organizations, gay and lesbians, and the peace movement were all targets. Mary Jennison –– a single woman, social worker, and community activist –– was on the RCMP “Red List” from 1939, before she began working at the Dale, until her death in 1970. The RCMP followed her, intercepted her mail, violated her privacy and the privacy of her friends, and made it difficult for her to travel abroad. During the years that she was monitored (1939–70), the RCMP amassed an astounding 3,171 pages of files on this one social worker.31 And what was the nature of the activities that warranted this heavy surveillance? A sampling of some of Mary Jennison’s activities based on RCMP records and commentary are identified. An RCMP entry in 1941 states that Mary Jennison “helped to organize a communist-inspired social workers group who were to rehabilitate and obtain work for members of the Mackenzie-Papineau Battalion on their return from Spain.”32 The Mackenzie-Papineau Battalion was a brigade of an estimated 1,200 volunteer soldiers who went to Spain in 1936 to fight fascism in the Spanish Civil War. Many of the members of the battalion were from the ranks of the unemployed (Hoar 1969: 7). For years the Mac-Paps fought for veterans’ status and the right to a veteran’s pension in Canada, receiving it only recently, after most of them had already died. In 1942, the RCMP reports made numerous references to Jennison’s involvement in the Quebec Committee for Allied Victory, which was committed to “an all-out defeat of fascism.”33 They also noted that she was moving from Montreal to Quebec City, where she was to become the executive secretary of the Quebec Committee for Allied Victory.34 When Jennison moved to Hamilton in 1943, the records indicated: “You will note that Mary Jennison who is known to have leftist tendencies has moved to the vicinity of Hamilton, presumably to resume her community activities. In view of her tendencies, however, it is possible that she may also continue her

126

CHAPTER SIX

communist activities there.”35 The Dale Community Centre, it was noted, “has long been a favourite place for Communist residents of Mount Hamilton to hold social gatherings.”36 Throughout the 1940s it is clear from the RCMP records that Jennison’s activities were closely watched. In 1943 it was reported that she had attended a banquet for Fred Rose (who became the only elected Communist Party member of Parliament in Canada, from 1943–47), sponsored by the Labour Progressive Party.37 An RCMP agent who attended a meeting of the Canada– Russia Society, commented that Jennison, known to “harbour subversive tendencies,” was at the meeting.38 Although the RCMP records seem contradictory about Jennison’s membership in the Labour Progressive Party, she was seen as a “fellow traveler,”39 and on at least one occasion, it was noted that she was “probably of more value outside than inside it.” It was noted that most of her contacts with the LPP were done by phone. One of the file entries on Jennison extensive file reads: “subject still a staunch Communist.”40 In 1947, reporting on Jennison’s firing from the Dale, the RCMP files indicate that “of the ten persons she had employed during her term as director of the Dale, nine had been communists or communist sympathizers.” There was no evidence in the files to indicate where this information came from or how accurate it was. Other alleged subversive activities in which Jennison and others “of a reddish hue” were involved was the Hamilton Housewives Association, which was protesting increases in the price of milk and lobbying for the rollback of food prices.41 The Hamilton Housewives’ Association (HHA) was one of a number of community-based women’s organizations that were developed in the 1930s and 1940s across Canada to lobby government on a number of issues that affected women: employment, consumer prices, increased relief for poor people, and issues related to unemployment (Sangster 1989: 138–40). Jennison’s most serious “crime” by far was her involvement with the Canadian Peace Congress of which she was executive secretary from 1948 (after she left the Dale) to 1954, when she suffered a debilitating cerebral hemorrhage. During the height of the Cold War, “peace” was regarded by the US and Canadian governments as standing in opposition to “freedom.” According to Reg Whitaker and Gary Marcuse (1994: 365), “to the American leadership, the peace movement was purely and simply an arm of Soviet Policy abroad.” And so anyone associated with the Canadian Peace Congress was regarded as subversive and most likely a communist. The RCMP records, for example, state that “National security officials call the peace movement, ‘the most insidious thing’ the communists have yet launched.” The RCMP closely monitored Jennison’s activities in the Peace Congress:

S O C I A L W O R K I N T H E C O L D W A R E R A , 1 9 4 0 –– 6 0

127

what she wrote, who she spoke to, her speeches, her correspondence, what the left-wing press said about her, what the mainstream press reported, her travels, her companions, where she lived, photographs of her, descriptions of her appearance, comments on her personality, and the impressions of RCMP agents who infiltrated organizations with which she was affiliated. All of this is collected in her RCMP file, with the “more sensitive” details removed. The RCMP was particularly focused on peace work and the work of the Canadian Peace Congress. In 1940, RCMP agents reported: “Our observation during the Peace Conference leaves no doubt in our minds the movement was to have a major communist party take over; and telling that the Montreal Peace Council is controlled by well-known communists.”42 In another entry, Jennison is described as having “all the earmarks of the above average Stalinist.”43 Another entry, in 1950, describes how a man’s private mail was tampered with and opened in Cambridge Station, Nova Scotia, because he had sent mail to Mary Jennison. “The Post Office department in Ottawa has ruled that the desired information be obtained from the post master at Cambridge station monitoring who this man sent mail to –– Mary Jennison was one of these people.”44 The same entry indicates that some of the names and addresses would be of interest to the American authorities, and that the mail of X would continue to be monitored for names and addresses of people to whom he would be sending material.45 The “Ban the Bomb” campaign of the Canadian Peace Congress generated a great deal of work for the RCMP. The activities of the campaign and those of Jennison and James Endicott, president of the Congress, were monitored in agonizing detail. And throughout the files there is the consistent message by the reporting spies that the Peace Congress was a communist front group manipulated by the Soviet Union. The Peace Congress, it was reported, was “a tool of the Russian Communists in the Soviet’s sham peace offensive.” It was “an international front organization inspired and organized by communist parties throughout the world, in an effort to cause resistance to the defensive efforts of countries in opposition to the USSR.”46 Although Mary Jennison left her position in the Peace Congress after her stroke, the RCMP monitoring continued until she died in 1970. Jennison was not the only social worker monitored by the RCMP (and later the Canadian Security Intelligence Service) for her political activities. Others included Gilbert Levine, who began his career as a social worker, but found union work more compatible with his political views;47 Hazel Wigdor, a social worker who promoted the unionization of social workers and who was also a peace activist; and Margaret Gould, an active trade unionist and

128

CHAPTER SIX

“key figure in assorted left-wing activities.”48 Henry Rosenthal, another graduate of the University of Toronto School of Social Work, found that in 1951 he couldn’t get clearance for a job in the US because of his left-wing politics.49 Bessie Touzel, who graduated from the same social work class as Mary Jennison, was also suspected of being a “fellow traveler.”50 Touzel was known to be in a relationship with her “soul mate,” Robert Kenny, a member of the Communist Party, and while she apparently shared Kenny’s socialist convictions, she chose to distance herself from party politics and decided to “take a new job in Ottawa and avoid the anti-communist hysteria then sweeping Toronto’s social services.”51 Her actions are said to have strained the relationship with Kenny, who felt that she should have stood up to the “Redbaiters.” Unlike Mary Jennison, whose social work career was cut short, Touzel became a well-known and respected social worker. She received an honorary doctorate from the University of Toronto in 1964, and in 1987 she was named inaugural recipient of the Order of Ontario (Globe and Mail 1997: E13). Social workers who were committed to social and economic justice and peace and acted on those convictions were particularly vulnerable during the Cold War. A peace activist and long-time friend of Mary Jennison52 spoke to us about the fear and insecurity of being a radical during this time. “What was most difficult,” the person said, “was the insidious nature of the surveillance. You were never really sure what was happening –– it was all so clandestine.” This climate of suspicion and fear prevented many from speaking out against injustice or offering support for the efforts of social work colleagues who did act on their convictions. It also influenced the CASW in its reluctance to endorse peace activities and support its members.

Conclusion The Cold War had a profoundly negative effect on many Canadians, including progressive social workers. Some of these social workers could not find a comfortable place to work inside the profession, so chose to abandon it for organizations that provided a better fit –– the labour movement or peace movement.53 Others continued to work in the profession, but did most of their political work in organizations outside of it, and still others continued the slow and arduous process of trying to effect radical social change from within the profession. While these various forms of radical activity acted as countervailing pressures in the profession and were undoubtedly responsible for some of the changes that occurred in social work, they were never able to penetrate the mainstream of the profession and the professional association, the CASW. The CASW continued along the trajectory of profes-

S O C I A L W O R K I N T H E C O L D W A R E R A , 1 9 4 0 –– 6 0

129

sionalization and, in the process, entered into regular debates over its role in promoting social change, but it consistently and steadfastly refused to engage in any actions that could be regarded as radical or threatening to the status quo. And for social workers who were more radical and who had a class analysis and chose to act on it, they were on their own. This lack of support for radical social work activists continued, as we will see in Chapter 13 the case of Marlene Weber, who lost her job as a social work educator because of her professed left-wing views.

Notes 1 See, for example, Alvin Finkel, “Even the Little Children Cooperated: Family Strategies, Childcare Discourse, and Social Welfare Debates 1945–1975,” Labour/Le Travail 36 (Fall 1995): 94; Susan Prentice, “Workers, Mothers, Reds: Toronto’s Postwar Daycare Fight,” in Raymond Blake and Jeff Keshen (eds.), Social Welfare Policy in Canada: Historical Readings (Toronto: Copp Clark, 1995), p. 259; Ruth Roach Pierson, “They’re Still Women After All”: The Second World War and Canadian Womanhood (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1986). 2 Interview with Anna Larsen, June 15, 2004; Alvin Finkel, “Even the Little Children Cooperated”; Susan Prentice, “Workers, Mothers, Reds: Toronto’s Postwar Daycare Fight.” 3 For an interesting history of the life of Nielsen, see: Faith Johnson, A Great Restlessness: The Life and Politics of Dorise Nielsen. 4 Interview with Anna Larsen, June 15, 2004. 5 See Colleen Lundy’s article on social workers and peace; also Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, Ottawa branch, The Women’s Budget (Ottawa: WILPF, Ottawa branch, 1993); Maura Sullivan, “Social Work’s Legacy of Peace: Echoes from the Early 20th Century,” pp. 513–26. In 1941 a compilation of articles previously published in the American journal, Social Work Today, was published. It contained four articles related to social work and peace. See Mary van Kleeck, Bertha Reynolds, Ralph Hetzel Jr. and Frank C. Bancroft (eds.), Social Work, Peace, and People’s Well-Being. 6 Interview with Gil Levine, December 12, 2006; Laurel Lewey, “Nothing to Fear but Fear,” pp. 191–92. 7 NAC, Records of CSIS, RG 46, Vol. 1087, files on Mary Irick Jennison, 23/1/51, p. 469. 8 Ibid., pp. 151, 366, 836. 9 Ibid., p. 472. 10 Ibid., pp. 624, 1029. 11 Ibid. 12 Ibid., p. 2070. 13 See, for example: Mary van Kleeck, “Social Work in the New World Situation,” 1943; Mary van Kleeck, “The Responsibility of the Social Worker in Social and Political Action,” 1948, Sophia Smith Collection, van Kleeck Fonds, Box 20; Bertha Reynolds, “Social Work in the National Emergency,” n.d., Sophia Smith

130

14

15 16

17 18 19

20 21

22 23 24 25

26 27 28

29 30 31

32 33

CHAPTER SIX

Collection, Bertha Reynolds Fonds, Box 5, File 74; Bertha Reynolds, “‘McCarthyism’ vs. Social Work,” 1954, Bertha Reynolds Collection, Box 5, File 78. NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 6, File 13, Board of Directors Correspondence with President, 1954–56, letter from James Endicott, Canadian Peace Congress, to Joy Maines, CASW, September 28, 1955. NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 21, File 4, Publication Committee, including minutes and biennial reports, 1952–56, Peaceways 1, 1 (February 1953): 2. NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 21, File 4, Publication Committee, including minutes and biennial reports, 1952–56, letter to Joy Maines, executive secretary of CASW, from M.E. Levers, secretary, Social Workers’ Peace Association, March 16, 1953. NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 35, executive meeting of Toronto branch, June 3, 1953. Interview with Eryl Court, November 24, 2006. NAC MG 28, I 441, Vol. 27, File 15, B.C. mainland branch, also Greater Vancouver annual report, 1956–60, letter from George Jones to Anne Furness, president, B.C. mainland branch, CASW, April 25, 1957. NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 25, “Recommendation,” n.d. Mary Jennison, “Study of the Canadian Settlement Movement” (1977). Although this document appeared in 1977, it is clear from Jennison’s correspondence with the CASW that she had written it many years earlier (n.d.) and had attempted for years to have it published. Frieda Held, Mary Jennison, and Lillian Henderson, A Brief History of the Ontario Welfare Council, n.d. University of Toronto Archives, A/1973-0026 1178 (03), “Jennison, Mary Irick.” Ibid. NAC, Records of CSIS, RG 146, Vol. 1087, Mary Irick Jennison, pp. 30, 33, 88, 91, 92, 94, 98 104, 107. See, for example: NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 29, File 14, Montreal branch, 1946–48, letter from Sonnette Ross to Joy Maines, October 9, 1947; Vol. 34, File 14, letter to Florence Christie from J. McTaggart, October 10, 1947. AM, CASW, Manitoba branch Fonds, MG 10, A 33, Vol. 1.2, “Minutes of Meeting of the Manitoba Branch, CASW,” December 2, 1947, p. 2. The committee comprised Florence Christie, president of the CASW, Stuart Jaffary, Stewart Sutton, and Joy Maines. NAC MG 28, I 441, March 10, 1948, letter to Joy Maines from Jean Ross, Glasgow Community Centre, Glasgow, Nova Scotia; letter from Joy Maines to Jean Ross, March 14, 1948. NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 15, File 24, Membership Committee, 1959–63, letter to John Haddad, St. Christopher House, from Joy Maines, December 1, 1960. Ibid. NAC, Records of CSIS, RG 146, Vol. 1087, files on Mary Irick Jennison. Under the federal government’s policy of access to information, the authors of this book requested and received all 3,171 pages of the Mary Jennison files. Although some parts of the file were blacked out to protect sources and the identity of others mentioned in the files, they served as a source of valuable information about the activities of Mary Jennison and the RCMP during the Cold War. NAC, Records of CSIS, RG 146, Vol. 108, Jennison files, pp. 125, 128. Ibid., pp. 21, 29, 30, 33, 84, 87, 88, 91.

S O C I A L W O R K I N T H E C O L D W A R E R A , 1 9 4 0 –– 6 0

34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49

50 51 52 53

131

Ibid., p. 123. Ibid., p. 88. Ibid., p. 81. Ibid., p. 90. NAC, Records of CSIS, RG 146, Vol. 108, Jennison files, p. 93. Ibid., p. 156. Ibid., pp. 3, 157 Ibid., pp. 17, 20. Ibid., p. 383. Ibid., p. 737. Ibid., p. 761. Ibid., p. 763. Ibid., p. 1,349. Interview with Gil Levine, December 12, 2006. NAC, Records of CSIS, RG 146, Vol. 108, Jennison files, p. 312. Both Levine and Rosenthal are among the sixty-nine participants in the research by Len Shur, The Un-Canadians: True Stories of the Blacklist Era (Toronto: Lester Publishing, 1992). Ibid., p. 156. Tom Reid, “Robert S. Kenny: A Biographical Sketch,” p. viii. This person requested anonymity, which in part reflects the lasting impact of the Cold War. Interview with Gil Levine, December 2005.

This page intentionally left blank

CHAPTER SEVEN

A Conservative Era in Social Work: The 1950s During World War II and the subsequent decade, social workers became active participants in the construction of the welfare state. This was a new role for them and it entrenched the profession into state mechanism and consequently elevated its public status. As the professional association became more closely aligned with the state, however, it would become increasingly difficult for it to provide an objective critique of the state’s roles in social welfare. This conservatizing effect tempered the profession’s social action initiatives and steered it away from joining alliances with social movements that were considered too critical of state policy and practice. As the CASW moved away from the broader social critique of earlier decades, its attention focused instead on internal issues that facilitated professional development –– developing a robust Code of Ethics and establishing solid standards of practice. But not all social workers agreed with this new direction, and a debate over social work’s “social action” mandate became a contentious point of discussion.

Formalizing a Code of Ethics Although the existence of a code of ethics is considered an important hallmark of professionalization, it took some time for one to materialize in the Canadian Association of Social Workers. In the early years of professionalization there was no formally established set of standards and rules that guided the ethical behaviour of social workers. Instead they relied on “some well defined ethical principles based on the concepts and precepts set forth by Mary Richmond and other early writers”1 For the first time, in 1935, the 133

134

CHAPTER SEVEN

CASW established a National Ethics Committee that devised a proposed Code of Ethics the following year.2 In January 1938 the National Committee circulated among its branches a number of draft revisions with input from across the country, particularly from the B.C. mainland branch.3 The 1938 draft was eventually adopted, with a few modifications, by the CASW in 1940.4 The Code was brief and included the following preamble: “It is assumed that a professional social worker is motivated by interest in the well-being of humanity rather than personal gain or advancement; that he will have knowledge and competence in his field; that he is a person of integrity and open-mindedness” (Roy 1954: 6). The Code included five clauses that identified the work of a social worker; spelled out the basis of a social worker’s relationship with colleagues; identified principles of personal conduct in relation to professional work; identified principles of conduct in employing agencies; and identified the importance of “undertaking and stimulating progressive study, interpretation and action for the purpose of correcting the basic maladjustment of the social system” (Roy 1954: 7). That ethics was an ever-changing issue that required regular revisiting was recognized early in discussions over this issue. This sentiment, captured in an article in The Social Worker in 1940, was reiterated in 1954: “We must not feel that because the Code was evolved after much effort and found to be workable that it is to remain static and unchanged. We felt we could not too strongly recommend that this fact be remembered not only by the future Committees on Ethics but by the total membership as well” (Roy 1954: 7). Discussion over the Code of Ethics in Canada “lay dormant” until 1949, when the issue was rekindled by a small group in Montreal, which sparked debate in other branches (Roy 1954: 3). The Manitoba branch, for example, emphasized the need to have a Code of Ethics that clearly indentified the loyalties of social workers as lying with the client, employing agencies, and the total community.5 The B.C. Lower Mainland branch again played an active role in the renewed discussion over ethics in social work,6 and its well-developed draft document became the basis of study by a National Committee on Ethics. During the 1950–52 biennial period, the National Committee on Ethics developed a Code that was accepted in 1952 as a tentative model for a trial period of two years. Branches were urged to study and test the Code for the following two years and propose changes as they saw fit.7 The National Committee on Ethics had the responsibility of collecting this information and developing recommendations for implementing it. During 1952–54, although the National Committee on Ethics was sensitive to the changing nature of ethics in social work and the value of input from social workers, it was also concerned about having something in place

A CONSERVATIVE ERA IN SOCIAL WORK: THE 1950S

135

and establishing an implementation process. Each new committee that reviewed the ethics Code would find necessary changes, and this could be a perpetual process with the inherent danger of never getting to the point of implementing the Code and establishing procedures for addressing infractions to it (Roy 1954: 6). The tentative Code of Ethics of 1952 was purposely detailed to facilitate discussion among the branches.8 It consisted of two parts: part one was a preamble that outlined the objectives and basic values of social work, and part two outlined the principles of professional conduct. The objectives of social work were described as helping “the individual to have a fuller and more satisfying life and to improve the social structure and functioning of our social institutions so that every individual may develop his potentialities” (The Social Worker 1952: 18). This section of the Code also underscored that social work was founded on respect for all individuals regardless of race, religion, political philosophy, or social status and “upon a belief in the right of every human being to enjoy a decent standard of living ... the freedom of worship, of speech and of assembly, and reasonable security against such hazards of life as illness, unemployment and old age. The welfare of the people in our democratic society is dependent upon sound education, health and social services” (The Social Worker 1952: 18). Part two was divided into seven categories of professional conduct: (1) as a member of the profession, (2) with regard to peoples served, (3) in relation to the employing agency, (4) social workers as employers, (5) working with colleagues, (6) social workers in the community, and (7) social workers and the profession (The Social Worker 1952: 18–23). In 1954 the revised Code of Ethics was presented at the biennial meeting of the CASW with the message that branches and individuals now had to seriously consider its implications. In her report to the biennial membership meeting, the chairman of the National Committee on Ethics noted that there was an increasing interest in ethics among Canadian social workers, but that this was not a new matter for the CASW. It is rather a swing back of the pendulum to the period prior to the one from which we are now emerging in which our whole emphasis was concentrated on the methods and techniques of our profession. If we can bring these new learnings to bear on this renewed interest in Ethics, we can no doubt make effective within the profession a positive acceptance of a statement of principles of professional conduct. (Roy 1954: 4)

The major focus for the CASW at this meeting in 1954 (and also in the 1952–54 biennial period) was how to implement the Code of Ethics. The Code, it was argued, should be “educational and consultative”; it should be

136

CHAPTER SEVEN

a positive source of guidance and assistance, not a punitive and restrictive policy (Roy 1954: 4). Punitive measures would be the final step after all other measures had been exhausted. The model for implementation recommended by the National Committee on Ethics was based on the existence of a branch ethics committee working closely with the National Committee. Implementation of the Code of Ethics would be conducted in three phases: (1) promoting an understanding and acceptance of the principles among professionals and agencies employing them; (2) promoting consultation service to individuals and agencies regarding ethical issues with the objective of helping find solutions and preventing serious problems from arising; and (3) providing mechanisms for determining the professional person’s relationship to the CASW, or the agency’s relationship to the CASW in circumstances where consultation services do not work (Roy 1954: 5). The Code of Ethics and a process for implementation were finally approved at a biennial meeting of the CASW in 1956 and represented a new stage in the development of the profession: “[A stage] reached after practitioners become aware that they constitute a profession, and when they are ready to assume the corporate responsibilities of a profession” (The Social Worker 1958: 7). The Code would be implemented on a trial basis over two years with a record of its strengths and weaknesses monitored (Harvey 1956: 1). During those two years, the Ethics Committee of the Toronto branch, on behalf of the National Committee on Ethics, undertook a study of confidentiality, with particular attention to a clause in the Code of Ethics, which states that “the social worker respects and safeguards the rights of persons to confidential treatment of information given” (The Social Worker 1958: 6). The study on confidentiality was prepared in response to the public’s concern that social workers were violating the confidentiality of their clients, and consequently agencies were requesting more detailed information about the profession’s Code of Ethics. The Ethics Committee on Confidentiality argued that for social workers to be prepared to safeguard the rights of their clients, they should be equipped with a body of knowledge, as well as the support of agency policy and high standards of agency practice. There may be circumstances when an agency may need to guard its knowledge of a client. On the other hand circumstances may be such that it cannot guard its knowledge, or indeed, should not do so. Social workers often appear undecided as to which of these courses to follow. Possibly their uncertainty explains one reason why the public is not convinced or does not readily assume that social workers always keep people’s secrets. Fuller knowledge of the significance of confidentiality should help social workers to use the concept with greater assurance and discrimination. (The Social Worker 1958: 7)

A CONSERVATIVE ERA IN SOCIAL WORK: THE 1950S

137

The report of the Toronto branch Ethics Committee was presented at the 1958 biennial membership meeting of the CASW and reprinted in the Social Worker (The Social Worker 1958: 7–24). The report consisted of a comprehensive and detailed inquiry into the subject of confidentiality in social work. Part I (“The Social Worker’s Knowledge of Confidentiality”) consisted of three sections: (1) the concept of confidentiality; (2) some definitions and implications; and (3) confidentiality and the law. Part II (“Policy and Practice in Agencies”) included nine sections: (1) the present situation respecting agency policy; (2) official agency policy; (3) the agency solicitor; (4) physical arrangements in the office; (5) the custody and use of case records, especially inside the agency; (6) exchange of information with other agencies; (7) relationships with law enforcement agencies; (8) procedures for inquiries from commercial establishments; and (9) the content of case records (The Social Worker 1958: 7–24). The Code of Ethics remained in place until 1964 when it was revised again.

Welfare Planning as Social Action During and after World War II, the profession became an active partner with government, advising and working inside government on social welfare issues. As noted previously, by the end of the war years, the term “social action” was “sanitized” and used mainly in reference to social welfare planning initiatives. During the 1950s even this more circumscribed role of work in social policy decreased for social workers (Latimer 1972). This decline in political activity corresponds in part to the intensity of the Cold War and the chilly climate of repression that discouraged people from becoming involved. It also reflects the professional association’s ongoing reluctance to engage in activities that might detract from its professional goals. Instead, the CASW national office maintained a basic level of involvement in social affairs that, for the most part, was in the form of responses to government initiatives. These responses typically were restatements of the CASW’s longstanding commitment to pensions for seniors, promotion of Indian affairs, and support for the unemployed. The association also developed some new policy initiatives –– a stronger statement on seniors’ pensions, a position on the treatment of recent immigrants and refugees, and a debate on capital punishment. At the same time, local issues were not ignored; for example, the CASW entered an important debate in western Canada over the plight of the Doukhobors. The following section identifies some of the social issues with which the profession was engaged. It ends with a debate in the association over how to be engaged in “social action.” In May 1950 John Morgan and Joy Maines represented the CASW on a joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons regarding old age

138

CHAPTER SEVEN

security (The Social Worker 1950: 7–15). The brief made a number of important recommendations, including the need to remove the means test and raise pension levels to permit a “living standard of health and decency.” In addition to income security, the senior population, it argued, should be provided with a program of integrated services; seniors should be allowed to stay in productive employment; be provided with adequate housing and coverage of medical and nursing care. It argued for community services that would be provided to encourage recreational interests and the continuation of family life. Trained staff should be available to work with seniors, and research should be conducted on all these phases of old-age security.9 The media reports of the CASW brief were very positive, highlighting that while the CASW had asked for the same thing as the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and the Canadian Labour Congress –– that is, the removal of the means test –– the CASW brief distinguished itself by being more concerned with the “human man than with the economic man” (Taylor 1950). Warren Baldwin, writing for the Globe and Mail, described the brief as an entirely new approach to the question of old age pensions. Until then, most recommendations on old age security were focused on the amount of pension to be paid, the age at which it would be paid, and the cost. The Canadian Association of Social Workers, however, called for a review of the current attitude to the elderly in society, and a reshaping of the patterns of community life to take care of the problem (Baldwin 1950). In 1950 the CASW made a number of recommendations concerning the Indian Act to the ministry responsible for Aboriginal affairs, the Ministry of Mines and Resources.10 The board of the CASW supported the immediate constitution of a joint Senate–House of Commons Committee to revise the Indian Act and called for the full assimilation of Aboriginal peoples into Canadian life and revisions to the Indian Act with that objective in mind. It also recommended that Aboriginal children be given full educational opportunities comparable to those available to other children in Canada. It supported the notion that, where possible, Aboriginal children should attend regular day schools administered by the provinces or be given the same standard of education at the expense of the federal government. In a similar vein, the CASW argued that all Aboriginal peoples should have access to all types of social services available to other citizens. At a superficial level, this perspective of treating Aboriginal peoples and non-Aboriginal people alike may have seemed reasonable and forward-looking at the time, but the effects of it, in fact, proved to be devastating for Aboriginal peoples (Shewell 2004), and the notion of assimilation would eventually be recognized as an attempt to destroy Aboriginal cultures in Canada. The associa-

A CONSERVATIVE ERA IN SOCIAL WORK: THE 1950S

139

tion supported the idea that the director of Indian affairs be given the rank of deputy minister, and that a continuing parliamentary committee should consider and report upon the Indian Act. Finally, the CASW reiterated an earlier position that recommended consultation with provincial authorities regarding the possibility of extending to the Aboriginal population the services of the provincial departments of education and health and welfare, and if these services could not be extended immediately, they could be purchased by the federal government from provincial departments and private organizations where this seemed desirable.11 The executive secretary of the CASW received a response from Paul Martin, minister of citizenship and immigration, thanking the association for its interest in the Aboriginal population.12 Unemployment remained a central issue for social workers and the CASW since the 1930s, and the subsequent decades were no exception. In 1950, in preparation for a Dominion–provincial conference, the CASW prepared a document that urged the conference to give priority to the problem of unemployment and particularly to the employable unemployed, the group of (mainly) men who were not protected by any type of social security. The association expressed its deep concern that the problem of unemployment was being ignored and stressed the importance of people’s right to work.13 It recommended that the federal government accept responsibility for providing skilled leadership and consultative services, as well as financial aid to the provinces for supporting the unemployed. The National Employment Service, it argued, needed to provide better jobs and better counselling services, and steps needed be taken to improve and develop vocational training for all ages. The CASW brief also identified the need for improvements in the administration of unemployment insurance and the provision of provincial economic assistance and welfare services through the assistance of federal grants.14 It recommended that unemployment assistance remain a federal responsibility, and that the burden should not fall to the municipalities. Unemployment, the association noted, “is a national problem and there must be money and leadership from the federal level to ensure adequate and equal standards across the Dominion.”15 The provincial governments should assume responsibility for administration within their own provinces. The brief went on to say that: Our chief concern, however, is that cash assistance should be available as a matter of right in cases of proven need to those who are deprived of the opportunity to earn. Benefits should be predictable as to amount and of sufficient size to provide a basic minimum of food, shelter and clothing for the individual and his family. This assistance should be readily available at the local level, should be

140

CHAPTER SEVEN

granted in a manner consistent with the applicant’s need to maintain his selfrespect and should continue for the duration of need. This provision of financial security should, of course, go hand in hand with a vigorous programme of job placement.16

Particular concern was expressed for transient workers who, as victims of an economy that required a mobile workforce, were discriminated against by restrictive residency clauses. These workers were deprived of their rights as citizens and stripped of human dignity as they were “herded into flophouses ... from which they are turned out in the early hours of the morning regardless of weather.... Such inhumanity is costly, creating illness, idleness, demoralization and social breakdown.”17 Unemployment remained a central and urgent issue for the CASW well into the 1950s. There was “sharp unemployment distress” in the winter of 1954–55.18 This situation again drew attention to the failure of the public welfare system to protect the unemployed employables (Held, Jennison, Henderson 1959: 17). In response to this, the president of the CASW, Shaun Govenlock, exchanged a series of letters with the prime minister of Canada, urging the federal government to pay attention to the plight of the unemployed.19 Govenlock noted in particular the difficult circumstances of unemployed employables and transient workers. The federal government, he argued, must enter into a clear arrangement with the provinces and not let unemployment insurance be held hostage to federal–provincial struggles.20 Govenlock mentioned that social workers across the country were witnessing alarming increases in the number of unemployed breadwinners who deserted their families because their dependent wives and children were not eligible for social welfare programs if unemployed husbands and fathers lived with them.21 Several branches of the CASW wrote letters to the federal and provincial governments outlining the local status of the unemployed.22 In 1955, for example, the British Columbia mainland branch sent letters to both Prime Minister St. Laurent and to B.C. Premier W.A.C. Bennett calling attention to the drastic circumstances of the unemployed.23 The Toronto branch met with representatives of both the federal and provincial governments of Ontario and expressed its deep concern about unemployment and those who were not covered by unemployment insurance legislation. It passed a resolution proposing that the issue of unemployment relief be placed on the agenda of the proposed federal–provincial meeting (The Social Worker 1955: 2–3). Assistance for the unemployed employable was also an important issue for the Canadian Welfare Council, which made a recommendation in 1955

A CONSERVATIVE ERA IN SOCIAL WORK: THE 1950S

141

that all levels of government –– federal, provincial, and municipal –– convene to discuss the issue of public assistance for employable unemployed people, and that this meeting should happen without delay.24 Debates and lobbying governments over the issue of assistance for this category of unemployed continued throughout the decade (The Social Worker 1956a: 28–30). The concern over adequate social security for vulnerable populations also included newcomers to Canada. For example, in 1957, in response to the influx of refugees from Hungary, the Toronto branch of the CASW prepared a statement for the association that highlighted important gaps in the social security system that would be potentially disastrous for immigrants and refugees, as well as for Canadian citizens. It applauded Canada’s open-door policy for refugees, but underscored that our welfare services required simplification and strengthening in order to meet the needs of all Canadians –– old and new.25 The statement identified three major concerns: (1) inadequate supports for the employable unemployed person; (2) the needs of certain unemployable groups; and (3) the problem of sickness. Employable unemployed people who become destitute in Canada had no basis for claiming social assistance. And although this issue was identified in the 1930s, the federal government had not developed a permanent solution. The unemployment crises of 1954–55 prompted the social work community in Canada to express renewed concern for this issue. And although federal and provincial governments shared the costs of assisting refugees and immigrants for their first year in Canada, “it is ironic and paradoxical that, once residence is established, they will then join the rest of Canadians for whom no provision yet exist! Here is a cruel and serious gap, which needs closing by prompt action of our provincial and federal governments.”26 For unemployable people, including the elderly, the disabled, the sick, and dependent mothers and children, various forms of assistance were available. But eligibility for these services required a residence period of varying lengths of time, and people who lacked the residence requirements were ineligible for the services. The Toronto branch considered the residence requirements to be seriously out of date and inconsistent with a society that requires high labour mobility and, it argued, the requirements should be abolished. Identifying that sickness and disability were major causes of unemployment, the Toronto branch stressed the importance of providing financial support for people when their wages were cut off at a time when they require expensive medical care. In Ontario, where four out of five families depended on waged labour for family maintenance, any disruption to income typically meant financial disaster for the family. Social workers argued that these gaps

142

CHAPTER SEVEN

in the system “need closing now, for the benefit of new Canadians and old Canadians alike. The first step ... is to realize the needs, and then plan and legislate to meet them.”27 Abolition of the Death Penalty The reclassification of murder and the abolition of the death penalty were hotly debated in Canada in the 1950s. However, it was one of the areas that the CASW distanced itself from. This is likely because of the controversial nature of the concern and the reluctance to take a public position. This reluctance was noted and criticized by other organizations. But while this was not a central issue for the CASW, there was debate among individual social workers about it. For example, in 1953, William Main, corresponding secretary of the Toronto branch, expressed his revulsion and concern at the graphic newspaper accounts of a recent double hanging (Main 1953: 25–27). He made a strong plea for the profession of social work to make known its position on capital punishment. Social work, he argued, must first clarify its own thinking on the subject and then persuasively present its professional position. Main argued that hanging should not be permitted in an “enlightened nation.” Canadians, he felt, would respect the social work profession only when it has the confidence to speak clearly on issues of which it has unique knowledge. “We must be brave enough, too, to make forthright pronouncements of our professional position in vital areas of human concern.”28 Over the next several years, the issue of capital punishment did not disappear entirely from the CASW’s agenda, but no conclusive policy directive was reached in the 1950s. In the fall of 1959, the issue again appeared in response to a poem by Pierre Berton, published in the Toronto Daily Star. In “Requiem,” Berton addressed the recent death sentence by hanging of a fourteen-year-old Ontario boy who had been found guilty of murder, which resulted from sexual assault. The poem was a strong indictment of capital punishment. In a “Letter to the Editor” in The Social Worker, W.T. McGrath, executive secretary of the Canadian Corrections Association, criticized the social work profession’s reluctance to express a policy position on this issue. She argued that the profession needed to discipline itself, so that when an issue appears, the CASW would be ready to express its point of view rather than waiting to be put on the defensive.29 A rebuttal to McGrath’s letter appeared in the following edition of The Social Worker when George Caldwell, a social worker from Nova Scotia, presented a different view (Caldwell 1960: 49–50). Caldwell argued that the CASW should not develop a policy position on capital punishment because, regardless of the position adopted, the CASW would enter troubled waters.

A CONSERVATIVE ERA IN SOCIAL WORK: THE 1950S

143

The subject should be left to each individual to determine for herself or himself, and if the association made a pronouncement, it would be a dangerous precedent in an area fraught with religious, moral, social, and legal implications (Caldwell 1960: 50). In many respects, the debate over capital punishment represented the two trends that persisted in the social work community –– the view that espoused a strong, clearly developed social action mandate, and the view that issues, particularly contentious ones, should be left to each individual. Finally, in December 1959 the CASW put forward a position that supported the abolition of the death penalty. It also supported life imprisonment for murder, with the proviso that imprisonment be accompanied by medical and psychiatric treatment, educational and employment opportunities, and spiritual and social services as required. It also proposed rehabilitation facilities to support the person upon discharge, and a program of research to understand why people commit murder.30 Capital punishment was removed from the Canadian Criminal Code in 1976. The Doukhobor Situation The Doukhobor situation in western Canada was an important social issue for the CASW branches in western Canada. The Doukhobors are a Christian group originally from Russia who settled mainly in Alberta and British Columbia. In the 1950s their traditional values of collective ownership, rejection of materialist culture, relative isolation from the rest of society, and pacifist philosophies came in conflict with more mainstream traditions in British Columbia. As early as 1950, the B.C. mainland branch of the CASW raised concerns over the treatment of the Doukhobors as a minority group who faced some of the same discrimination, prejudices, and misunderstandings as other minority groups in Canada.31 The B.C. mainland branch supported the rights of the Doukhobors to their own way of life, within certain limitations, and argued for more public education and mutual understanding.32 In 1953 the British Columbia government was involved in a direct confrontation with the Sons of Freedom, a Doukhobor sect that followed very strict traditions, including the education of their own children. In an attempt to prevent their children from being taught in government schools (which they believed promoted aggression, leading to war), members of the Sons of Freedom burned down some schools in British Columbia. In response to this action, the British Columbia government began to seize Doukhobor children from their homes and placed in them in a residential camp in New Denver, B.C., where they were educated in government schools (McLaren 2002: 259–93).

144

CHAPTER SEVEN

The British Columbia mainland branch had established a committee on Doukhobors, and in 1954 the committee corresponded with the attorney general of the province, offering its “willingness and readiness” to assist with the situation of Doukhobor children. This support became an issue for the Social Action Committee of the B.C. branch, which expressed concern over social workers supporting and working with a government that promoted enforced education, apprehended children, and established facilities that the Doukhobor community was not interested in. The Mainland Committee on Doukhobors, however, indicated that it had committed to nothing but a willingness to assist in any program that was based on the highest possible principles of child welfare.33 These types of political tensions among social workers manifested themselves in various ways across the country and underscored the different perspectives on social action and its role in the association.

Revisiting the Social Action Mandate, 1956–58 CASW should have the courage of its convictions and accept its obligation to speak out.34

Throughout the decade there was an enduring debate among social workers over the meaning of social action and its relevance to the professional association. In 1952 the discussion was opened up again, but this time the focus was on the association’s role in welfare planning; there was little discussion on the meaning of “social action.” The board of the CASW favoured an ad hoc approach whereby specific issues would be addressed as they arose. This was preferred over the standing committee model. The ad hoc committees would be formed by those members with special competence in the area under discussion and would receive direction from the board.35 The debates culminated in the biennial period 1956–58, when a special CASW ad hoc Committee on Social Action was appointed to develop statements of principle regarding social action. The urgency for a formal position on social action was directed in part by a new emphasis on professional development and the demands from the regional offices for direction and support in developing policy positions. In early 1957, Betty Govan represented the national board on a visit to British Columbia. Her report identified that branch associations were interested in developing a process for reaching a common position on public issues partly because branches made individual public pronouncements on issues that sometimes contradicted each other. The branches agreed that it was important to speak with one voice that “could interpret social work to the community.”36 The B.C.

A CONSERVATIVE ERA IN SOCIAL WORK: THE 1950S

145

branches felt it was more expeditious to develop a provincial organization to facilitate social action at the provincial level (since most social workers in B.C. worked for the provincial government), and felt they had no authority to approach the provincial government as a national organization. Moreover they felt the need to take concerted action with other provincial bodies on matters of mutual interest and, as a provincial organization, they would be able to increase membership.37 Alberta identified different concerns regarding social action. The northern Alberta branch felt that it did not have the expertise or knowledge to respond to a request from the opposition party of the province to provide a “sound social welfare program” and requested assistance from the CASW.38 These issues brought to the forefront the need for the association to provide some direction to its members and branches. The national ad hoc Committee on Social Action was formed in 1956 with the mandate to “define the function of a professional association in regard to social action and how this function is to be carried out.”39 The early discussions in the committee centred on determining the differences between a professional body, such as the CASW, and that of a planning body or a council in terms of social action. The major conundrum of the Social Action Committee was clearly expressed in the committee meeting minutes: In social action, should a professional association limit itself to a statement of the personal human problems, or should it be involved also in stating how it should meet some of these problems in the ways and means of meeting them. Has a professional association a responsibility for stimulating others to formulate programs to find out some of the solutions to the personal problems we meet, and to prod others into initiating a program to try to close some of the gaps in human welfare?40

Almost two years after it was established, a social policy document was submitted to the national board and all branches for their consideration.41 A range of opinions was expressed in response to the document: some branches held the position that social action should be an integral part of everyday social work; others argued that it would be impossible to reach a unanimous view on a definition of social policy.42 Despite differences of opinion, the board approved the statement of the committee and endorsed the definition of social action: Social action is the process of mobilizing public opinion in support of specific social objectives for the common good and human betterment. It is an official activity supported by an organization and as such is corporate and not individual action. Social action must be related to a matter of public importance and while it may be precipitated by an issue involving one person it must have broadly based

146

CHAPTER SEVEN

social implications and be aimed at the wider acceptance of the principle involved. This matter may be an issue already before the public or the action may be designed to create public interest in an issue. Social action involves education and interpretation. It has a specific goal which may be achieved by intermediate steps, while education is directed broadly to public attitudes or opinions.43

The social action document also stressed the importance of social action as a professional responsibility. There was recognition that social action may place members in conflict with the agency that employs them, and that social workers should try to avoid being in positions where their loyalties are tested. Policy statements, it argued, should be developed by the association for guidance to its members. Instances where social action could be taken included action taken by the profession independently; by the profession, stimulating action by another body; by the profession supporting the action of another body; or by any combination of the three. Above all, social action should be based on solid and accurate information and “should endeavor to be constructive rather than destructive” (Latimer 1972: 3). Social action could be taken at any level in the CASW only if the action was based on a policy statement endorsed by the membership; if the specific action received advanced membership approval; or if the proposed action was based on principles that the membership would be sure to approve (Latimer1972: 3). Given the need to make quick responses to social policy issues, the document indicated that generally, the national board would be responsible for making statements on national issues; provincial and local branch organizations would be responsible for their respective regions; and that social action undertaken at the provincial or local levels should not contradict policies established by the national board (Latimer 1972: 3). The national board had the responsibility of providing leadership at all levels regarding social action, and should be involved in long-range planning of social action. A Standing Committee on Social Policy was finally established in the CASW in February 1959. It was given the task to work out procedures for policy statement and began to develop a statement on human rights and social security (Latimer 1972: 237). No sooner was the committee established than conflict developed between the board and the standing committee over the function of the committee. The board of the CASW regarded the committee’s function as one of providing leadership rather than developing policy positions. It was eventually agreed in 1962 that the Standing Committee on Social Action would be responsible for preparing policy statements on a long-term basis, while “social action on current issues” would lie with the executive of the CASW (Latimer 1972: 230).

A CONSERVATIVE ERA IN SOCIAL WORK: THE 1950S

147

By the end of the decade, the association had adopted a formal framework that became the basis for guiding its social action mandate for the next several years. The CASW’s formal perspective of social action was in effect a modest critique of the status quo. Aware that the term “social action” had a “somewhat radical and flag-waving element” assigned to it,44 the CASW distanced itself from this characterization and emphatically defended its views as being independent of partisan politics and militant actions.45

Conclusion Overall the 1950s was a conservative decade born in the dark shadows of the Cold War. While there were radical elements within the membership of the association that continued to pressure it to adopt stronger positions on issues, the CASW, influenced by the conservative political climate, became more focused on internal issues. The war had just ended and the process of postwar reconstruction was under way when social workers were called on to work in civil defence. Outside of this new area of work, the main emphasis was on branch development and establishing a standard code of ethics for its members. The association maintained a level of activity in government policy, but its interventions were modest and cautious. Toward the end of the period, however, it was forced to address its role in social action from a growing membership that was becoming more vocal. By the mid-1960s the CASW had a defined procedure for social action and had carved out a territory based on the “professional competence” of social workers (Latimer 1974: 6). After years of controversy and debate, the social action mandate of the CASW had become, in many respects, more narrowly prescribed as providing direction on social policy issues of direct relevance to social work. While this approach had merit both for the association and for the larger social welfare community, it was inherently reactive and reform-based. Social workers and their association would continue to play important roles in responding to government policies, initiating new policy discussions and lobbying for social change. This approach remained dominant, although in the 1970s a more critical stream developed in social work.46 Debates over conditions of employment, inadequate training, and representation through labour organizations became areas of interest as new members entered the association from various regions across the country. As discussed in chapters 12 and 13, this more radical stream in social work education and practice added a new dimension to the profession, but it did not penetrate the mainstream of social work.

148

CHAPTER SEVEN

Notes 1 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 27, File 4, “Report of the Ethics Committee Prepared for the Annual Meeting of the B.C. Mainland Branch of the CASW held in Vancouver May 1st, 1951.” 2 Ibid., p. 2. 3 Ibid., p. 3. 4 Ibid. 5 AM, MG 10, A 33, Vol. 2, “A Meeting of the Manitoba Branch, CASW was held in the YWCA Rose Room at 12:15 PM May 18, 1949,” p. 2. 6 Ibid., p. 3. 7 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 13, File 27, “Biennial Report of Ethics Committee,” 1952. “Biennial Report of Ethics Committee,” The Social Worker 20, 5 (July 1952): 18–23. Social Welfare Branch, Victoria, Tentative Code of Ethics, British Columbia Welfare, November 1952, pp. 17–18. (From the files of the BCASW, Vancouver.) 8 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 3, File 38, Social Work Student Association, 1951–54, letter to Shirley Roberts, School of Social Work, University of Manitoba, from Joy Maines, executive director, CASW, January 26, 1953. 9 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 16, File 23, National Welfare Planning Committee, including minutes, 1958–63, brief from the Canadian Association of Social Workers to the Parliamentary Committee on Old Age Security, April 1950. 10 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 16, File 22, National Welfare Planning Committee, Indian Affairs, 1949–50, memo to the Honourable Minister of Mines and Resources from the CASW; Re: The Fourth Report of the Special Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons to continue to complete the examination and consideration of the Indian Act, 1950. 11 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 16, File 22, National Welfare Planning Committee, Indian Affairs, 1949–50, memo to the Honourable Minister of Mines and Resources from the CASW; Re: The Fourth Report of the Special Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons to continue to complete the examination and consideration of the Indian Act, 1950. 12 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 01, File 29, Board of Directors Meetings, Minutes and Related Material, 1950–52. 14 NAC, MG 28, I 441, CASW, “Statement of Unemployment,” 1950, p. 1. 15 Ibid. 16 NAC, MG 28, I 441, CASW, “Statement of Unemployment,” 1950, p. 1. 16 Ibid. 17 Ibid. 18 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 23, File 19, Toronto branch, CASW, “Statement on Social Security Gaps in Meeting Needs of Immigrants and Canadian Citizens,” January 25, 1957, pp. 1–2. 19 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 23, File 17, letter from Shaun Govenlock, president, CASW, to Louis St. Laurent, December 14, 1954. 20 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 6, File 13, Board of Directors’ Correspondence, 1954–56, letter from Shaun Govenlock, president, CASW, to the Right Honourable Louis St. Laurent, Prime Minister of Canada, March 1, 1955.

A CONSERVATIVE ERA IN SOCIAL WORK: THE 1950S

149

21 Ibid. 22 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 23, File 18, letter to John Bunn, Vancouver, from Joy Maines, executive secretary, CASW, March 7, 1955. 23 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 27, File 10, B.C. mainland branch minutes, “Report of Social Action Committee,” 1955, pp. 4–5. 24 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 6, File 14, Executive Committee Correspondence, 1954–56, “A Public Assistance Program for the Employable Unemployed, A Recommendation for Action to the Canadian Government,” the Canadian Welfare Council, January 1955. 25 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 36, File 5, Toronto Branch, includes minutes and annual report (2), Toronto branch. CASW, “Statement on Social Security Gaps in Meeting Needs of Immigrants and Canadian Citizens,” January 25, 1957. 26 Ibid., p. 2 27 Ibid., p. 3. 28 Ibid., p. 27. 29 Ibid. 30 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 2, File 12, CASW, “Draft Policy Statement on the Death Penalty,” December 31, 1959. 31 NAC, MG 28, I 441, “Statement of the Canadian Association of Social Workers, B.C. Mainland Branch, to Consultative Committee on Doukhobor Situation,” August 30–31, 1950. 32 Ibid. 33 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 27, File 10, B.C. Mainland Branch Meetings, report of Social Action Committee, 1955, pp. 3–4. 34 NAC, MG 28, I 441, File 2-7, CASW National Committee on Social Action, “Social Action,” December 1957. 35 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 30, File 7, letter to Miss Esther Kerry, Montreal, from Bessie Touzel, October 23, 1952. 36 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 24, Structure Committee (1956–57, 1959–61). Betty Govan, “Report of Visit of the Representative of the National Board to B.C.,” March 8–17, 1957. 37 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 36, File 36-17, “Windsor and Essex County Branch,” includes minutes, April 24, 1957. 38 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 23, File 19, minutes of the National CASW Committee on Social Action, January 31, 1957, pp. 1–3; letter from Elizabeth Govan to Elizabeth McPherson, secretary, northern Alberta branch, February 12, 1957. 39 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 23, File 19, minutes of meeting of the CASW Committee on Social Action, February 27, 1957, p. 2. 40 Ibid., p. 2. 41 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 23, File 19, minutes of meeting of the National Committee on Social Action, November 27, 1957. 42 AM, MG 10, A33 Vol. 2, CASW, Manitoba branch, minutes of general meeting, March 12, 1958; Elspeth Latimer, “An Analysis of the Social Action Behaviour of the Canadian Association of Social Workers from Its Organizational Beginning to the Modern Period,” Ph.D. dissertation, 1972, p. 237.

150

CHAPTER SEVEN

43 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 2, File 7, Board of Directors Meetings, Minutes and Related Material (1), 1956–58. CASW, National Committee on Social Action, n.d., p. 1. 44 NAC, MG 28, I 442, Vol. 23, File 19, Social Action Committee, includes minutes, 1956–58. Minutes of a meeting of the CASW Committee on Social Action, February 21, 1957, p. 2. 45 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 23, File 19, Social Action Committee, includes minutes, 1956–58. Minutes of the National Committee of the CASW, January 31, 1957, p. 1. 46 See, for example, Joseph Ryant, “The Revolutionary Potential of Social Work,” The Social Worker/Le Travailleur Social 37, 3 (1969): 151–56; Dennis Guest, “Three Social Policy Issues for the 70’s,” Canadian Welfare 46, 4 (July–August 1970): 12–15; Joseph Ryant, “Strategies for Change,” The Social Worker/Le Travailleur Social 40, 2 : 169–76; Ben Carniol, “Advocacy: for Community Power,” Canadian Welfare 50, 3 (May–June 1974): 12–15; F.R. MacKinnon, “Power and the Human Equation,” Canadian Welfare 49, 2 (1973): 5–7; Ben Zion Shapiro, “Encountering the Politicized Client,” The Social Worker/Le Travailleur Social 43, 4 (1975): 171–75; Marlene Webber, “Doing Casework While Rome Burns or Social Workers, Social Welfare, and the Crisis of Capitalism,” The Social Worker/Le Travailleur Social 45, 4 (Winter 1977): 173–77.

CHAPTER EIGHT

The Struggle for Workplace Improvements and Standards: The Role of Unions and Professional Associations It is useless for us to have our ideals or our theories of social betterment, so long as workers attempting to put them into practice are liable to dismissal by reactionary employers. We must find means to resist coercive pressure or, in the ever sharpening crisis, our power to champion our clients will steadily be taken from us as the need for it increases. (Thomson, 1936: 3)

In the 1940s and 1950s social workers entered two new important areas of work: work related to the war industry and postwar welfare state development. During these decades there was a “chaotic competition” for scarce personnel between private agencies and the public sector, and tensions ran high between professionally educated social workers and those who had no specialized training.1 Personnel policies and practices became central debates among social workers and the CASW as wide discrepancies in education, salaries, benefits, and conditions of work and consequently standards of practice became apparent. Discrepancies appeared across all agencies, particularly between public and private, and between social workers and comparable professions such as nursing and teaching. An important part of the debate centred on determining a form of representation for social workers’ interests –– the professional association (i.e., the CASW), staff associations, or labour unions.2

152

CHAPTER EIGHT

Social Work and Unions: An Uneasy Alliance For some social workers, particularly those in private agencies, the fight for increased wages and improved conditions of work were regarded as contradictory and unethical because a gain for social workers was regarded as drawing resources away from their clients. These workers shied away from promoting salary increases and changes in conditions of work. This state of affairs placed social work in an anomalous position. As a profession in high demand with a scarce supply of qualified personnel, the immediate postwar period, in theory, put social workers in a strong bargaining position. Social workers’ inability to take advantage of this, however, meant that their salaries remained comparatively low and conditions of work difficult. Social workers’ reluctance to engage actively with unions as their collective bargaining agent enabled employers to hire untrained workers to fill the serious shortage that persisted during the war and postwar period. The CASW responded to this situation by focusing on educating and training social workers. It also attempted to advance working conditions for its members through professionalization. Linking low salaries and poor conditions of work to reduced standards of social work practice, and eventually to licensing and certification, was one way that the CASW tried to keep its focus on professionalization while simultaneously advocating for better working conditions.3 This strategy, however, was unsuccessful as the salaries and working conditions of social workers remained largely unchanged while the demand for social workers continued to increase. Despite the urging of individual social workers, it was not until the broad expansion of public sector unions in the 1960s that social workers actively joined the labour movement as workers.4 Conditions of work and standards of practice were issues that came to the forefront as early as the 1930s, when social workers were catapulted into relief work brought on by the Great Depression. The extreme demand for relief placed a heavy burden on the social workers charged with administering aid to the impoverished. Poorly prepared for both the scope and depth of the problems, they struggled in private and public agencies to keep up with the demand in a relief system that was ad hoc, chaotic, and administratively weak (Cassidy 1932). Because the demand for social workers was so high, many agencies employed workers with no social work education, which continued to be a source of tension over the next several decades and is addressed in chapters that follow. These conditions and labour militancy of the period influenced social workers to begin debating the merits of joining unions (Tillotson 1997b: 63). During the peak of the Depression, some social workers had agreed to salary reductions to assist community chests so that the “body and souls of

THE STRUGGLE FOR WORKPLACE IMPROVEMENTS AND STANDARDS

153

clients could be kept together,” but subsequently involuntary salary reductions were introduced (Maines 1959: 6). Among other factors, this combination of new and difficult work, employment of untrained workers, questionable standards of service, and depressed salaries led to the establishment of a Service Standards Committee within the CASW. The committee’s first task was to collect data, which it did by sending a questionnaire to CASW members about their working conditions. Working conditions of social workers were complicated by the fact that relief, or social assistance, was delivered in various settings –– churches, private agencies, and increasingly in public welfare departments. Social workers were primarily employed in private agencies, but as governments became more involved in assisting with the unemployment and poverty crises, provincial welfare departments began to develop across the country and to employ social workers. But while the conditions of poverty and unemployment in the 1930s raised the consciousness of many Canadian social workers, the conditions of war production and the period of reconstruction brought into sharper focus the need for organizing in their own interests as employees. Unionization of social workers was slower to develop in Canada than it was in the US (Wigdor 1943; Touzel 1944), but Canadian social workers were influenced by the American experience. American social workers’ first efforts to combat reduced salaries occurred in private agencies in New York in the early 1930s.5 In response to poor working conditions, low salaries, and no job tenure in relief agencies, social workers in larger centres developed discussion groups, forums, and protective associations to discuss conditions of work; these later developed into unions for social workers.6 The protective associations were characterized from the beginning by a dual interest. In addition to their concern for improving working conditions and salaries and establishing mechanisms for grievances, they were interested in advancing professional standards, as well as social legislation and social planning.7 The first attempt to link various protective associations into a national body for American social workers occurred in 1935 with the establishment of the National Coordinating Committee of the rank-and-file group. As an activist organization, it engaged in public protests on social issues and promoted social security legislation, as well as developing a national program for job protection for social workers. In 1936 most member bodies of the National Coordinating Committee of the rank-and-file groups in social work eventually affiliated with the American Federation of Labor (AFL).8 Over the next few years most of the locals transferred from the AFL to two unions affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organization (CIO), which was considered to be a better fit since it was interested in organizing

154

CHAPTER EIGHT

white-collar workers.9 The CIO, moreover, had a program for social legislation and was also interested in organizing unorganized workers; both issues were of interest to social workers.10 The majority of social workers in private agencies joined with the United Office and Professional Workers Association (UOPWA), and those in the public sector joined the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME). Throughout the 1940s and 1950s, American social work journals, particularly Social Work Today and the Compass, consistently promoted unions.11 Social Work Today featured a regular column called “Trade Union Notes,” which reported on union developments. The message in this column was consistent and clear: a protective organization in the form of a trade union was necessary to improve working conditions for social workers. Social workers’ involvement in picketing, work stoppage, and demonstrations was viewed not only as justifiable but as necessary for advancing the standards of employment and addressing the inadequacy of relief programs.

Social Workers, Staff Associations, and Unions While Canadian social workers were slow to embrace unions as their collective bargaining agents, they worked jointly with them in community partnerships throughout the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s. In the 1940s unions began to make significant contributions to community chests, and labour representatives sat on welfare boards (Royce 1943: 15; Tillotson 1997b: 63–89; Tillotson 1997a: 137–69). In 1944, for example, three labour representatives, including a vice-president of the Canadian Congress of Labour, were represented on the Vancouver Welfare Council, and four labour representatives sat on the board of the Community Chest.12 In the postwar period, social workers and unions further co-operated in promoting the development of social legislation. Many social workers considered the idea of accepting unions as collective bargaining agents controversial. Debates and tensions over the role of unions are clearly reflected in the minutes of the meetings of the branches and the national office of the CASW. In 1943, correspondence between social worker Hazel Wigdor and the executive secretary of the CASW, Joy Maines, illustrates this tension and the CASW’s unwillingness to promote the collective bargaining function of unions for social workers. In a response to Wigdor’s concern that the CASW was promoting staff associations over unions, Maines agreed that there should be more discussion on the topic, but, she stated, some members of the CASW did not support unions and there was “little use in antagonizing folk, particularly if they are in a majority, unless some obvious good is gained.”13

THE STRUGGLE FOR WORKPLACE IMPROVEMENTS AND STANDARDS

155

In 1944 a subcommittee of the Montreal branch, the Committee on Social Security for the Social Worker, undertook a detailed study of how best to protect social workers as employees.14 It collected written material and interviews from Canada and the US. The final document provided a detailed description of four forms of protective organizations for social workers: (1) professional associations, (2) unions, (3) staff associations, and (4) board-staff committees. Professional associations such as the CASW were concerned primarily with issues such as qualifications and professional development of their members. They were interested in conditions of work insofar as these conditions affected the worker’s performance with the client. The strategy of the professional association was to educate its members and the public about issues relevant to the profession through briefs, studies, and statements of interpretation. Associations often solicited support primarily by asking prominent citizens to sit on their boards or committees. Social workers join associations, the Montreal report stated, for a number of reasons. Generally they were interested in the development of the profession, the status of professional membership, and the opportunity to connect with each other as professionals. The Montreal committee further noted that only about onethird of social workers in Canada were members of the CASW, and that with the growth of the public sector and increased employment of untrained workers, increasingly fewer people working in social welfare would become members of the professional association.15 Unions, on the other hand, were described as agencies that people join based on their concern over their rights as workers and the recognition that they occupied a unique place in the “economic order.”16 Union membership and the process of collective bargaining gave social workers job security, improved working conditions, and the support of the broader labour movement. The Montreal committee identified the different interests of workers and management, and noted that they often worked in opposition and indicated that it was too early to make any definitive comments about the status of trade unionism for social workers in Canada. While social workers were vocal about their need for better conditions of work, they tended to work through staff associations and board-staff committees.17 Staff associations typically developed out of the need to change salary standards, conditions of work, and personnel policies, but they differed from unions primarily in that they dealt with individual agencies and represented only members of that agency.18 Unlike unions, in which clear lines are drawn between rank-and-file workers and managers, staff associations did not necessarily make this distinction.

156

CHAPTER EIGHT

The main objectives of the staff association were to “win the Board’s recognition of the Association as an organized group authorized by the members of the staff to speak in their name.”19 The most common method of activity was to study salary scales, working conditions, and personnel practices in order to educate the board with the facts.20 In the 1940s in Canada, staff associations for social workers existed in Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa, and Vancouver, and were the most common form of representation for social workers. The Toronto branch of the CASW was most actively associated with staff associations; the Council of Staff Associations existed in Toronto, acting as a clearinghouse of information about associations. The board-staff committees, which were comprised of representatives of staff and members of the board to address personnel matters and other issues of concern, were typically employed in private agencies. These committees served to acquaint the board with the services provided by the staff, to review agency policy and formulate new policy, to increase mutual knowledge of the board and staff, and to develop a stronger partnership in the delivery of services to clients.21 This arrangement appeared to work well in large agencies where the lines of administration were clearly drawn. One important advantage of the board-staff committee was that it had the potential to engender trust between staff members and the board. After the extensive review of the possibilities for social workers, the final branch recommendations supported the status quo and did little to challenge social workers or the professional organization. While it recommended unions as the most effective measure for protecting social workers, the Montreal branch’s endorsement was tempered with the proviso that until steps were taken to establish unions for social workers in Canada, staff associations were the best option. Board-staff committees, it argued, should be encouraged as supplementary to trade unions or staff associations.22 In the mid-1940s the eastern Ontario branch of the CASW established a subcommittee under the leadership of J.E. Laycock to study labour relations in general and the Wartime Labour Relations Regulation of 1944 in particular.23 The general position of the subcommittee was that organized labour was basic to the development of public policy. Every citizen in Canada, it argued, is affected in some way by industrial and labour relations, and that failing to support workers with adequate wages, hours, and working conditions would be catastrophic for everyone.24 The committee endorsed unions for social workers and urged the CASW to study labour relations in more detail over the next years. However, the employee staff associations continued to be the most common form of protective agency for social workers in Canada before the

THE STRUGGLE FOR WORKPLACE IMPROVEMENTS AND STANDARDS

157

1960s.25 They were most active in the larger Canadian cities and regularly engaged in collective bargaining.26 The first organization of this type was developed at the Jewish Child Welfare Association in Toronto in the 1930s.27 Although it was developed in response to unfair salaries, the employees had decided not to call itself a union for fear that it might be considered unprofessional (Bowley 1988: 8). Although these staff associations were more popular than unions among social workers in the 1940s and 1950s, there were those who strongly favoured unions and the need for social workers to forge closer links with labour. Hazel Wigdor (1943) lamented the fact that social workers in Canada had lagged seriously behind American social workers, and posed the question: “Why is it that some social workers admit an unreasoning sense of antagonism towards trade unions, or, more often, plead plain ignorance of what organized labour stands for?” There are several explanations for social workers’ opposition to unions. One reason was their suspicion of unions as radical agencies with which they did not want to affiliate. Also, unions were regarded by some social workers as “blue collar,” and therefore were not appropriate for “professionals,” including professional social workers. And there was the residual discomfort that some social workers had with advancing their own interests over those of their clients. In correspondence with Hazel Wigdor, Joy Maines from the national office indicated that social workers wanted to dissociate from unions.28 Wigdor argued that the media’s negative reporting of labour issues tainted social workers’ perceptions of unions. Unions were linked to radicalism, and words such as “collective bargaining” and “demands of employees” were regarded as “red rag” words (Wigdor 1943: 18). In 1947 the Montreal branch reported to the national office that it was planning a panel on unionism in an attempt to air any concerns that its members may have about unions –– concerns such as “unions being dominated by communists, and unions being ‘beneath our dignity.’”29 In 1946 and 1947, the American United Office and Professional Workers’ Association (UOPWA), the main union for American social workers in private agencies, was in regular contact with social workers in Toronto and Montreal, and began actively organizing in the Toronto area. In 1946 the Jewish Child Welfare Association and the Jewish Family Welfare Association amalgamated to form the Jewish Family and Child Services (JF&CS) with Dora Wilensky in charge. The clerical staff, social workers, and supervisors (who were organized in a staff association in 1935) now became members of the UOPWA (Bowley 1988: 9). On a few occasions in 1947, UOPWA organizer Kenneth Woodsworth met with the eastern Ontario branch to discuss salary standards (Lewey 2006: 197–98). Although the UOPWA attempted to

158

CHAPTER EIGHT

organize more social workers, it was never successful in organizing beyond a few more Jewish agencies. Part of the reason for this was that it was suspected of being “a left-wing stronghold” and therefore the target of anticommunist Red-baiting (Reisch and Andrews 2002: 96). The Red-baiting even occurred inside the labour movement. In 1948, for example, when the research director of the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC) met with members of the eastern Ontario branch to speak about the merits of unionization, he cautioned them against the UOPWA, stating that it was “communistic” and not endorsed by the CLC (Lewey 2006: 198). In 1950, in the US, the UOPWA was expelled from the Congress of Industrial Organizations for being a communist union, and it eventually dissolved. The staff of the JF&CS felt the impact of the Cold War and responded by aligning themselves more closely with the CCF and away from the Communist Party of Canada (Bowley 1988: 10). One of the most common reasons for the lack of union interest and support among social workers was their conflict over social workers’ relationship with their clients. This vestige of the charity movement in the days before social work was considered to be paid work led to the interpretation of any attempt to focus on promoting protection for the social worker as taking resources away from their clients. The CASW’s strategy for bridging this divide was to demonstrate to social workers that there was a relationship between the improved working conditions and improved standards of practice. In promoting the idea that social work protection was not entirely about economic gain, but also about professional competence, the association was able to help “dilute the guilt of workers who still feel reticent about discussing such vulgar practicalities as adequate salaries and working conditions.”30 At a CASW biennial meeting in 1944, American social worker Alice Taylor addressed a Canadian audience in which she stressed the need for Canadian social workers to begin to regard themselves as white-collar workers whose salaries are so low as to be inadequate protection for the contingencies of life such as old age, accidents, illness, unemployment, or death. Taylor underscored the fact that social workers, in fact, were worse off than most other professional groups in terms of protecting themselves.31 Social workers in the public sector were somewhat better off because they often participated in government insurance plans, but this was not the case in private agencies.32 Taylor concluded that social workers should work together for coverage from all risks, for all social workers in both public and private agencies. Some social workers’ inability to reconcile their interests in improving their own conditions of work with services to their clients persisted through-

THE STRUGGLE FOR WORKPLACE IMPROVEMENTS AND STANDARDS

159

out the 1940s and 1950s. In 1948 the CASW recognized the rights of professional workers to join unions, but it stopped short of promoting unions as the agency of choice for advancing the interests of social workers. Albert Rose, in a presentation to a national social work conference in 1948, blamed social workers for refusing to move forward on this issue and referred to them as “a brake on society.”33 In the biennial report of the 1950–52 period, the National Committee on Personnel Practices stated that it had not had time to fully study the issue of the relationship of the CASW with unions, and it called on the branches to provide it with information about, among other things, the similarities between unions and the professional association, how they support each other, and whether social workers should be allowed to strike as a last resort.34 Vulnerability of Social Workers: A Case Example While the board of the CASW refused to promote the unionization of its members until it had studied the issue further, the vulnerabilities of nonunionized employees was clear. A case example arose in the new province of Newfoundland, where a social worker was fired. In June 1951, Derek Decker, president and one of eight members of the Newfoundland branch (1951–53), was dismissed from his job by the minister of public welfare, Herb Pottle. Pottle simply went to the Cabinet and abolished the post of director of training, and later alleged that Decker was using welfare officers to somehow sabotage the government. The incident made front-page news and drew the attention of the national CASW office. Decker had held this permanent position for nine months and was responsible for the urgently required in-service training of professional and semi-professional social welfare officers. Welfare officers situated in districts throughout the province “had accepted the new concept of welfare and were making more and more demands on the administration through their correspondence and because administration was not geared to meet these demands, there was a growing restlessness among welfare officers.”35 As a result, Decker found that many welfare officers were writing letters to him asking for help. Decker had expressed concern to Mr. Cramm, the director of child welfare, that welfare officers were dissatisfied with the actions of the province. He soon realized that his requests were being ignored, and that there was an “open campaign” to convey the message that the minister of welfare “was an authority in the field and woe betide those who dare question such authority.”36 Decker was convinced that anyone else would have ended up in the same situation unless the person was “willing to sacrifice all principles and ethics of social work and be a ‘yes man’ to administration.”37

160

CHAPTER EIGHT

In January 1953, social worker Freda Berry contacted the national office of the CASW to inquire what it could do with regard to dismissal of professional social workers without a fair hearing.38 John Morgan, from the University of Toronto, also brought the issue forward to the national board. Morgan was concerned that the CASW was being viewed with distrust.39 A committee of inquiry was established to look into the situation and work with the Newfoundland representatives. It was decided that if social workers in Newfoundland were being pressured to stay away from CASW meetings, then the CASW board ought to protest to the Newfoundland minister of public welfare for interfering with the rights of professional members.40 Attracting members was, in fact, a major concern in establishing the Newfoundland branch. This was complicated by the fact that Stuart Godfrey, of the Department of Public Welfare, discouraged and perhaps prevented his employees from joining the association because he felt that one member, Decker, was unprofessional in his behaviour.41 The Newfoundland branch questioned whether Decker’s firing was an issue of ethics. Joy Maines, executive secretary of the CASW, was not convinced that the firing was a matter of ethics and tended to question the social worker, not the minister of welfare. Maines said that she could not conceive of a minister making such a statement unless he had strong evidence to support it. She continued: “this is just another example of our friend… becoming all excited, and wanting to line up with the opposition against the Minister, and he has twisted the Minister’s statement into a question of ethics. I feel like saying to them that we as social workers have enough on our hands to keep our own ethics straight, without fussing about whether the Minister is ethical or isn’t. If they could just see him in the role of a politician instead of thinking of him as a ‘welfare’ person, they wouldn’t get so tangled up.”42 She concluded by stating that social workers need to be aware of the ethics of people outside the profession, but that the CASW had no authority over them. So while the CASW pondered the questions of ethics, the fact that a social worker had been unfairly dismissed was not even discussed, and there was no discussion about the importance of protecting social workers in their places of employment. Social Workers in High Demand and Short Supply The shortage of social workers was first addressed at a conference in 1929,43 but it was exacerbated by the Depression and the onset of the World War II, and the high demand continued throughout the 1940s and 1950s. In the summer of 1943 the Canadian Welfare Council (CWC), in conjunction with the CASW, prepared a memorandum for the National Selective Service on the topic of supply and demand of social workers.44

THE STRUGGLE FOR WORKPLACE IMPROVEMENTS AND STANDARDS

161

A survey of personnel resources in social work across the country revealed that wartime services were “[dipping] into the meager supply of qualified social workers” to the extent that almost 25 percent of social workers across Canada were directly or indirectly involved in wartime agencies (The Social Worker November 1943c: 3). At the same time “purely domestic” social issues increased, adding a further strain to social work resources (The Social Worker 1943c: 3). Trained Canadian social workers were also recruited to Britain to assist with the effects of the Blitz in September 1941, and later a number of Canadian social workers went overseas to work with the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration (UNRRA) (Main 1959: 8). The memorandum of the CASW and the CWC further estimated that of the jobs called “social work,” less than one-third were filled with personnel who were qualified for these jobs through social work training or professional standing (The Social Worker 1943c: 3). Concern over hiring unqualified social workers in relief agencies and variations in personnel practices between the public and private sectors was addressed by the Service Standards Committee of the CASW in the 1938–40 biennial period.45 The joint CASW–CWC memorandum was critical of the federal government, which it regarded as largely responsible for the acute shortage of social workers, and called on it for financial support for social work education in an effort to produce more qualified workers (The Social Worker 1943c, 4–5). The CASW had contradictory policies regarding its relationship with the state. While on the one hand there was apprehension and criticism in the CASW about social workers being siphoned from private agencies into government jobs, particularly the federal public service, on the other hand the association welcomed the growing social service sector both in terms of the programs and services it would offer Canadians, as well as the new job opportunities it created for social workers. The CASW established a special committee to deal strictly with issues of government and social work46 and in the summer of 1944, the offices of the CASW were moved from Toronto to Ottawa. The national office in Ottawa took on the new function of clearinghouse for federal government jobs. The CASW national office, specifically its executive secretary, Joy Maines, regularly directed social workers (typically men, often academics) to government departments where it was felt this was warranted, and regularly advised departments on the need for social workers in government positions. In 1949, for example, the association sent a letter to the deputy minister of mines and resources, Mr. Keenleyside, requesting that a social worker be appointed to assist the new superintendent of welfare for the Indian Affairs branch with the tasks of directing and supervising Indian welfare programs, supervising the administration of the Veterans’ Land Act, assisting

162

CHAPTER EIGHT

in rehabilitating Indian veterans, supervising the administration of the Family Allowances Act, and the unusual task of directing and organizing the supervision of Indian handicrafts.47 Keenleyside replied to the CASW (Joy Maines): “You will be interested to know that the positions for nine social workers, grade one, have been created and will shortly be filled by the Civil Service Commission. These social workers will have their headquarters at Vancouver, Calgary, Regina, Winnipeg, North Bay, Toronto, Montreal, Fredericton, and Eskasoni. Their task will be to assist in the general advancement of Indian welfare and their duties will include those mentioned in your letter.”48 So began a strong working relationship between the federal government and the CASW that would last well into the next decade. In 1948 the shortage of social work personnel was the subject of a national conference held in Ottawa. Among other issues, the conference called for the Research Division of the Department of National Health and Welfare to conduct a Canada-wide survey of welfare agencies in both the public and private sectors in order to have a clear sense of the extent of the supply and demand for social workers in Canada. The survey report was released in 1954.49 In the meantime, social workers were conducting their own research on personnel problems.50 In a study of the labour shortage in social work, in 1953 the Toronto branch highlighted the direct relationship between conditions of employment and high demand.51 Specifically, it identified three factors that contributed to the shortage of social workers: (1) the low status of the profession; (2) the high education costs and ineffective recruitment for training; and (3) the low salaries and poor benefits.52 The Toronto branch further argued that the low public image of social work was detrimental to the profession. While this line of work had one of the greatest claims to professionalism, it continued to be regarded as charity work by members of the public, boards of directors of agencies, and by social workers themselves.53 And while the CASW made numerous attempts through publicity campaigns and “interpretation” of the profession to the public, the charity image was difficult to lose. The result of this situation was that social workers were constantly involved in “rear-guard action against the pervasive notion that any man with love in his heart can do the job.”54 The responsibility for this low esteem, the Toronto group argued, was partly the fault of social workers who seemed simply to accept it rather than make responsible efforts to overcome it. Moreover, as a professional organization, social workers lacked unity and cohesiveness and were reluctant to take strong stands on social issues that might jeopardize their public profile.55 It also identified poor work performance for depressing social work’s

THE STRUGGLE FOR WORKPLACE IMPROVEMENTS AND STANDARDS

163

professional reputation. Unsatisfactory job performance resulted from a number of factors, including low salaries, which leads to hiring young and inexperienced workers; too much responsibility and too little supervision for beginners; workers who were not suited to the profession, but who were hired as a result of inadequate screening; a large number of social workers without any formal training; and limited opportunities for training.56 To address this, the branch recommended that the CASW convey the message to the public and to social workers “to believe in ourselves and the job we can do.”57 The lack of professional self-esteem continued to be a concern in social work throughout this period. In the late 1950s, Viola Paradise, a freelance writer, wrote an article titled “A Do-It-Yourself Approach to Social Work Interpretation.” In it she diagnosed social workers as suffering from an “unnecessary occupational disease –– a complex of inferiority feeling.”58 She criticized the profession for not creating a stronger image of itself, and argued that social workers need more quality, faith, and confidence in their work. She advised the profession that “Besides a basic confidence in our work –– lacking which we’d better get another job –– we need only these three essentials: awareness of the interests of our audience, knowledge of our material, and clarity of purpose.”59 The shortage of qualified social workers and the debates over how to remedy the problem persisted through the 1940s and 1950s. In 1958 the CWC journal, Canadian Welfare, estimated that there were 1,550 vacant social work positions in Canada that year, and of this number, 1,100 (70.96 percent) of them required a professional education. It further noted that while there were approximately 522 students in Canadian schools of social work, less than half of them would be seeking a job by the summer (Canadian Welfare 1958: 297). Since many of these positions would likely to be filled by workers without university training in social work, a heavy responsibility was placed on agencies to provide in-service training and careful supervision. Inadequate Training The strong and persistent demand for social workers raised a number of questions. One important one was the increasing employment, particularly in public agencies, of untrained and unskilled workers and, related to this, the need to improve access to social work education. “Social welfare work” had become a designated category for the first time in the 1931 Canadian census. In the 1941 census, 1,803 people were gainfully employed as social workers in Canada (Svanhuit 1945: 8). This represented an increase of more

164

CHAPTER EIGHT

than 60 percent overall from the previous census. Between 1931 and 1941, social workers in B.C. had tripled, the numbers almost doubled in Quebec, and increased by 25 percent in Ontario. In both the Prairies and the Maritime provinces, the rates of growth were slower (Svanhuit 1945: 9). One reason for the inhibited rate of growth in Alberta was likely related to the fact that the government of the province did not acknowledge or hire formally educated social workers until well into the 1960s. Although there was a dramatic increase in social work positions across the country, many of them were not professionally educated in schools of social work, and less than half were members of the CASW (Svanhuit 1945: 8). In the 1943 the Conference on Social Work Personnel, co-sponsored by the CASW and the Canadian Welfare Council, brought together representatives from federal and provincial government departments, private agencies, national groups and organizations, schools of social work, the CASW, and the Canadian Welfare Council to determine more accurately the demand for social workers and to devise ways and means of recruiting and training qualified staff to meet this need.60 The conference heard about the specific demands for social workers from the various regions of the country. Focusing on how to meet the growing demand, one important decision that the delegates reached was that more efforts needed to be placed on student recruitment and on quicker access to shorter training programs. Although four new schools of social work had been established since the war began (two French-speaking schools, Laval and the University of Montreal; the Maritime School in Halifax; and the School of Social Work in Manitoba), the need for qualified workers was so urgent that “emergency” short-term training programs were seen as the only immediate solution. The need for federal funding for social work education was also underscored as a pressing need.61 This need had been identified earlier in the Marsh Report of 1943.62 In March 1944, following the conference, the CASW, the Canadian Welfare Council, and Canadian schools of social work made a joint submission to the federal government appealing for federal assistance in social work education.63 Two years later the federal government, through the Department of National Health and Welfare, finally provided funding for schools of social work. The proceedings of the 1943 Conference on Social Work Personnel clearly demonstrated that solutions to the social work shortage were addressed in the context of the war effort. The first two speakers were linked to the military, and their addresses came from the perspective of the demands of a wartime economy. Lieutenant-Colonel Griffin, from the Directorate of Medical Services, spoke of the relationship between social

THE STRUGGLE FOR WORKPLACE IMPROVEMENTS AND STANDARDS

165

work and medicine, and the significance of psychiatric social workers to the army.64 The second speaker was Jack Pembroke, the assistant deputy minister of national defence. He noted the increasing difficulties of private agencies in retaining qualified social workers, and stressed the importance of qualified workers to assist the armed forces with family problems and other social problems. He indicated that qualified and seasoned social workers were in demand, but that these resources needed to be conserved for essential services. The Department of National Defence had a practice of employing “carefully selected people without experience or training in the social work field, and have instituted possibly the first in-service training given to social work in a Federal department.”65 The conference concluded that since the federal government was drawing heavily on social work resources, it had a responsibility to financially assist in the training of social workers. The rationale for federal financial assistance was based on the reasoning that the federal government had a responsibility to help replenish the social work pool from which it was drawing so heavily. Many social workers who had formerly worked for “peacetime agencies” were absorbed into federal wartime agencies such as the Dependents’ Allowance Board and the Dependents’ Board of Trustees. The supply of social workers was also tending to diminish as the demand for their services increased, not only in wartime agencies but in a multitude of fields.66 In January 1948 a second national Conference on Personnel in Social Work was held in Ottawa. Again it addressed, among other issues, the shortage of social work personnel. At this conference, the CASW developed new strategies for recruiting high school students to the profession. Harry Cassidy, from the Toronto School of Social Work, drafted a new modernized recruitment document.67 Albert Rose, research director of the Community Chest and Welfare Council of Greater Toronto, made a shrewd and candid presentation to the conference.68 He noted that, while it was difficult to estimate exact numbers, approximately 40 percent of social workers in 1948 had “professional standing.”69 Social work education was a central theme in a discussion by the Toronto branch in 1953. Members of the discussion group identified barriers to social work education as the costs for training, the lengthy duration of study, and an absence of adequate scholarships and government grants. The Toronto branch highlighted the importance of recruiting students from a range of economic backgrounds, but felt that the costs of education made it prohibitive for lower-income groups.70 The Toronto branch regarded recruitment as the responsibility of all social workers and not just schools of social work. Social workers needed to “sharpen and refine [their] interpretation to

166

CHAPTER EIGHT

the public” and to find ways for high school students to become personally acquainted with the field.71 The need for flexibility through part-time education was also recommended.72 Salaries and Conditions of Work The issue of salaries was a concern of social workers since the 1920s. In 1941 staff at the Baron de Hirsch Institute set up monthly meetings to discuss how to improve and better coordinate services in their agency (Adler 1944: 19–22), but the first issue that the meetings addressed was that of salaries (Adler 1944: 19). Up to this point, salary increases in the institute were secured on an individual basis: “The aggressive worker would look after his interests quite nicely, but the timid soul was usually lost in the background” (Adler 1944: 19). The committee recommended an immediate increase in salaries for all workers. Eventually staff at the Baron de Hirsch Institute decided that they required a staff association to assist them in securing benefits for employees. While they recognized the importance of united action, they stopped short of recommending the establishment of a union and instead embraced a staff association. In his presentation to the 1948 national conference on social work personnel, Albert Rose identified three anomalies in personnel practices in social work: (1) social workers, while seeking human betterment for their clients, were unable to achieve this objective for themselves; (2) as a profession in great demand, social work was unable to translate this demand into higher wages for most of its members; and (3) even when private agencies were successful in acquiring desired funding levels, this did not appear to improve conditions for the workers in these agencies.73 Rose addressed a wide range of personnel issues, including workload, professional development, hours of work, salaries, and physical conditions of work. Heavy workloads were a problem across the country. Caseloads varied among agencies, but overall they were considered to be particularly excessive in private agencies and were regarded as detrimental to effective professional performance.74 Professional growth and development sessions were almost nonexistent for social workers because heavy workloads permitted little or no time in the workday to attend training sessions. Typically, managers attended committee and interagency meetings because staff workers were not considered to be experienced enough to represent agencies. This cycle perpetuated itself and eliminated opportunities for professional growth among rank-and-file social workers.75 Another problematic area for social workers was hours of work. Using Toronto caseworkers as an example, Rose noted that, while they reported

THE STRUGGLE FOR WORKPLACE IMPROVEMENTS AND STANDARDS

167

working a standard workweek of thirty-seven hours, in fact most of them worked an additional two to twelve hours of overtime without remuneration.76 In addition to long hours of work, social workers overall received comparatively low salaries for extraordinarily difficult work. Social work salaries, Rose commented, were “insufficient to maintain a standard of living which a professionally-trained worker in Canada might be expected to receive.”77 Providing data on salary ranges for caseworkers and group workers in Toronto, Rose noted that, for the most part, salaries and conditions of work for social workers were much better in the public sector, and he raised concerns about what this meant to private agencies: Present salaries pose some very significant problems for private agencies throughout Canada. Do they mean, in the present shortage, that private agencies are to be forced to bow to the more formidable competition of public and national organizations and not only fail to replace non-professionally trained personnel with qualified professionals, but lose an important proportion of the professionally qualified staff members now employed?78

Not only were there wide discrepancies in salaries and conditions of employment between the public and private sectors, there was also a wide variation among private agencies. In 1948 social workers in the public sector often had pension plans,79 but it would be another decade before the CASW would poll its members to determine the feasibility of establishing a national retirement plan for all social workers.80 Most private agencies, moreover, did not provide written employment contracts for their employees.81 While public sector employment, through the civil service, usually provided job definitions and revised job classifications with attendant requirements and standards of remuneration, this did not exist in the private sector. But although low and variable salaries were long-standing issues, the CASW did not take “the further step of adopting full-scale job classification and salary programmes.”82 Although the inequities in salaries between women and men were made explicit in Albert Rose’s presentation, there appeared to be a level of acceptance of salary differentials based on sex because men were still regarded as earners of the family wage, and “it is true that the large proportion of social workers earning salaries are single females without dependents [sic].”83 Moreover, women still were expected to leave the profession upon marriage and most did. While Rose deplored the injustice of unequal pay for equal work, he accepted it as commonplace: “It is somewhat disturbing to be part of the organization which must sanction higher payments for males for equal work, but at the moment this situation appears to be part of our economic folkways.”84

168

CHAPTER EIGHT

The poor physical conditions in which many Canadian social workers were employed were also the subject of discussion. Crowded offices, inadequate workspace, rundown buildings, and dirty offices were not conducive to good job performance. In what likely was an attempt at humour in an otherwise pessimistic presentation on conditions of work, Rose commented: “I am often seized with an overwhelming desire on entering some agency buildings to get a broom and sweep out the place, or alternatively, to commit arson.”85 This was related to a major frustration and recurring theme for social workers –– inadequate funding. Inadequate operational budgets made it difficult for social workers to perform their jobs adequately and professionally. The competition for funding presented the complex “problem of exploitation of agency by agency.”86 Rose concluded that private fundraising was not able to support high standards of personnel practices in social service settings in Canada.87 A continuing committee representing schools of social work, the CASW, and the CWC was established following the 1948 Conference on Personnel in Social Work.88 One of its main tasks was to follow up on the resolution passed at the conference to request the federal government to find out the extent of the labour shortage in social work. This continuing committee was eventually absorbed into the Personnel Committee of the Canadian Welfare Council because the CWC was in a position to provide the secretarial service.89 Meanwhile, in May 1948, the National Committee on Employment and Personnel Practice of the CASW developed a set of standards on employment and personnel policies for the profession,90 and it encouraged branches to implement them during the 1948–50 biennial term. The standards were clearly outlined in an address by Joy Maines at the Western Regional Conference of Social Work in Victoria, B.C., in 1949.91 They included: professional training, professional standards (job descriptions and statements of qualifications, adequate remuneration of social work, careful induction to the job, good standards of supervision, and participation in development of agency policy), the goal of interpretation, and the goal of professional standards in the community (Maines 1949: 11–16). One of the first branches to respond to the standards document was the Nova Scotia (mainland) branch. It conducted its own survey of working conditions of all social workers on the Nova Scotia mainland.92 Similar to other parts of the country, this branch identified that there were many untrained people in social work jobs, which was due, in part, to a scarcity of workers and employers’ lack of recognition of the value of social work. Higher salaries and job security in the public sector jobs were also identified.93 Consistent with findings across the country, the branch noted the following

THE STRUGGLE FOR WORKPLACE IMPROVEMENTS AND STANDARDS

169

characteristics of employment standards in the province: few opportunities for promotions in private agencies, a need for overtime compensation, little or no educational leave provisions in private agencies, and a great lack of supervision. The branch recommended the establishment of a salary scale, job classification in private agencies, establishing annual increments in private agencies, more adequate office space, compensation for overtime, and coverage by accident insurance.94 Several branches documented their local salary scales, but by 1952 there was still no progress on establishing a national salary standard.95 The request for such support from the CASW national office continued.96 Meanwhile, the Department of National Health and Welfare had agreed to conduct a survey of welfare agencies across Canada.97 In a 1953 study, the Toronto branch of the CASW was unanimous in identifying low salaries as a major deterrent to recruiting new people to the profession and in retaining them.98 Low wages were credited partly to social work’s history as a “female” profession. A profession dominated by women, the branch argued, was problematic on two counts: it lost women through marriage, and men “cannot enter a profession where salaries are low” because of family responsibilities.99 The group noted that teachers were quite militant about salary standards and brought about salary increases through a united effort, and the CASW should use its strength to accomplish the same thing.100 The Toronto branch identified the fact that low salaries were often connected to the unstable methods of financing programs through community chests. The group recommended that in order to raise salaries, social workers need to unite, and the CASW needed to strengthen its membership in order to do this.101 Poor conditions of work and the absence of benefits were regarded as further deterrents to recruiting people to the profession. Lack of security due to poor personnel policies, few opportunities for salary increases and career advancements, and poor superannuation policies were identified.102 These weak conditions of work, combined with heavy job responsibilities, created low staff morale among social workers. To improve salaries and acquire status at work, caseworkers had to move into positions of administration and supervision.103 In a similar critique, a group of social workers employed by the Social Welfare Branch of the B.C. government presented a brief to the provincial government in 1954.104 They requested a 20 percent salary increase on the basis that their salaries compared unfavourably with other professions, with other B.C. social workers, and with the salaries of social workers in other public agencies. In addition to below-average salaries and heavy caseloads, they identified dangerous conditions of work such as exposure to tuberculosis and other infectious diseases.

170

CHAPTER EIGHT

Individual branches continued to work toward developing salary schedules. In May 1958 the South Saskatchewan branch of the CASW recommended a minimum standard of salaries for professional social workers in Saskatchewan.105 The South Saskatchewan branch reiterated the widespread concern over the hiring of untrained social workers. In order to attract more people to the profession and to ensure high standards of service, it was incumbent on agencies to establish job classifications and salary scales for professional positions that were significantly higher than those for untrained positions. The branch proposed a salary scale for professional social workers and recommended a periodic review of them.106 The B.C. branches were highly critical of the national board of the CASW for not setting a standard for salaries, and began contemplating the formation of a provincial association. In response, the national office sent Elizabeth Govan, a respresentative on the national board, to meet with branch members. She defended the national and responded that setting standards at a national level was not practical for the time being, but that local branches in other regions had successfully set standards for their own workers. According to Govan, B.C. social workers were convinced that the best action for setting salary standards in the province would be through a provincial organization similar to the Nurses Association or the Teachers’ Federation.107 Govan felt that this comparison was problematic because the jobs of teachers and nurses were more clearly defined, they were greater in numbers, and had far more public recognition as professionals than did social workers.108 Another concern raised by the B.C. social workers was standards of practice, which was closely related to salary standards. The social workers wanted to establish manageable caseloads that would protect workers and simultaneously permit them to provide high standards of service to the community.109 A provincial association, they felt, would provide long-range planning that would lead to fulfilling this goal. It could establish its own certification body with various levels of competency determined by educational background, professional training, and length of experience. Eventually licensing would occur as a method of raising standards and protecting the profession and the public.110 The complex and unclear relationship between unions and professional associations was also a topic of discussion with the B.C. social workers. While social workers had the right to join unions, the national board of the CASW had determined a few years earlier that the CASW could not act as a trade union because some of its members could be either management or labour. Govan was clear to point out that while there were similarities between unions and professional associations, there were also differences in functions:

THE STRUGGLE FOR WORKPLACE IMPROVEMENTS AND STANDARDS

171

One could say in general that a trade union was basically concerned with the interests of its own members, and a professional association with the objectives of the profession in its service to the community. On the other hand, much of the activity of associations of teachers, nurses and doctors might be termed “union” activity, and the Teachers’ Federation had been affiliated with a union until recently in B.C.111

Although there were some differences of opinion among the B.C. social workers, most seemed to be in support of an “Association more aggressive in what might be termed ‘union activity.’” A provincial organization that was able to successfully obtain higher salaries for social workers was seen to be able to attract more members.112 Although the social workers attempted to establish support to improve their working conditions through their professional association, the unionized mental health workers decided in favour of labour action. Social Workers Prepare to Strike May 1957 was the first time that the CASW had to address an impending strike by social workers. The B.C. Employees’ Association, which represented social workers employed in the Provincial Mental Health Services, was planning to take a strike vote because the employer had refused to increase salaries or deal with hours of work or bargaining rights.113 The members of the B.C. mainland branch had some ethical concerns about strike action, which they discussed informally with the national office of the CASW. In a conversation with Joy Maines on May 14, Anne Furness, president of the B.C. mainland branch, was told that there was no precedent in strike action, but that “Principle Number Seven of the National Code on Personnel Practice” implied the right to strike.114 When a strike appeared inevitable, the B.C. mainland branch held an emergency meeting on May 23. Five recommendations were unanimously adopted by the meeting. The first recommendation stated: That Principle number seven of the Code of Personnel Practices states that CASW recognizes the right of social workers to bargain collectively and to be represented by a union or other organization of their choice. It is therefore valid and ethical practice for social workers to use the media of a strike vote and strike action as a last resort providing that all other bargaining devices have been tried and have failed, and providing that full consideration has been given to the ethical responsibilities to clients through insuring adequate staff coverage of those emergency services which must be maintained during strike action.115

Four other motions were also passed: (1) the executive had the authority to announce to the media the importance of social workers taking a stand

172

CHAPTER EIGHT

on the issues of standards of work and that services were in jeopardy when wages and working conditions were compromised; (2) a statement would be released by the executive later if necessary that would indicate that the B.C. mainland branch deplored the situation that makes striking necessary, but recognizes that strike action can prevent further deterioration in service standards; (3) that the executive would work together with the two other B.C. branches (Fraser Valley and Vancouver Island) with a view of taking joint action; and, finally, (4) that the executive would inform the national office of these motions and request that they endorse their intent.116 In an informal letter to Anne Furness, it was conveyed that there was considerable controversy on the board about the issue of the impending B.C. strike. Some people felt that social workers should never strike, another was concerned about possible retaliation, and others wanted to know if the B.C. Employees’ Association had the right to a legal strike because “we cannot support illegal acts.”117 In a formal letter from the executive secretary, the branch was notified that the majority of members of the CASW’s board of directors voted in favour of the recommendations of the B.C. mainland branch to strike.118 In a letter to Anne Furness, Joy Maines again asked the B.C. mainland branch whether or not the B.C. Employees’ Association had the right to strike since it was illegal for many public employees across the country. She strongly indicated that the board felt it was not in a position to pass judgment on the situation, and saw its role only as providing some guiding principles. She clarified a few details regarding the recommendations, and expressed concern that the national office had not heard anything from the other two B.C. branches about their views of the position of the mainland branch.119 The turnout for the strike vote was high (over 9,000 people of a membership of 11,000 cast votes) and the B.C. Employees’ Association was given a strong strike mandate of over 90 percent.120 But at the last minute, the strike was averted when the B.C. Employees’ Association and the Cabinet of the B.C. government reached an agreement. In the agreement, public employees were to receive an average salary increase of 7.5 percent over all employees and a promise that their demand for collective bargaining rights would be studied by Chief Justice Sloan.121 The salary increase for provincial social workers was about 12 percent.122 Anne Furness, in a frank letter to Joy Maines, expressed relief that the strike had been averted and described how frightening the experience had been for social workers. She indicated that while the vast majority of social workers supported the strike and the B.C. mainland branch’s stance, there were a “few influential social workers who were violently opposed and are deeply resentful of what they consider to be CASW interference in some-

THE STRUGGLE FOR WORKPLACE IMPROVEMENTS AND STANDARDS

173

thing which is none of its business.”123 She indicated that the B.C. mainland branch had attempted to work with the two other B.C. branches to prepare a common press release. The Fraser Valley branch apparently supported the strike action, but the Vancouver Island branch “was strangely quiet.” She indicated that there were tremendous tensions in the Vancouver Island branch with several “top provincial social workers” who were vehemently critical of the mainland branch for considering that social workers had the right to strike under any circumstances. This, she argued, was a good illustration of the problems that lay ahead.124 The experiences of the B.C. mental health workers underscored some of the key issues that social workers struggled with. The response of the CASW in this case highlights the complexity of the issues and the cautious approach that the CASW adopted with regard to labour relations.

Conclusion Historically, social workers in Canada have had an ambiguous relationship with unions. Social workers in the private sector were concerned that increasing salaries and improving working conditions would siphon money directly from clients. There was also a naïveté among some social workers who felt that unions were beneath them as professional workers. And the spectre of the Cold War continued to paint unions as radical and communist-dominated, thereby instilling fear into workers and driving them toward safer, but less effective, social work associations. Meanwhile, the conditions of work for social workers continued to be difficult, underpaid, and, in some cases, unsafe. While the fight for improved working conditions and wages and better professional standards was a contentious issue for social workers over the years, social workers and the professional association gradually accepted union membership as inevitable. While the CASW has not actively promoted unionization among its members, the Guidelines for Ethical Practice uphold the right to “formation of and participation in labour unions.” Regarding the right to strike, social workers are instructed to consider the profession’s values and principles” and “to examine relevant issues and their possible impact on clients before the course of action” (Canadian Association of Social Workers 2005: 17). It is also noted that “reasonable differences of opinion exist among social workers concerning their primary obligation as professionals during an actual or threatened labour strike of job action” (Canadian Association of Social Workers 2005: 17). Most social workers today are unionized. However, they are embedded in unions where the majority of members are not social workers, creating

174

CHAPTER EIGHT

difficulties for a united social work voice. Nonetheless, they still rely on their unions and professional associations to improve their conditions and standards of work.

Notes 1 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 45, File 5, CWC Continuing Committee on Personnel, n.d., 1947–48. Dr. Albert Rose, “Personnel Practice in Public, Private, and National Organizations,” a paper presented to the National Personnel Conference on Social Work, Ottawa, January 15–16, 1948, p. 2. 2 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 13, File 4, Employment and Personnel Practice Standards Committee, includes biennial report, 1942–45, 1945–52, letter from Joy Maines to Hazel Wigdor, July 2, 1943. 3 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 13, File 4, Employment and Personnel Practice Standards Committee, includes biennial report, 1942–45, 1949–52. Alice Taylor, “Social Security for the Social Worker,” a paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Canadian Association of Social Workers, Winnipeg, May 1944. 4 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 41, File 2, Collective Bargaining and Social Workers, 1964–65, 1969, letter from Constance Harrison, director of social services, Saint John General Hospital, Saint John, NB, to Florence Philpott, executive director, CASW, January 28, 1969. 5 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 13, No. 4, Employment and Personnel Practice Standards Committee, includes biennial report, 1942–45, 1949–52. “Trade Unionism and Its Impact on Social Work,” prepared by a subcommittee of the Committee on Employment and Personnel Standards, B.C. mainland branch, CASW, October 26, 1944. 6 Ibid., p. 2. 7 Ibid. 8 Ibid. 9 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 10, File 24, Canada in the War and Post War Period Committee, Labour Code, n.d., 1945–47. Subcommittee of the Canada Committee, B.C. mainland branch, CASW, “A Labour Code for Canada: Some Considerations of Present-Day Legislation in the Field of Labour Relations and Its Application to a Possible Labour Code in Canada,” June 1946, p. 5. 10 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 13, No. 4, Employment and Personnel Practice Standards Committee, includes biennial report, 1942–45, 1949–52. “Trade Unionism and Its Impact on Social Work,” prepared by a subcommittee of the Committee on Employment and Personnel Standards, B.C. mainland branch, CASW, October 26, 1944, p. 3. 11 Some examples of labour stories included in this journal are: “Industrial Unionism in a Settlement: A Report of Group Experience by Hull-House Chapter, Social Service Employees Union, Local 39 (Chicago),” Social Work Today (April 1940): 27; “Trade Union Program at Grand Rapids Conference,” Social Work Today (May 1940): 41–42. An article by union organizer, Helen Mangold, on social work and trade unions appeared in a December edition of Social Work Today (December 1940): 8–9. In 1941 Joseph Levy, director of the Social Service Division,

THE STRUGGLE FOR WORKPLACE IMPROVEMENTS AND STANDARDS

12 13

14

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

24 25

26

27 28

29 30

31

175

United Office and Professional Workers of America, and William Piehl, organizer for the Social Service Employees Union, local 19, New York City, published articles on the relationship between unions and social workers and the role of picketing (Levy 1941: 7–8; Piehl 1941: 15–16). An article by Albert Deutsch, welfare editor, appeared in Social Work Today in 1942 (Deutsch 1942: 13–16). NAC MG 28, I 441, Vol. 23, File 13, Social Action Committee, c.1944, 1954–61. “Activity of Labour in Social Work Stressed,” Winnipeg Free Press (May 18, 1944). NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 13, File 4, Employment and Personnel Practice Standards Committee, includes biennial report, 1942–45, 1945–52, letter from Joy Maines, executive director, CASW, to Hazel Wigdor, July 2, 1943. NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 13, File 4, Employment and Personnel Practice Standards Committee, includes biennial report, 1942–45, 1949–52. Montreal branch, Committee on “Social Security for the Social Worker,” “The Study of Staff Associations, Unions & Other Protective Organizations as Related to Social Work,” March 15, 1944. Ibid. Ibid., p. 2. Ibid., p. 3. Ibid. Ibid., p. 3. Ibid. Ibid., p. 4. Ibid. NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 10, File 6 [Canada in War and Post War Period Committee], reports of study groups, c.1937–50, “Report of the Labour Studies Group of Eastern Ontario Branch of CASW” (1944). Ibid., p. 8. NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 13 No. 4, Employment and Personnel Practice Standards Committee, includes biennial report, 1942–45, 1949–52. “Trade Unionism and Its Impact on Social Work,” October 26, 1944. NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 13, No. 4, Employment and Personnel Practice Standards Committee, includes biennial report, 1942–45, 1949–52. NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 13, File 4, Employment and Personnel Practice Standards Committee, includes biennial report, 1942–45, 1945–52, letter from Joy Maines, executive director, CASW, to Hazel Wigdor, July 2, 1943. Interview with Gil Levine, December 13, 2006. NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 13, File 4, Employment and Personnel Practice Standards Committee, includes biennial report, 1942–45, 1945–52, letter from Joy Maines, executive director, CASW, to Hazel Wigdor, July 2, 1943. NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 29, File 14, Montreal branch, 1946–48, letter to Joy Maines from Sonnette Ross, February 5, 1947. NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 13, File 4, Employment and Personnel Practice Standards Committee, includes biennial report, 1942–45, 1949–52. Alice Taylor, “Social Security for the Social Worker,” a paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Canadian Association of Social Workers, Winnipeg, May 1944. Ibid., p. 2.

176

CHAPTER EIGHT

32 Ibid., p. 4. 33 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 45, File 5, CWC Continuing Committee on Personnel, 1947–48. Dr. Albert Rose, “Personnel Practice in Public, Private, and National Organizations,” a paper presented to the National Personnel Conference on Social Work, Ottawa, January 15–16, 1948. 34 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 13, File 4, Employment and Personnel Practice Standards Committee, includes biennial report, 1942–45, 1949–52. “Report of the National Committee on Personnel Practice, 1950–52,” n.d. 35 PANL, “Welfare Minister Invited to Prove Alleged Charger,” The Daily News (November 13, 1952), p. 3. 36 PANL, “Formal Official Issues Challenge to Pottle,” The Daily News (November 13, 1952), pp. 3, 14. 37 NAC, CASW, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 31, report by D.G. Decker to the Newfoundland branch, October 10, 1952. Also see: PANL, “Welfare Minister Invited to Prove Alleged Charges,” p. 14. Decker also mentioned that Mr. Murphy had been associated with the Communist Party of Canada, but the relevance of this fact to his own situation remains a mystery. 38 NAC, CASW, MG 28, I 441, letter to Joy Maines from Freda Berry, branch representative, January 27, 1953. 39 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 31, letter to Joy Maines from John Morgan, September 25, 1953. 40 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 31, letter to Mr. Morgan, unsigned and undated. 41 NAC, MG 28 I 441, Vol. 31, letter to Joy Maines, executive secretary, from Freda E. Berry, supervisor, Social Services, March 1, 1956. 42 NAC, MG 28, I 441, letter from Joy Maines, executive secretary, CASW, to Agnes Roy, National Council of YWCA, Toronto, May 14, 1954. 43 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 48, File 16, Conference on Social Work Personnel, 1943–44. Proceedings of Conference on Social Work Personnel called jointly by the Canadian Association of Social Workers and the Canadian Welfare Council on December 6, 1943, p. 1. 44 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 48, File 16, Conference on Social Work Personnel, 1943–44. This memorandum was later printed in “Social Workers –– Another Wartime Scarcity,” The Social Worker 12, 2 (November 1943): 3–5. Canadian Welfare Council and Canadian Association of Social Workers, “Memorandum, Social Workers –– a Canadian Need,” 1943. 45 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 222, File 23, Service Standards Committees, Standards of service in case working field, 1938, 1940. “Report of Service Standards Committee,” 1940. 46 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 17, File 4, “Non-branch Committees, 1942–43,” 1943. 47 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 17, File 4, “Non-branch Committees, 1942–43,” 1943. 48 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 5, No. 7, letter to Joy Maines, CASW, 1949. 49 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 11, File 6, Education for Social Work Committee, reference material 1948, 1951–54, 1956, “Survey of Welfare Positions to Determine Demand for Social Workers in Canada,” reference paper 2A, 3A, 4A, n.d., Vol. 39, File 4, Department of National Health and Welfare, c.1951. Also see: “Aspects of Demand for Welfare Staff: Charts Showing the Significant Factors on Education,

THE STRUGGLE FOR WORKPLACE IMPROVEMENTS AND STANDARDS

50

51

52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

61 62 63

64 65 66 67

177

Experience, and Separations: Estimates of Demand for Total Welfare Staff and of Demand for Graduates of Schools of Social Work. Prepared for the General Session, “Help Wanted,” Canadian Conference on Social Work, Edmonton, June 1956, based on data in Report of Survey of Welfare Positions, June 1954. See, for example: NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 35, File 21, Toronto branch, includes minutes and annual report (1), 1952–55. CASW, Toronto branch, “Report of Discussion Group on Shortage of Trained Personnel for CASW Meeting,” April 9, 1953; and “Social Workers Brief to the Provincial Government on: 1. Job Analysis, 2. Salary Anomalies, 3. Problems of Staffing, Vancouver, B.C., March 1954.” UBC Library–Special Collections and University Archives School of Social Work, Box 3, File 8. (Note: Document prepared by the Social Workers’ Salaries Committee, Social Welfare Branch, Government of British Columbia, not a CASW branch.) NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 35, Toronto branch, 1952–55. CASW, Toronto branch, “Report of Discussion Group on Shortage of Trained Personnel for CASW Meeting,” April 9, 1953. Ibid., p. 1. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid., p. 4. NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 20, File 20, Public Relations, 1956–58. Viola Paradise, “A Do-It-Yourself Approach to Social Work Interpretation,” 1956. Ibid., p. 4. NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 39, File 16, Education, 1943–44. Proceedings of Conference on Social Work Personnel called jointly by the Canadian Association of Social Workers and the Canadian Welfare Council, December 6, 1943, Ottawa. Ibid., p. 18. NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 10, File 11, Canada in War and Post War Period Committee, includes minutes, c.1941, brief by the CASW on the Marsh Report, 1943. NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 39, File 16, Education, Ottawa Conference of CASW and Schools of Social Work, “Aid for Social Work Training, and Submission to Federal Government,” 1944. Ibid., p. 2. Ibid., p. 5. Ibid., p. 18. NAC, MG 28, I 441, Publication Committee, Vol. 21. Harry Cassidy, “The Profession of Social Work –– Draft Only,” 1948. Cassidy identified thirteen potential fields of employment for graduating students: (1) family welfare; (2) child welfare; (3) medical settings; (4) psychiatric settings; (5) public assistance; (6) corrections; (7) recreation; (8) social welfare planning; (9) industrial welfare; (10) veterans’ services; (11) social insurance, employment services, and family allowances; (12) international social work; and (13) teaching. He further categorized employing agencies into public and private. Public agencies were those in the federal, provincial, or municipal government, and included health and

178

68

69 70

71 72 73

74 75 76 77 78

79 80 81

82 83 84 85

CHAPTER EIGHT

welfare, veterans’ affairs, labour and justice at the federal level, public health and welfare, workers’ compensation, departments responsible for training schools, juvenile courts and reformatories, and departments responsible for public recreation services at the provincial levels. Municipal agencies included public health and welfare departments, recreation services departments, school attendance division of the boards of education, and juvenile courts and detention homes. National private agencies included: the Canadian Welfare Council, the YMCA/ YWCA, and the CNIB. Local employing agencies were comprised of family service associations, child welfare agencies, child-caring institutions, institutions for the aged, agencies working with handicapped groups, settlements, boys’ and girls’ associations, boys’ and girls’ clubs, council of social agencies, community chests, and public hospitals. NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 45, File 5, CWC Continuing Committee on Personnel, n.d., 1947–48. Dr. Albert Rose, “Personnel Practice in Public, Private, and National Organizations,” a paper presented to the National Personnel Conference on Social Work, Ottawa, January 15–16, 1948. Ibid., p. 2. NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 35, Toronto branch, 1952–55, pp. 2–3. CASW, Toronto branch, “Report of Discussion Group on Shortage of Trained Personnel for CASW Meeting,” April 9, 1953. Ibid. Ibid., p. 3. NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 45, File 5, CWC Continuing Committee on Personnel, 1947–48. Dr. Albert Rose, “Personnel Practice in Public, Private, and National Organizations,” a paper presented to the National Personnel Conference on Social Work, Ottawa, January 15–16, 1948, p.1. Ibid., p. 10. Ibid., pp. 3–5. Ibid., p. 6. Ibid., p. 12. NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 45, File 5. A. Rose, “Personnel Practices in Public, Private, and National Organizations,” a paper presented to the National Personnel Conference on Social Work, 1948, p. 8. NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 21, Publication Committee. Harry Cassidy, “The Profession of Social Work –– Draft Only,” 1948. NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 45, File 15, letter from Joy Maines, executive secretary, CASW, to members, October 6, 1958. NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 45, File 5, CWC Continuing Committee on Personnel, 1947–48. Dr. Albert Rose, “Personnel Practice in Public, Private, and National Organizations,” a paper presented to the National Personnel Conference on Social Work, Ottawa, January 15–16, 1948, p. 1. Ibid., p. 3. Ibid., p. 12. Ibid., p. 9. Ibid., p. 9.

THE STRUGGLE FOR WORKPLACE IMPROVEMENTS AND STANDARDS

179

86 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 45, File 5. A. Rose, “Personnel Practices in Public, Private, and National Organizations,” a paper presented to the National Personnel Conference on Social Work, 1948, p. 11. 87 Ibid., p. 13. 88 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 5, File 13, letter from Joy Maines to Miss G. Lantz, Children’s Aid Society, Halifax, February 25, 1952. 89 Ibid. 90 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 5, File 5, Board of Directors, Correspondence with Board Members and Others, 1948–50. “Memorandum re: National Committees,” 1950. 91 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 38, File 22, Board of Directors, Western Regional Conference on Social Work (1) 1948–49, presentation printed in The Social Worker 18, 1 (October 1949): 11–16. Joy Maines, “Goals in Professional Standards, Presentation to the Victoria Conference,” 1949. 92 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 22, File 15, Service Standards Committee, Branch Salary Study, 1941–43, 1946, 1949. “Tabulations and Results of Personnel and Employment Practice Survey,” conducted by Employment and Personnel Standards of Nova Scotia (mainland) branch of the CASW, February 1949. 93 Ibid., p. 1. 94 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 22, File 15, Service Standards Committee, Branch Salary Study, 1941–43, 1946, 1949. “Tabulations and Results of Personnel and Employment Practice Survey,” conducted by Employment and Personnel Standards of Nova Scotia (mainland) branch of the CASW, February 1949. 95 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 6, File 6-7, Board of Directors Memoranda. “Memorandum to Board of Directors from Executive Secretary Re: National Committees,” September 29, 1952. 96 For example, a request was made to the both the national office and the Manitoba branch of the CASW by the Civic Employees Federation of the City of Winnipeg to establish “professional status” for employees of the city since their “rating” was below comparable positions in other agencies in the area. Manitoba Association of Social Worker Fonds, MG 10 A 33, Box 2, MG 10 A 33, Box 2, Minutes, September 1947–December 1945. 97 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 39, File 4, Department of National Health and Welfare c.1951. “Survey of Welfare Positions to Determine Demand for Social Workers in Canada,” Reference paper 2A, 3A, 4A, n.d. 98 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 35, Toronto branch, 1952–55. CASW, Toronto branch, “Report of Discussion Group on Shortage of Trained Personnel for CASW meeting,” April 9, 1953. 99 Ibid., p. 2. 100 Ibid. 101 Ibid., p. 4. 102 Ibid. 103 Ibid. 104 UBC Library –– Special Collections and University Archives, School of Social Work, Box 3, File 8, “Social Workers Brief to the Provincial Government on:

180

105

106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117

118

119 120

121

122 123

124

CHAPTER EIGHT

1. Job Analysis 2. Salary Anomalies 3. Problems of Staffing,” Vancouver, March 1954. Saskatchewan Archives Board, R-956 II 78, “Recommended Minimum Salary Standards for Professional Social Workers in Saskatchewan,” adopted by South Saskatchewan branch, CASW, May 8, 1958. Ibid. Ibid., p. 3. Ibid. Ibid. NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 24, File 2, Structure Committee, p. 6. Betty Govan, “Report of Visit of the Representative of the National Board to B.C.,” 1957. Ibid. Ibid. NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 22, File 15, Minutes of Emergency Meeting (executive branch), CASW, B.C. mainland branch, May 23, 1957. Ibid., p. 1. Ibid., p. 3. Ibid., pp. 3–4. NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 22, File 15, Service Standards Committees, Branch Salary Study, 1941–43, 1946–49, letter to Anne [no name of author of letter, but likely Joy Maines], June 12, 1957. NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 22, File 15, Service Standards Committees, Branch Salary Study, 1941–43, 1946–49, letter to Anne Furness from Joy Maines, June 12, 1957. Ibid. NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 27, File 15, Service Standards Committees, Branch Salary Study, 1941–43, 1946–49, letter to Joy Maines from Anne Furness, July 13, 1957. NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 27, File 15, Service Standards Committees, Branch Salary Study, 1941–43, 1946–49, letter to Ruth Harvey, president, CASW, from Anne Furness, Vancouver branch, July 11, 1957. Ibid., p. 2. NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 27, File 15, Service Standards Committees, Branch Salary Study, 1941–43, 1946–49, letter to Joy Maines from Anne Furness, July 13, 1957, p. 1. Ibid.

CHAPTER NINE

Provincial Autonomy and Reorganization in the CASW, 1950–65 The decade and a half from 1950 to 1965 witnessed profound changes in the social work profession across the country. This period was preceded by controversy, debate, and study as the new profession worked to keep up with the changes and demands placed on it. A major challenge for the CASW was to keep pace with the rapid growth of social services that were part of postwar reconstruction. The high demand for social workers was partly met by creating social welfare worker programs and positions, thereby creating two distinct groups with similar concerns yet different levels of preparation and expertise. This development raised the long-standing question of what constitutes social work and challenged the assumption that social workers were the only ones able to perform social welfare work. Related to this challenge was the provinces’ move for more autonomy and, subsequently, the development of provincial associations. These events threatened the very existence of the CASW, particularly the role of the national office, and launched it into a phase of introspection and eventual restructuring. An additional pressure that the association faced during this period was the loss of some of its early pioneers –– those women and men who committed years of work to the establishment of the association –– to death or retirement. The new generation of social workers lacked the history, spark, and dedication that characterized the early pioneers, and a general apathy prevailed within the membership (Latimer 1972).

181

182

CHAPTER NINE

The “Manpower” Crisis in Social Work A chronic shortage of social workers persisted for over two decades and was of critical concern for the CASW. In the early 1950s the most urgent problems of the “manpower” crisis was the need to staff the welfare services of Canada. Since 50 percent of CASW members were located in the five largest cities, the concern was even more acute in smaller communities. A 1950 study by National Health and Welfare indicated that while there were 7,000 social welfare positions, the membership of CASW was 2,100 or 30 percent of the total. In a 1962 study of Ontario Children’s Aid Societies, of the 645 social work positions, only 167 were filled by employees who had some social work training.1 Although full-time enrolment in Canadian schools of social work had increased from 235 in 1948 to 437 in 1959, on average there were only ninety-eight graduates per year over the same period.2 Welfare agencies were faced with securing adequately trained staff and sufficient numbers of professionally trained social workers to meet the recruitment requirements brought about by growth and turnover. The CWC Committee on Personnel in Social Work, after considerable study of the situation, urged that schools of social work, social welfare agencies, and the CASW respond to this problem because the situation was unlikely to change for the better and could perhaps worsen in the foreseeable future. Further, the committee pointed out that “the lack of distinction in many agencies between the professionally educated social worker and the person who lacks such preparation is a factor acting contrary to the provision of competent social services to the community, to the recruitment to the schools, and to the status of the profession.”3 Increasingly staff development was one means for addressing the situation and while it was incumbent on the agencies to provide orientation and ongoing training in the workplace, schools of social work were viewed as sources of leadership and were encouraged to offer extension courses without credit. As the severe shortage of professionally trained social workers continued, the CASW became increasingly concerned about the number of positions filled by welfare workers who were not adequately trained. The situation was further complicated during this time when the membership of CASW, through a referendum, agreed to upgrade the qualifications for membership to two years of social work training beyond the Bachelor of Arts degree. Some members of the profession felt that the membership criteria ought to be reduced and broadened. This presented the CASW with a dilemma; it had to decide whether it would consider for membership those workers who were hired in social welfare positions with no social work training. The situation prompted the CASW to clarify a number of issues: the basic defini-

P R O V I N C I A L A U T O N O M Y A N D R E O R G A N I Z A T I O N I N T H E C A S W , 1 9 5 0 –– 6 5

183

tion of social worker; the relationship between the professionally educated social worker and non-professionals who performed social work tasks; the question of permanency of workers with no social work training; the issue of whether this group should form an independent but related organization or become part of the CASW. British Columbia and Quebec had already decided unilaterally to admit social welfare workers to their provincial organizations even though they were not eligible for CASW membership.4 In 1963 a statement addressing the relationship between professional social workers and welfare workers was circulated to all members. At the Delegate Conference it was unanimously decided that CASW had the responsibility to advocate for minimum training for welfare workers, and would encourage provincial branches to promote the acceptance of such criteria with social welfare agencies. The CASW was to initiate dialogue at the national level with the Commission on Education and Personnel of the Canadian Welfare Council and the federal government. The distinction in definition between professional social workers and welfare workers was formulated and approved: 1. In general terms, a professional social worker is one who works in sit-

uations in which the exercise of professional judgment is a primary characteristic of the service rendered, while a welfare worker is engaged in rendering welfare services to people on the basis of defined criteria of service established in the programme in which he is employed. The precise interpretation of the distinction between welfare worker and professional social worker will depend on decisions made by responsible provincial associations of social workers. 2. Both types of service are important to the community and both types of workers are entitled to recognition and status. 3. Formal training is essential for any person who works with people in a welfare programme. The content of such training differs from full professional education, but should be not less that 12 months’ duration, part of which should be formal instruction, and part field practice. This is essential to improve the quality of service to people in need, and to assure the public that welfare personnel have received preparation of a certain standard for the performance of their tasks.5 Since the CASW was not in a position to provide the training, it was assumed that the programs would be established by individual welfare agencies, governments departments, and post-secondary institutions. Along with field practice experience, four content areas were identified as important in preparing welfare workers: (1) people’s universal needs, (2) dynamics of

184

CHAPTER NINE

behaviour, (3) welfare services, and (4) basic intervention skills. The CASW, in co-operation with provincial organizations, proposed to establish a Canada-wide uniform examination for welfare workers. In response, the Association of Universities and Colleges sponsored a three-day conference on “Manpower Needs in the Field of Social Welfare,” and invited 150 senior welfare experts and social work educators from the US, Britain, and Canada (Windsor Star 1966: 61).

Restructuring of Role and Function Unlike many organizations that start as local groups and then develop a national structure, the CASW began as a national organization with individual membership and branches located across the country. Since the initial charter membership of 1927, individual social workers joined the national organization and were then assigned to regional branches. Since its inception, the CASW made concerted efforts to ensure regional representation on all of its committees and on its board of directors. But as membership increased, the board grew to an unmanageable size, requiring it to restructure the criteria for representation on the board. In 1952 some changes to criteria included the elimination of membership based on experience without social work education, and the introduction of a provision for student membership for full-time students. Despite this attempt to engage students, less than 50 percent of new graduates joined the CASW. A 1954 study of the composition of the national membership of 1,894 indicated that 20 percent held a M.S.W., 15 percent a B.S.W., 35 percent a diploma, 4 percent were students, and close to 20 percent had little or no formal social work training.6 Due to the lack of members, it became difficult for smaller branches to remain active. For example, the Port Arthur chapter attempted to combine members and non-members at their meetings and events. However, this strategy proved to be unsuccessful since the majority attending functions were non-members and the few of the existing members had the commitment necessary to sustain a chapter; it was forced to dissolve.7 Some Canadian social workers who did not join the CASW were members of the US professional associations such as the American Association of Medical Social Workers (AAMSW). It had had a presence in Canada since the mid-1920s and continued to maintain the interest of Canadian social workers with chapters in Montreal and Halifax. Hospitals and schools of social work in those cities benefited from field visits and consultation by the educational secretary of the AAMSW. Individual Canadian social workers were also members of the American Association of Psychiatric Social Workers (AAPSW) and the American Association of Group Workers (AAGW).

P R O V I N C I A L A U T O N O M Y A N D R E O R G A N I Z A T I O N I N T H E C A S W , 1 9 5 0 –– 6 5

185

For a short period there was a chapter of AAGW in Vancouver, but it disbanded in 1950 and the members joined the CASW.8 The growing tendency for social workers to specialize and consider themselves “medical social workers” or “psychiatric social workers” was not supported by the CASW, which viewed it as elitist and separate from other social workers.9 However, the situation was soon to change when in 1955 all of the American associations amalgamated under the National Associations of Social Workers (NASW) and the specific and unique services provided by these associations were no longer available. While some social workers may have chosen to become members of NASW, now there was less incentive to do so. Increasing membership was an ongoing preoccupation in the CASW. Since its inception it recognized that social issues and concerns of its members could vary depending on regions, and it encouraged regions to respond to their local issues. The association functioned in this way for thirty years and had successfully developed into a Canada-wide professional body consisting of individual members and local branches. In 1952 the CASW was comprised of a national board and provincial branches varying in size between seven and 450 members. Efforts were made to ensure inclusivity of all of the regions in Canada, and it was customary to appoint two vice-presidents –– one from the Atlantic region and one from western Canada.10 The association was aware that in order to achieve its goals and to provide professional leadership in the social welfare field, it was imperative to be involved at four levels: local, provincial, national, and international. However, the small membership, scarce resources, and expansive geography created obstacles to effective engagement at all four levels. Until the mid-1950s, the association was forced to devote most of its energy and resources to the national and local levels.11 Social action initiatives were reduced and branches were rarely asked to be involved in the study of issues (Latimer 1972). In the fall of 1952, the national board, concerned about the changing needs and opportunities of the profession and the decline in the membership’s enthusiasm, set up the Committee for Programme Evaluation and Planning (PEP) to examine the roles, organization, and requirements of the professional association.12 The committee’s mandate was to chart a future course for the CASW and it marked the beginning of a period of introspection. As one of the immediate tasks, the PEP committee surveyed CASW members to determine their opinions on a number of topics. Based on the responses, the committee recommended the following: no change in membership requirements (one year of professional training remained the minimum for membership eligibility); continuation of placement services (assisting members with job relocation); establishment of national committees on

186

CHAPTER NINE

public relations and interpretation, health and medical care, personnel policies and social work education; regular releases of policy statements; fewer and more representative board meetings; a delegate conference in each biennial period; and the active recruitment of new members.13 At a time when resources were scarce and the membership already stretched, the CASW decided to take on even more activities in an attempt to respond to emerging concerns. It would concentrate its activities in four major areas: (1) professional knowledge and competence, (2) standard setting, (3) social work education, and (4) interpretation and social action.14 In 1956 the PEP committee, in the final report, recommended that the board develop a policy on long-term social action. But differing views of the branches regarding the role of the professional association on the subject impeded the process (Latimer 1972: 236). In 1954 substantial fee increases were implemented. This was an unfortunate decision at a time when the goal was recruitment and retention of members.

Provincial Autonomy As the number of schools of social work increased in 1950 to eight in five different provinces, unique provincial issues began to emerge and the need for an effective professional organization at the provincial level became increasingly evident. Also, in 1950 the CASW endorsed the move toward licensing and control of title and realized that provincial legislation and professional provincial bodies were necessary to achieve these objectives. Subsequent developments in provincial organizations and the emergence of anomalies in organizational patterns became a point of concern for the CASW. In 1957 the CASW was incorporated under the Dominion Companies Act and comprised approximately 2,200 individual members. At the request of the B.C. branches, the constitution was changed in 1957 to provide for organizational members of which B.C. remained the only one in 1960.15 At this time, the purpose and objectives of the national association were revised for the first time since 1926. They were to: 1. promote, develop, and sponsor activities appropriate to the strengthening and unification of the social work profession; 2. encourage and assist in the development of high professional standards amongst its members; 3. promote the well-being and development of its members as professional people; 4. provide a means whereby the Corporation through its members may take action on issues of social welfare;

P R O V I N C I A L A U T O N O M Y A N D R E O R G A N I Z A T I O N I N T H E C A S W , 1 9 5 0 –– 6 5

187

5. edit and publish books, papers, journals, and other forms of literature respecting social work in order to disseminate information to members of the Corporation as well as to members of the public; 6. encourage specialized studies in social work amongst its members and to provide assistance and facilities for special studies and research; 7. carry on such activities in relation to the foregoing as may be deemed advisable.16 The national office realized the inevitability of provincial autonomy and regarded these developments as necessary to maintain unity among social workers, to influence legislation and services at the provincial level, and to pursue legal recognition, also a provincial matter. While there was always a tension between the regional/provincial branches and the national organization, as well as the recognition of the importance of provincial issues within the CASW, concrete steps to a more federated structure were taken in the early 1950s. At the same time, while the national office was considering modifications to its constitution and established a Structure Committee to oversee these developments, two provinces, British Columbia and Quebec, “went their own way” and established two different forms of provincial organizations without any consultation with the national association. Even though there was a national membership policy, the two provinces developed their own in order to include the growing number of social welfare workers. The national leadership of the CASW regarded this action as a breach of ethics.17 In her position as executive secretary, Joy Maines was particularly aware of the alienation of western Canada and expressed concern that the “Western Canada Branches, quite logically, have not the same degree of loyalty to national, that Ontario and Quebec have. In all honesty we have to admit that national board decisions have been largely made by Ontario and Quebec members. That is why they bent over backwards to be fair to B.C.”18 It was not only exclusion from decision making that concerned B.C. social workers. The members also felt that a provincial association was required because they were “cut off from the life-stream” and were able to achieve Board contact only on rare occasions.”19 A preoccupation with events in B.C. had diverted the national office from recognizing the growing discontent in Quebec. Quebec also felt alienated from the national office and was critical of the CASW’s lack of involvement in Quebec’s social legislation. The CASW, it argued, was considered a “distant organization” whose activities, in part, did not concern them.20 Despite

188

CHAPTER NINE

the CASW’s serious attempts to be democratic and represent the provinces at the board level, the growing movement toward provincial autonomy continued. The Move to Provincial Associations: British Columbia The first province to incorporate provincially was British Columbia. The situation in B.C. was not unexpected. The initial organizing efforts occurred in 1953 when a Committee on Licensing in British Columbia recommended that a provincial committee be developed within the province since social workers were interested in establishing licensing legislation. In April 1956 a referendum was held among branches to determine the support for seeking national approval for a provincial organization. While the majority of members were in favour, the delegates to the biennial meeting were prepared only to set up an unincorporated provincial organization and agreed to set up a national committee on provincial organization to further assess the merits of incorporation. The B.C. committee, representing all B.C. branches, agreed to this plan. Then in November 1956, five B.C. members took it upon themselves to incorporate a society under the name of the B.C. Association of Social Workers. This action was taken without any consultation with the national office, the B.C. branches, or the B.C. committee of the CASW.21 They explained that their actions were based on the fact that they were convinced that the CASW would eventually become a body that consisted of incorporated provincial sections, and that the CASW had the most vital contribution to make as a national organization. Given the emergence of competing groups that had no allegiance to the CASW, they took steps to legally protect the name of the organization. Their concerns were warranted since at the time of the incorporation, a meeting was held by some CASW members in New Westminster because of the great concern about the social welfare situation in British Columbia, and those attending were “disheartened about the slow movement of CASW toward forming a strong legal organization in this province.” The group felt that the CASW was not representing the majority of social workers in B.C. since the membership qualifications limited a large number of social workers from gaining membership. They had compiled a mailing list from various sources, which indicated that close to eight hundred people were engaged in social work practice in B.C., while only 180 were CASW members. The plan was to take steps to develop a new organization for everyone practising social work in B.C. –– the Committee for the United Body of Social Workers in B.C. –– and to ask for affiliation with the CASW.22 In writ-

P R O V I N C I A L A U T O N O M Y A N D R E O R G A N I Z A T I O N I N T H E C A S W , 1 9 5 0 –– 6 5

189

ing to the national office, Anne Furness, the president of the B.C. mainland branch, summarized the situation as “fantastic”: What is difficult to convey adequately and accurately is the fact that the nucleus spearheading this new development is distorting the facts in the way they are recording in an effort to make all of their statements forceful and positive for general circulation they are omitting any disagreement, negative votes, etc. Apart from the distinctly hostile element of the group there are some who are very well intentioned persons who are beginning to grasp the fact that they are being taken to the cleaners.23

There now was a number of organizational groupings: three branches of the CASW responsible to the national CASW; the B.C. Committee of the CASW, which was responsible to the three branches created by them; the newly created B.C. Association of Social Workers consisting of five members responsible only to themselves; and the Committee for the United Body of Social Workers, which would like some affiliation with the CASW. The number of competing social work organizations caused Joy Maines to exclaim that at the present moment, “B.C. has so many organizations it must be difficult to know to which one belongs!”24 This created a serious dilemma for the CASW; if it was not willing to address the concerns expressed by this “rebel” group, it ran the risk of losing members and creating serous divisions in the profession in B.C. In an emergency executive meeting of the B.C. mainland branch on December 6, 1956, it was decided to ask the national office to send a representative to B.C. as soon as possible to assess the situation and mediate among the groups. The board sent Elizabeth Govan, who visited B.C. and prepared a report of her meeting. Following her report, the board authorized a referendum of the membership to provide for “organizational membership” and the possibility of a second category of membership eligibility in the CASW.25 It was therefore decided that CASW membership endorsement was required in order for the B.C. branches to incorporate provincially, and assessment of the criteria for membership qualifications was necessary. It was also decided to begin discussion among the three branches, the Committee for the United Body of Social Workers in B.C., and the national office to regain unity.26 In her report to the national office, Elizabeth Govan expressed an urgent need for consultation between the national board and the B.C. committee, as well as any other provinces contemplating the development of a provincial organization. Specifically, she recommended giving attention to the constitution of a provincial organization, including its relationship to the CASW constitution, branches of the province, and branches of the national

190

CHAPTER NINE

board. She also noted that since licensing was a goal, there was an immediate need to establish an acceptable definition of a social worker that would be used by all the provinces.27 Later in 1957, after planning and discussion with the CASW board of directors, the British Columbia Association of Social Workers (BCASW) was founded under the Societies’ Act of British Columbia. With CASW’s agreement, the provincial association became an organizational member and the branches in the province became branches of the provincial association. The provincial association decided that an alternative membership structure would better suit its needs to include the social welfare workers and announced two classes of membership, Class A and Class B. While Class B members were eligible for CASW membership, Class A members were not eligible. Initially, Class A members were few, and in 1960 the provincial association reduced the membership requirement from three years of experience to twelve months’ experience and immediately added one hundred Class A members. A recruitment drive was successful in recruiting Class B members and the proportion of Class B members to Class A was reported to be 550 to 150.28 On the heels of developments in B.C., a group of five social workers in Quebec City also incorporated. Developments in Quebec The movement to provincial autonomy has a unique history in Quebec. In 1943 the Professional Association of Social Auxiliaries was formed, and one of its objects was “the promotion by all means necessary of catholic social work.”29 While the admission requirements were the same as those for membership in the CASW, informally the criteria included being French and Catholic. The CASW national office had been made aware of the trend toward developing this association in 1942. A letter from the Montreal branch to Mr. Cohn, president of CASW, reported on the developments: A situation has arisen in the Catholic community here about which I would like to have your advice.... The French Catholic Social Workers, both lay and clerical, have been stimulated by Father Bouvier, a young French Canadian Jesuit priest, with strong nationalist tendencies, to meet together for a professional association.... Father Bouvier’s ambition seems to be the development of a professional association for Catholic social workers on a federal basis.... Two questions arise: Do we wish to have this group organized within the CASW and if so how? Will the Bishop be willing to give his consent to such a plan?30

Other strong views about the “French Catholic Professional Association” came from the CASW. Freda Held had the view that “the CASW is a group of social workers irrespective of race and creed.... It is very important for

P R O V I N C I A L A U T O N O M Y A N D R E O R G A N I Z A T I O N I N T H E C A S W , 1 9 5 0 –– 6 5

191

the sake of unity that all professional social workers stick together. This is a bilingual country and it should not be necessary to have separate French and English groups within the profession, which would seem likely to further differences rather than facilitating mutual understanding.”31 Bessie Touzel speculated that the situation was not unrelated to “the beginning of a separatist movement” between Catholic and Protestant social workers. While she felt that advantages in unity should be urged as far as possible, she was pessimistic about the outcome, particularly if separation is a definite policy directed by the Catholic Church.32 However, Father Gallager thought that the movement was probably much more French-Canadian nationalist than Catholic and was not interested in joining such a group himself and would remain a CASW member.33 In the end, the association was shortlived partly due to a lack of participation by its membership. The issue of autonomy of French-Catholic social workers in Quebec shifted to the deliberations within the CASW, and a French chapter was established in Quebec City in 1946. Then in 1949 the French section of the Montreal branch was formed, and in 1955 it officially became the Montreal French chapter of the CASW. In March 1956 the three chapters of the CASW formed a provincial committee that was charged with studying the organization of the CASW with the objective of moving toward provincial incorporation. However, on December 6, 1956, five social workers in Quebec City went ahead and made application to incorporate a Province of Quebec association, under the Quebec Companies Act, without consulting either the provincial committee or the national office. Since three-quarters of the CASW membership was in Montreal, the national office questioned the degree of support for this action. Quebec City had fifty-nine members, whereas the Montreal English branch had 159 active members, and the Montreal French branch had 127 active members.34 The three chapters of CASW continued to work toward incorporation. In February 1960 La Corporation des travailleurs sociaux professionels de la province de Québec (the Corporation of Professional Social Workers of the Province of Quebec) was established under Private Bill 218, the first act in Canada to give legal control of the title “social worker.” The intention had been to apply for incorporation under the Quebec Companies Act; however, this was hampered by the existence of a charter issued to a body called the Quebec Association of Social Workers –– the “renegade group.”35 When the political climate became favourable in the fall of 1959, the officers quickly and quietly obtained a private members’ bill and overlooked notifying the national office of its plans.36

192

CHAPTER NINE

Membership terms of the act stipulated that whoever was a member of the CASW as of November 1, 1959, was eligible to be a member of the corporation. Any person holding a B.S.W. or M.S.W. degree, or a diploma in social work obtained prior to January 1, 1961, from a university school of social work in Quebec could apply for membership. The corporation broadened membership requirements also to consider those who had five years of work experience in a social agency recognized by the corporation and who was sponsored by three members in good standing. There was no provision for student membership. The act also protected a number of titles, and only members of the corporation could use them: Travailleur Social Professionel or Travailleuse Social Professionelle (Professional Social Worker). There were no branches of the corporation and only individual memberships existed. The local branches of the CASW were formally asked to disband and apply for acceptance as chapters of the corporation. While the relationship between the CASW and the corporation was collaborative, the issue of membership status and allegiance continued to raise problems. Two referenda were held (in 1971 and 1976) to determine what the social workers of Quebec wanted to do, and in both cases the outcome was a continued allegiance to the CASW. However, the issue of complete autonomy for social workers in Quebec would continue to arise. In 1960 the only branch in Manitoba obtained incorporation under the Companies Act as the Manitoba Association of Social Workers (MASW). The Manitoba branch raised concerns regarding the “laissez-faire attitude at the national level” in response to the development of provincial organizations and urged that the national office engage in a “Structure Study.”37 It argued that leadership was needed at the national level to guide provinces in a common “blueprint” or organizational form. Younger members in the province felt little attachment to the national and believed that their status and salaries would be elevated if they were organized provincially. There was also concern about the large number of untrained practitioners in Manitoba who were not eligible for CASW membership and yet were providing services to clients. It was expected that the professional body would reach out to these practitioners. Ontario also experienced changes. Six branches of CASW formed the Ontario division to engage in social action. Each of the branches had a delegate on the provincial executive committee. In the late 1950s the division became interested in the registration of social workers. A committee appointed by the Toronto branch was asked to prepare a draft act to incorporate an Ontario Association of Social Workers. Later a committee was set up to study licensing and registration, and between 1959 and 1960, the Ontario division was inactive while awaiting the report.38

P R O V I N C I A L A U T O N O M Y A N D R E O R G A N I Z A T I O N I N T H E C A S W , 1 9 5 0 –– 6 5

193

New Directions for the CASW In response to the growing provincial independence and serious organizational problems that had emerged, the CASW immediately engaged in a consultation process over possibilities for restructuring of national association and rethinking its role. In the biennial period 1959–61, the board of directors appointed the Structure Committee, a Toronto-based committee, to resolve some of the growing concerns and to propose changes in the role and function of the CASW. In the May 1960 Interim Report of the Structure Study Committee, some tentative thoughts on direction were announced.39 The first priority for the CASW was an adequately staffed and resourced national office. The committee felt that it was highly desirable to maintain a national membership in order to insure standards and transferability of membership across the country, and that the responsibility of the national organization should include overseeing membership regulations, the development of standards of practice, personnel practices, and ethical practices. The committee prepared a structure report for the 1961 conference of the board and branch presidents.40 The report was also the focus of the June 16, 1961, meeting of the members of the CASW board of directors, presidents of branches, and provincial organizations. The deliberations resulted in a new direction for CASW and for the profession. The Structure Report Committee set out to determine whether the provincial organization of social workers was inevitable within a federal country, and the degree to which such a development would contribute to creating greater unity among social workers in the provinces, influencing social legislation and standards for social welfare delivery, obtaining legal recognition, and unified salary scales. Second, if provincial organization was inevitable, would the best plan of structure for the CASW be as provincial divisions of a nationally incorporated body or as a legal provincial organization?41 The 1961 report of the Structure Committee proposed several possible structure patterns for consideration: (1) to retain the present structure; (2) a provincial organization separate from the national basically for the purpose of registration or licensing; (3) a national association with provincial organization/divisions; (4) a federation of provincial organizations all conforming to the same membership standards; or (5) a federation of provincial organizations, each determining its own membership standards. The committee acknowledged that control of title was a major focus of interest among professional social workers, and that responsibility for it was with the provincial organization. In provinces such as B.C., where membership criteria differed from that of the CASW, would a title not elevate the “sub professional personnel”?42 Would not limiting control of title to professionally qualified people better contribute to public welfare? Arguments for

194

CHAPTER NINE

inclusion of professional and non-professional workers in the same organization were based on the idea that a larger membership, representative of the larger welfare field, would have a greater impact on standards of social services. The concerns regarding the inclusion of welfare workers centred on the fear of loss of status in the eyes of the public and the need to offer inservice training programs in order to insure levels of competence. The differing standards of membership in each provincial association created a major dilemma for the national body. The criteria for membership were further formalized in 1961.43 Three forms of membership were designated: (1) Organization Member (corporate body within the province); (2) Professional Member (the individual who is eligible for membership in the CASW); and (3) Special Member (individual not eligible for membership in the CASW, but who may become a member in the provincial association). A provincial association that applied for Organization Membership was required to provide assurance that the majority of the CASW members in the province were in agreement, preferably by a mail vote. A service agreement outlining the responsibilities and necessity of co-operation with the national office was then signed. When the provincial association became a member, the existing branches reported to the provincial organization, and communication from the national office was filtered through the provincial association to the branches. If a professional member was found to engage in unethical conduct, the person was not to be expelled from the provincial association without prior consultation with the CASW board of directors. As indicated in Table 9.1,44 membership in the CASW in 1961 was 2,384. Thirty-six percent (N = 872) of the members were from Ontario; 24 percent Table 9.1: Membership by Province, 1961 British Columbia Alberta Saskatchewan Manitoba Ontario Quebec New Brunswick Prince Edward Island Nova Scotia Newfoundland Non-branch areas Total

378 (Class B) 84 85 155 872 569 38 8 111 9 75 2,384

P R O V I N C I A L A U T O N O M Y A N D R E O R G A N I Z A T I O N I N T H E C A S W , 1 9 5 0 –– 6 5

195

(N = 569) from Quebec; followed by B.C. with 16 percent (N = 378). P.E.I. and the Maritime provinces combined had only eight members, or approximately 7 percent of the membership (N = 166). As of 1965, the national board had entered into formal agreements involving organization membership with eight provincial groups. Branches existed in Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland. Members in Yukon (NWT) and outside Canada were considered non-branch members. By 1965 the membership had increased to 3,123.45 Although the provinces shared common objectives, they differed in their structures and in the activities to which they gave priority. The Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Quebec organizations were incorporated under special legislation, which gave them the right to control the use of titles. In Nova Scotia and New Brunswick the title was “registered social workers,” while in Quebec it was “professional social workers.” Table 9.246 provides a breakdown of the provincial association names, years of incorporation, legislation under which it was incorporated, total membership of the provincial association, and the number of branches in the province between the years 1956 and 1962. Besides the provincial associations, there were thirteen members in the P.E.I. branch, eighteen members in the Newfoundland branch, and ninetythree members in the Yukon, N.W.T., and outside Canada. With the move to provincial associations, the role of the national association had undergone significant changes as attempts were made to avoid duplication of services given the limited resources. Despite this, the national organization maintained a leading role in social work in Canada. As a national body, the CASW represented social work at the international and national levels, worked closely with the federal government, and interpreted the role of professional social workers to the government, other professional associations, and the general public. In doing so the aim was to protect the interests of the social work profession and promote professional competence. The national office maintained the publication of the journal The Social Worker and the promotion of professional standards such as membership requirements, professional ethics, salary standards, personnel practices in social agencies, and educational and training standards. With regard to the latter point, the association continued to influence curriculum of schools of social work and policies regarding admissions and fieldwork practice. The role of taking action on social welfare issues was confined to the development of policy statements that would serve as an effective basis for social action.47 The provincial organizations represented the profession to provincial and local governments, and voluntary organizations; produced reports and briefs relevant to provincial concerns; gathered information

196

CHAPTER NINE

Table 9.2: Provincial Associations, Dates of Incorporation, and Enabling Legislation, 1956–62 Provincial Association

Year

Type of Incorporation

Members

Branches

British Columbia Association of Social Workers

1956

Society Act

472

4

Corporation of Professional Social Workers of the Province of Quebec

1960

Private Bill of Legislature

748

5

Manitoba Association of Social Workers

1962

Companies Act

283

1

Alberta Association of Social Workers

1962

Societies Act

160

2

Saskatchewan Association of Social Workers

1963

Societies Act

113

4

Ontario Association of Social Workers

1964

Companies Act

1,041

6

Nova Scotia Association of Social Workers

1963

Act of Legislature

132

2

New Brunswick Association of Social Workers

1965

Act of Legislature

50

1

that was relevant to particular concerns of the province; worked toward licensing; and communicate with members and the national office.48 When a professional association became an organized member, any existing branches of the CASW became branches of the provincial association, and regular communication was routed to the branches through the provincial association. The national office, the chapters, and the branches missed the direct contact that previously existed among them. As the CASW entered this new phase, questions remained: Was it possible to pull together the provincial organizations and build the membership without weakening

P R O V I N C I A L A U T O N O M Y A N D R E O R G A N I Z A T I O N I N T H E C A S W , 1 9 5 0 –– 6 5

197

the national presence? The first major crisis facing the newly structured CASW was the growing discontent among members in Quebec. After six years of the existence of the Corporation of Professional Social Workers, social workers in the province began to question the relevance of the CASW, particular the ability of its unilingual structure to adequately provide services to French-speaking members. In 1965 the CASW membership in Quebec totalled 759, of which 506 were French-speaking and 253 English-speaking (the total membership of the Montreal English chapter). The French-speaking members felt a great commitment to the corporation, while the English-speaking social workers leaned toward the national organization. In 1965, a special committee was established to examine the relationship between the corporation and the national office. The members were concerned about the lack of bilingual services in the national office after the resignation of a full-time French-speaking professional staff member. The committee recommended that bilingual services be established in the following areas: simultaneous translation at all delegate conferences and annual meetings of CASW; qualified bilingual clerical staff to assure correspondence and documentation in both languages; and additional Frenchspeaking administrative staff to facilitate communication between French and English members at board and committee meetings and to ensure translation of all minutes and other publications. Given the large membership, it was also recommended that the corporation have a proportional voice on the national board and at delegate conferences.49 Since it wasn’t until 1939–40 that French Canadians became active in the social work profession, social workers in Quebec have come a long way in developing an identity and an independent voice. This new phase was left in the hands of the next generation of social workers as the early pioneers of the profession retired. Joy Maines, a key member of the CASW since 1929, president from 1944 to 1945, and executive secretary for close to twenty years (1945–64), retired in 1964. She has been credited with preventing the association from “falling apart” at certain vulnerable points in its history.50 Throughout her tenure at the CASW, Maines travelled extensively across the country, meeting with provincial branches. She once commented that “I know that sometimes this job may appear to be glamorous to some of our members, when they hear of my jaunting around the country, but it can also be an extremely lonely job –– as are most executive jobs in small, pioneering organizations thus words of appreciation are highly valued.”51 The dedication and tireless work by pioneers such as Joy Maines was not easily replaced, and the challenges ahead were many.

198

CHAPTER NINE

Conclusion By the 1950s the Canadian Association of Social Workers was barely into its twenty-sixth year of existence, but in that short time it was exposed to some of the major crises that Canada had experienced to date: the impact of World War I, the Depression of the 1930s, World War II, the Cold War and the threat of nuclear disaster. In some respects it is striking that the CASW survived this eventful quarter century as well as it did. It is not surprising, therefore, that it was only into the 1950s and early 1960s that the association and its regional branches began to focus more on the internal dynamics of their professional organization. With some of the focus taken off of national social welfare issues and crises, local and regional issues took on more importance, as did reinvigorated attempts to develop social work’s professional status. Both of these trends –– a focus on more local and regional issues, and further developing professional status –– involved the regional branches directly. Because protection of the social work title fell within provincial jurisdiction, several provinces necessarily took the lead on this issue. These developments led to major reorganization within the CASW and set in motion a completely restructured organization that would become a federation of provincial associations. Notes 1 NAC MG 28, I 441, Vol. 10, File 26, CASW and the Welfare Worker Special Committee, “The Canadian Association of Social Workers and the Welfare Worker,” June 1, 1964, pp. 1–10. 2 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 24, Structure Committee Conference of Board and Presidents, 1961, “CASW Work Document Report of the Structure Committee,” 1961, p. 13. 3 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 46, File 1, CWC Personnel, “Staff Development and inService Training,” October 19, 1956, pp. 1–23, quote p. 23. 4 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 10, File 26, CASW and the Welfare Worker Special Committee, “Memorandum to Members of the Board of Directors, CASW,” from Harry Morrow, president, September 12, 1962, pp. 1–3. 5 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 10, File 26, CASW and the Welfare Worker Special Committee, “The Canadian Association of Social Workers and the Welfare Worker,” June 1, 1964, pp. 1–10, quote p. 1. 6 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 20, File 1, minutes of the Sub-Committee of PEP, May 12, 1954, pp. 1–3. 7 NAC. MG 28, I 441, Vol. 35, File 1, Northwestern Ontario Branch, 1956–59, letter to Miss Joy A. Maines, executive director, CASW, from Agnes G. Brown, corresponding secretary, the Northwestern branch, CASW, Port Arthur, Ontario, p. 1. 8 NAC, MG I 441, File 6-11, letter to Joseph P. Anderson, secretary treasurer, Temporary Inter-Association Council, New York, from Joy A. Maines, executive secretary, CASW, November 26, 1953, pp. 1–2.

P R O V I N C I A L A U T O N O M Y A N D R E O R G A N I Z A T I O N I N T H E C A S W , 1 9 5 0 –– 6 5

199

9 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 30, File 7, Montreal Branch and Minutes of CASW, 1954–56, letter to Esther Kerry, Montreal, from Joy A. Maines, executive secretary, CASW, December 17, 1954. 10 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 6, File 6-7, Board of Directors Memorandum, 1952. Memorandum to board of directors from executive secretary [Joy Maines], regarding national committees, September 29, 1952, pp. 1–3. 11 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 16, File 15, National Provincial Relations Committee, 1965–66. “The Canadian Association of Social Workers, the Functions of the National Association,” November 6, 1965, pp. 1–15. 12 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 20, File 4, Report of Programme and Planning Committee, 1954–56, pp. 1–7. 13 Ibid. 14 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 20, File 4, Minutes of Nucleus of National Program and Planning Committee, December 9, 1954, pp. 1–2. 15 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 24, File 2, Structure Committee, including minutes, 1959–61. CASW Interim Report of Structure Study Committee, May 1960, pp. 1–9. 16 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 24, File 9, Structure Committee Conference of Board and Presidents, 1961, “Work Document: Report of Structure Study Committee,” 1961, pp. 3–4. 17 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 24, File 5, Structure Committee, 1957–1960–61, letter to Joy Maines, CASW, from Harry Morrow, executive director, January 26, 1961. 18 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 24, File 6, Structure Committee, 1959–60. Memo to Personnel Committee and Executive Committee from Joy A. Maines, executive secretary, April 1959, p. 4 (emphasis in original). 19 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 25, File 7, British Columbia Committee, 1955–59, letter to Joy Maines from George V. Jones, chairman of the B.C. Committee of CASW, April 7, 1956, pp. 1–4, quote p. 3. 20 McGill University School of Social Work Reading Room, “Corporation of Professional Social Workers of the Province of Quebec, Structure of the Corporation,” January 30, 1963, pp. 1–7. 21 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 27, File 13, letter to Miss Joy Maines, executive secretary, from William Hooson, administrator, Social Welfare Department, Victoria, B.C., December 14, 1956. The five social workers were George Jones, Ronald Hawkes, Ernest Hill, Brian Iverson, and William Hooson. 22 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 27, File 14, B.C. mainland branch, minutes of the general meeting, January 10, 1957, pp. 1–7, quote p. 2. 23 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 27, File 15, letter to Joy Maines, executive secretary, CASW, from Anne Furness, president, B.C. mainland branch, January 7, 1957, pp. 1–2, quote p. 1. 24 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 27, File 17, letter to Miss Alison K. Carroll [unsigned but likely from Joy Maines], January 7, 1957. 25 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 8, File 8-2, Provincial Associations, 1962–69. Brief memo re. provincial associations from Joy Maines, n.d. 26 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 27, File 14, B.C. mainland branch, minutes of the general meeting, January 10, 1957, pp. 1–7.

200

CHAPTER NINE

27 MG I 441, Vol. 48, File 18, Delegate Conference, 1957, memorandum “Implications of Provincial Organization” by Elizabeth Govan, pp. 1–12. 28 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 24, File 5: Structure Committee of Professional Associations, 1957–61, “Work Paper: Structure of the Association,” Delegate Conference 1961, pp. 1–25. 29 Corporation Professionnelle des Travialleurs Sociaux du Québec, Évolution des critères et des procédures d’admission à travers l’histoire de la Corporation (Montreal: La Corporation, 1980), 15–16. 30 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 40, File 1, letter from CASW, Montreal branch, to Cohn, president of CASW, Toronto, October 14, 1942. 31 Ibid. 32 Ibid. 33 Ibid. 34 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 27, File 15, letter to Mr. Ernest Hill in Vancouver from Joy Maines, executive secretary, CASW, January 15, 1957, pp. 1–2. 35 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 24, File 6, Structure Committee, 1959–60, letter to Harry Morrow from Joy A. Maines, executive secretary, CASW, January 14, 1960. 36 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 24, File 7, Structure Committee, including minutes, 1959–61. Minutes of the Structure Study Committee, January 25, 1960, pp. 1–4. 37 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 24, File 7, Structure Committee, including minutes, 1959–61. Minutes of the Structure Study Committee, January 25, 1960, pp. 1–4, quote p. 2. 38 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 24, File 7, Structure Committee, including minutes. “CASW Interim Report of Structure Study Committee, 1959–1961,” May 1960, pp. 1–9. 39 Ibid. 40 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 24, File 9, Structure Committee Conference of Board and Presidents, 1961. “Work Document: Report of Structure Study Committee, 1961, pp. 1–28. The chair of the committee was Harry Morrow, and members were Miss Molly Christie, Miss Edith Ferguson, Dr. Elizabeth Govan, Miss Violet Munns, Miss Bessie Touzel, Miss Agnes Roy, Jack Amos, John Haddad, Walter Lyons, Miss Joy Maines (secretary –– ex-officio). 41 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 24, File 6, Structure Committee, 1959–60. Memo to Personnel Committee and Executive Committee from Joy A. Maines, executive secretary, April 1959, pp. 1–4. 42 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 24, File 7, Structure Committee, including minutes, 1959–61. Minutes of the meeting of the Structure Committee, January 24, 1961, pp. 1–10. 43 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 10, File 10, CASW and the Welfare Worker Special Committee, “Statement on Organization Membership,” as edited by request of the board of directors, December 1961, pp. 1–5. 44 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 24, File 9, Structure Committee Conference of Board and Presidents, 1961. “Work Document: Report of Structure Study Committee,” 1961, p. 27. 45 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 16, File 15, National–Provincial Relationship Special Committee, 1965–66. “The Functions of the National Organization,” final draft, November 6, 1965, pp. 1–15.

P R O V I N C I A L A U T O N O M Y A N D R E O R G A N I Z A T I O N I N T H E C A S W , 1 9 5 0 –– 6 5

201

46 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 16, File 15, National–Provincial Relationship Special Committee, 1965–66. “Summary re. Provincial Associations,” May 1965. 47 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 16, File 15, National Provincial Relations Committee, 1965–66. The Canadian Association of Social Workers, “The Functions of the National Association,” November 6, 1965, pp. 1–15. 48 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 17, File 17-1, “Responsibilities of National and Provinces,” January 27, 1969. 49 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 28, File 1, “Corporation of Professional Social Workers of the Province of Quebec, Report on Committee on Relations with CASW,” February 1966, pp. 1–12. 50 NBASW, provincial office files, letter to members from Ruth Harvey, chairman of the Joy Maines Retirement Gift Committee, February 15, 1964. 51 NAC, MG I 441, Vol. 30, File 7, Montreal Branch and Minutes of CASW, 1954–56, letter to Esther Kerry, Montreal, from Joy Maines, December 17, 1954, pp. 1–2.

This page intentionally left blank

CHAPTER TEN

Advancing Social Work Education, 1950–70 Between 1926 and 1950, a small group of Canadian social workers, across a vast territory, had achieved the major accomplishment of establishing a sustainable and recognized profession. In light of the challenges that it faced (the Depression, World War II, postwar reconstruction, and serious internal struggles), the hard work and commitment of a dedicated group of workers was truly impressive. Social workers had attained professional status, founded a professional association that represented their interests, developed a specific body of knowledge with casework as the primary technique, identified a market for their services, and established educational programs in universities. Social work programs at the University of Toronto and McGill University predated the arrival of the CASW, but social work education remained an important aspect of the association’s work. With these developments, a distinct Canadian social work had emerged. However social work education was still dependent on the US for its leadership and accrediting function.

US Influence on Social Work Education The developments in social work education in the US strongly influenced the direction it would take in Canada. Initially, education programs were formally coordinated by the US Association of Training Schools for Professional Social Work (ATSPSW), founded in 1919 with the University of Toronto school among the seventeen charter members. In 1932 the American Association of Schools of Social Work (AASSW) became a formal accrediting body, and developed more uniform educational standards and a recommended minimum curriculum. Although most programs prior to the

204

CHAPTER TEN

1930s provided undergraduate education, the priority in the profession was to advance social work by preparing practitioners through graduate studies. In 1934, the AASSW required all member schools to increase graduate study from one year to two years in 1939. Then in 1944, a standard curriculum was established to include instruction in seven basic areas of social work content: (1) community organization, (2) medical and psychiatric information, (3) public welfare, (4) social administration, (5) social casework, (6) social group work, and (7) social research. Developing programs for social work education had its own set of problems. This was particularly the case in the US, where conflict existed over social work standards and production and control of the social work commodity. It appears that Canadian social workers may not have been fully aware of the extent of the struggle in the US. Besides the Hollis-Taylor Report on social work education in the US, there is little mention of the events leading up to the creation of the Council on Social Work Education (CSWE). The conflict occurred between the AASSW, which represented the established graduate schools, and the National Association of Schools of Social Work (NASSW), founded in 1942, and which represented the newly established undergraduate programs, located mainly in sociology departments.1 In the context of increased social welfare programs and a subsequent high demand for social workers, sociologists viewed programs in social welfare as a means of increasing enrolments in a declining market for sociology. As a result, a large number of colleges and universities offered social work courses outside of the AASSW. Since the AASSW recognized only graduate programs, the conflict intensified, and in 1943, the NASSA obtained formal recognition as an accrediting body in social work. In 1946 the National Council on Social Work Education (NCSWE) was established as a compromise solution to the continuing divisions in social work education. The NCSWE appointed Dr. Ernest V. Hollis and Alice L. Taylor to oversee a study on social work education and to propose a solution to the existing impasse. In their report, Hollis and Taylor (1951) provided a succinct history of the development of social work education in the US. They affirmed the relevance of both undergraduate and graduate programs, but endorsed the M.S.W. as the professional degree. The Council on Social Work Education (CSWE) was established in 1952 to coordinate, accredit, and generally establish educational policy for the profession and to oversee the new structure (Wenocur and Reisch 1989: 252–54). Accreditation was extended to graduate programs, while undergraduate programs were granted only membership status.

A D V A N C I N G S O C I A L W O R K E D U C A T I O N , 1 9 5 0 –– 7 0

205

Organizing Social Work Education in Canada During postwar reconstruction, the development of social services became a major function of government, and with the increased demand for social workers, schools of social work faced the growing need to accept more students. However, they did not have the resources and financial means, and decided to form a collective body to negotiate with the Department of National Health and Welfare to expand resources for social work education. The National Committee of Canadian Schools of Social Work (NCCSSW), the first inherently Canadian effort to bring together social work educators, was established in 1945 under the leadership of Harry Cassidy.2 The NCCSSW played a major role in advocating for government grants without which schools of social work would have languished. In 1946 the federal government, through the Department of National Health and Welfare, established a grants program for the schools of social work for administrative expenses and student bursaries in order to encourage expansion of training facilities and to increase the numbers of students. A three-year plan was authorized: $100,000 for 1946–47, $50,000 for 1947–48, and $50,000 for 1948–49. For the year 1949–50, the grant of $50,000 was continued for the seven schools, and a special grant of $2,500 was given to the recently founded St. Patrick’s College in Ottawa. Funds were distributed among the schools based on student enrolment (Montreal Star 1950a).3 During these years there was a significant increase in enrolment in schools of social work. By 1949, there were eight schools in Canada with a total enrolment of 543 full-time students compared to 279 in 1945–46 (see Table 10.1).4 Table 10.1: Enrolment in Schools of Social Work in Canada, 1949–50 Enrolment School of Social Work

Full-Time

Part-Time

Total

Maritime Laval Montreal McGill St. Patrick’s Toronto Manitoba British Columbia

17 45 77 75 17 135 35 142

4 18 17 56 5 61 1 40

21 63 94 131 22 196 36 182

Total

543

202

745

206

CHAPTER TEN

In 1950, the eight schools lobbied the federal government to triple the training grant to $150,000 for the following year so that they could adequately respond to the acute shortage of social workers. A number of universities had cut budgets to schools of social work, and schools were in dire need of additional resources. Full-time enrolment was down to 527 from 543 the previous year at a time when existing social services were threatened by a shortage of qualified workers (Montreal Star 1950b). The National Committee of Canadian Schools of Social Work (NCCSSW) While the immediate purpose of the National Committee of Canadian Schools of Social Work was to secure federal financial support for social work education, the committee also provided a national structure for the advancement of social work education in Canada in general, including the development of curriculum and teaching methodologies. Unfortunately, little was accomplished in these areas because the committee was consumed with concerns about financing and deliberations regarding its relationship to other bodies. During this time, Canadian schools of social work continued to be accredited by the American Association of Schools of Social Work (AASSW). Then in the early 1950s, with the dissolution of the AASSW and the subsequent establishment of the Council on Social Work Education (CSWE), the committee’s relationship with this new and complex organization dominated its deliberations. Unlike its predecessor the AASSW, the CSWE represented a constituency of schools, the professional association, national employing agencies, and a supporting community. While Canadian organizations were invited to join the CSWE when it was formed, the NCCSSW declined mainly because of the financing formula. While schools of social work in Canada had joined AASSW and now the CSWE on an individual basis, the changes in organizational structure presented a particular challenge for the committee to ensure that Canadian interests and concerns were recognized. While the CSWE provided a number of important services, provision for Canadian membership, and involvement on the CSWE board, it remained primarily an American organization. There was little acknowledgement of the cultural and political differences in Canada, and the traditional influences of education in the UK and France were not always appreciated. In a January 1951 meeting of the NCCSSW in Toronto, those attending agreed that it was important for individual schools to maintain their membership and therefore the standards of social work education and accreditation. The committee made a commitment “to further an integrated approach to social work education in Canada,” and to encourage active collaboration

A D V A N C I N G S O C I A L W O R K E D U C A T I O N , 1 9 5 0 –– 7 0

207

among NCCSSW, the Canadian Association of Social Workers, and the Canadian Welfare Council. The plan also was to build closer relationships with the National Conference of Canadian Universities and Colleges.5 Delegates met on June 15, 1952 in Quebec City and decided that the NCCSSW should take the initiative to form a representative steering committee of the four bodies to carry out three functions: (1) to work on financial concerns; (2) to collect and examine data such as the Hollis-Taylor Report, the Survey of Social Welfare Positions in Canada, and the development of CSWE; and (3) to organize and convene a delegate work conference to be held under co-sponsorship of the four identified bodies. Rev. Swithum Bowers, director of the School of Social Welfare, Saint Patrick’s College, was chosen to chair this Joint Steering Committee. Members of the committee included Joy Maines, Lillian Thomson, Rev. Shaun Govenlock, Chick Hendry, and Phyllis Burns. Between 1953 and 1956, delegates from these four relevant bodies attended a number of local, regional, and national workshops on social work education, culminating in a larger conference, the National Conference on Social Work Education, held in Mont Gabriel in the Laurentians in December 1956. Forty Canadian social work leaders from British Columbia to Newfoundland attended the four-day workshop. There were also representatives from the CASW, the eight schools of social work, and social agencies (Bowers 1957). These workshops were supported by a $12,000 grant from the Carnegie Corporation of New York. At the Mont Gabriel conference, the workshops confirmed a general sense of concern about the needs and experiences unique to social work in Canada. While social work education in Canada initially acquired a strong British influence due to leaders such as professors Dale and Urwick in Toronto and Falk and King in Montreal, by the 1950s, the American influence, particularly in the area of casework, was dominant. This was demonstrated by the fact that in 1956, close to 80 percent of positions in Canada were in the casework field, and two-thirds of faculty members in Canadian schools were at least partly educated in the US.6 Furthermore, a 1954 report on a survey of social welfare positions conducted by National Health and Welfare revealed that there was a serious shortage of qualified welfare staff across Canada. At the time, only 30 percent of the welfare staff were graduates of schools of social work, while 17 percent had taken some social work courses. Also, agencies indicated that university-prepared social workers were required for 78 percent of their filled positions, 86 percent of the vacant positions, and 90 percent of anticipated positions.7 Those attending the Mont Gabriel conference passed a

208

CHAPTER TEN

resolution to form a committee on Canadian social work education to deal with the distinctively Canadian aspects of the problems of staffing the social services. Three subcommittees were formed to begin developing the organization: (1) a finance committee, chaired by Rev. Shaun Govenlock, School of Social Service in Montreal; (2) a priorities and tasks committee, chaired by Lillian Thomson, Neighbourhood Workers Association in Toronto; and (3) a committee on the constitution, chaired by Phyllis Burns in Ottawa.8 Canadian Committee on Social Work Education (CCSWE) Swithum Bowers convened a meeting of the interim committee of the temporarily named Canadian Committee on Social Work Education on May 11– 12, 1957. The Mont Gabriel resolution was the first stage in the foundation of a social work education organization, and this meeting was viewed as the second stage. The third stage was thought to be a mandate for implementation from the three organizations –– CASW, NCCSSW, and CWC.9 At the May 11–12, 1957, meeting of the Interim Committee on Social Work Education in Ottawa, the twenty-four delegates from the three groups (CASW, CWC, and NCCSSW) began the task of developing the organization. It was anticipated that such an organization would facilitate communication between schools of social work and employers while maintaining connection with the professional association, which had a long association with the educational preparation of social workers.10 During the two-day meeting, the committee planned the organizational structure, purposes, priorities, and financing. The purposes of the CCSWE were to:

• provide a means of communication between the schools of social work, the professional association, and employing agencies and organizations with respect to their common interest in social work education and the development of personnel for the social services; • provide auspices for study and action on matters of mutual concern such as the interpretation of social work as a profession and recruitment to it, and curriculum content; • facilitate coordination of activities in areas of mutual concern; • explore and develop appropriate and useful working relationships with other organizations concerned with social work education and the development of personnel for the social services.11 It was decided by those attending that the CCSWE would function as an autonomous organization and have a minimum of twenty-four people: eight named by each of the NCCSSW, CWC, and CASW. In addition, mem-

A D V A N C I N G S O C I A L W O R K E D U C A T I O N , 1 9 5 0 –– 7 0

209

bers could vote in another twelve members to represent local social welfare organizations and agencies. The intention was to continue working closely with CSWE. The Sub-committee on Program and Priorities presented the tasks of central importance and organized these under two major groupings: 1. The basic foundation of social work: The study and development of purpose and program of education for persons entering the welfare field; the study of the ways in which Schools of Social Work, the CASW, and social welfare agencies could contribute to the development of a professional philosophy. 2. Recruitment and training: The interpretation of social work and social work education; the development of materials for distribution; the study of field instruction; the establishment of adequate resources for social work education; the development of consultative services regarding policy, programs for agencies offering in-service training; the development of a national policy in regard to student research programs; an assessment of undergraduate social work courses both in professional and social welfare programs and their contribution to job competence; and the establishment of new schools of social work.12 After a thorough discussion, four immediate program priorities were determined: (1) recruitment, (2) funding for social work education, (3) preparing qualified social workers for the social services, and (4) curriculum study, including an examination of the teaching of research. In particular, there was interest in pursuing the possibilities of undergraduate social work programs. A six-member Executive Committee was elected to give leadership to the interim committee while it was developing the organization: Helen Mann, chair; Phyllis Burns, secretary; and committee members Evariste Choquette, C.E. Hendry, A.A.M. Kirkpatrick, and J.A. Maines. The delegates decided on naming the new organization the Canadian Council on Education and Personnel for the Social Services (CCEPSS). Canadian Council on Education and Personnel for the Social Services (CCEPSS) The first meeting of CCEPSS was held in February 1958 in Toronto, and delegates initiated the complex and intensive process of developing a national organization. Helen Mann reported on the work of the Interim Committee and emphasized the tremendous need for the organization. In

210

CHAPTER TEN

particular, she referred to recent statistics that reported enrolment in the US schools of social work to be up 9 percent, while enrolment in Canadian schools was down 2 percent. She attributed this to CSWE’s active recruitment. However, given the immense task ahead, there were uncertainties regarding the abilities of a young developing organization to meet the expectations and needs of schools of social work and community members. At the end of two days, delegates reaffirmed that the CCEPSS would be an autonomous and independent body with its headquarters in Ottawa.13 In subsequent meetings, one of the greatest concerns was financial resources. Letters were sent to various organizations without much success, and there were plans to solicit employers and provincial and federal governments. Because of the failure to secure adequate funding, it was not possible to hire an executive director or other staff. There was consensus that the office ought to be located in Ottawa and, to reduce costs, the office could be shared with other agencies such as the CASW or the Canadian Conference on Social Work.14 Initially it appeared that it would be difficult at this time to sustain another national organization. At a meeting on April 9, 1959, the main agenda item was the status of CCEPSS. It was decided to explore the possibility of developing an association with either the Canadian Welfare Council or the US Council on Social Work Education. F.R. MacKinnon of Halifax, among others, considered the establishment of a formal relationship with CSWE as most undesirable since a Canadian section would have little voice in the large organization. He felt that a separate and autonomous CCEPSS ought to be the objective, and could be achieved with patience and perseverance.15 However, others argued that, given the financial situation, it was not practical at the time to be an independent organization.16 As a result of these consultations, in 1960 the Commission on Education and Personnel was created as a semi-autonomous part of the Canadian Welfare Council and had a broad-based membership of practitioners, social work educators, and the general public. The commission was supported in part by CWC membership fees, and took on the function of studying issues related to social work education and welfare personnel, including undergraduate education, non-graduate training, and manpower concerns.17 The CWC submitted a proposal to the federal government recommending a comprehensive program of general welfare, professional training, and research grants. In 1962 the Welfare Grants Program of the Department of National Health and Welfare was established, and between 1962 and 1965, close to $2 million in grants was made available to the five professional

A D V A N C I N G S O C I A L W O R K E D U C A T I O N , 1 9 5 0 –– 7 0

211

schools outside of the province of Quebec to increase the number and quality of welfare personnel across the country.18 Quebec decided not to accept the federal grants because of the terms and conditions set out by the federal program. This raised concerns for the remaining members of the NCCSSW, and Dr. Moore asked if the Commission on Education and Personnel would approach the Quebec government to advocate on behalf of the three schools. Similarly, Father Bower urged that a national body not exclude itself from members of the whole community. Mr. Fisher, chair of the commission, disagreed and felt that “for a variety of reasons in Quebec, an approach from a national organization would be ineffective and unfortunate.”19 The growing significance of graduate professional education was acknowledged when the NCCSSW was granted associate membership as a constituent body within the National Conference of Canadian Universities and Colleges (NCCUC) in 1962. With the establishment of the Commission on Education and Personnel of the Canadian Welfare Council, the NCCSSW decided to withdraw from any activities that might overlap with the commission and in 1962 adopted a policy statement clarifying the purpose of the committee to:

• consider the collective concerns of the schools and their relationships to Canadian universities, the National Conference of Canadian Universities and Colleges, the Canadian Association of Social Workers, the Commission on Education and Personnel, the International Association of Schools of Social Work, the Council on Social Work Education, and other organizations as may have significance for the interest and development of social work education in Canada; and to assist the schools in the discharge of their appropriate responsibility for contributing to the staffing of welfare services in Canada. • take appropriate action with any or all of these bodies to ensure that in their efforts the collective academic and other viewpoints and interest of Canadian schools are considered and integrated. • encourage, initiate, and develop activities relating to staff interests and to social work in general. A major purpose shall be to foster projects in the areas of curriculum planning, teaching, and the administration of social work education.20 At this same meeting it was decided that membership of the committee would consist of Canadian schools of social work that had graduate programs, and that each school would be represented by the director or designate.

212

CHAPTER TEN

Social Worker Shortage and Social Welfare Workers A chronic shortage of social workers persisted for over two decades and was of critical concern for the CASW and the Canadian Association for Education in the Social Services (CAESS). In the early 1950s, a “manpower” crisis in social work was increasingly evident, and the most acute problem facing social work was the urgent need to staff the welfare services of Canada. Since 50 percent of CASW members were located in the five largest cities, the need was even more pronounced in smaller communities. A 1954 study by National Health and Welfare disclosed that there were approximately 7,200 social work positions across Canada, and an estimated 1,400 of them were filled by social workers.21 In 1962 a study by the Ontario Children’s Aid Societies found that of the 645 social work positions, only 167 were filled by employees who had some social work training.22 As the severe shortage of professionally trained social workers continued, the CASW became increasingly concerned, as it had been in the past, about the number of positions filled by unprepared welfare workers. This situation was further complicated when the membership of CASW agreed by referendum to upgrade the qualifications for membership to two years beyond the Bachelor of Arts degree. Some CASW members felt that the membership criteria ought to be reduced and broadened. This presented the CASW with a dilemma and pressure to be involved in the growing trend of hiring workers with no social work preparation for social welfare positions.23 In 1963 a statement on the relationship between professional social workers and welfare workers was circulated to all members. At the Delegate Conference it was unanimously decided that the CASW had the responsibility to advocate for minimum training for welfare workers, and would encourage provincial organizations to initiate consultations and promote the acceptance of such criteria. The CASW was to initiate dialogue at the national level with the Commission on Education and Personnel of the Canadian Welfare Council and the federal government. The distinction in definition between professional social workers and welfare workers was formulated and approved: 1. In general terms, a professional social worker is one who works in situations in which the exercise of professional judgment is a primary characteristic of the service rendered, while a welfare worker is engaged in rendering welfare services to people on the basis of defined criteria of service established in the programme in which he [sic] is employed. The precise interpretation of the distinction between welfare worker and professional social worker will depend on decisions made by responsible provincial associations of social workers.

A D V A N C I N G S O C I A L W O R K E D U C A T I O N , 1 9 5 0 –– 7 0

213

2. Both types of service are important to the community and both types of workers are entitled to recognition and status. 3. Formal training is essential for any person who works with people in a welfare programme. The content of such training differs from full professional education, but should be not less that 12 months’ duration, part of which should be formal instruction, and part field practice. This is essential to improve the quality of service to people in need, and to assure the public that welfare personnel have received preparation of a certain standard for the performance of their tasks.24 Since the CASW was not in a position to provide the training, it was assumed that the programs would be established by individual welfare agencies, government departments, and post-secondary institutions. Along with a field practice experience, four content areas were identified as important in preparing welfare workers: (1) universal needs of people, (2) dynamics of behaviour, (3) welfare services, and (4) basic intervention skills. The CASW proposed to establish a uniform examination for welfare workers. Recognition of the severe shortage of qualified personnel in the rapidly expanding social welfare state resulted in a historic session at the meeting of members of the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada (AUCC) and the National Committee of Canadian Schools of Social Work on October 25–29, 1965. The session on manpower needs in the social welfare field was arranged by Philip Fisher, chair of the Commission on Education and Personnel of the Canadian Welfare Council. In preparation, thirtyseven university presidents were contacted by mail, and they attested that the situation was of immediate concern. As a result, vital dialogue occurred among senior university administrators and directors of graduate schools of social work, and representatives of CASW, CCEPSS, and the Welfare Grants Administration of the Department of National Health and Welfare. It was decided that AUCC would sponsor a special conference to address the concerns raised.25 In an editorial of The Province, it was argued that “an entirely new role awaits higher education if it recognizes the challenge and responsibility posed by a revolution in human affairs.” The editor countered any skepticism regarding the need for professionally trained social workers, based on the view that “people with interest, common sense and kind hearts can do the job,” by emphasizing that “this is work more important in many ways than splitting atoms and sending rockets to the moon. It is the work for highly trained specialists.”26 The CASW and the NCCSSW identified four responsibilities for the profession: “definition of the nature, characteristics, boundaries, and standards

214

CHAPTER TEN

of professional practice; determination of the requirements for admission to the profession; regulation of practice; and interpretation of the profession to other professions, to the service system, and to the public-at-large.”27 Universities were asked to consider responding with three distinct programs: courses on social welfare within a general B.A., an undergraduate concentration in social welfare, and an extension course to upgrade current social work practitioners. It was suggested that “a general university education is incomplete if it fails to provide an understanding of social welfare as a social institution which is indispensable to the functioning and, indeed, the survival of our western, dominantly urban, industrial society.”28 The CASW urged universities to consider undergraduate programs in social welfare and to consult with the professional associations as they developed their plans. Two major functions of undergraduate programs were identified: undergraduate education as preparation for employment in the social services and undergraduate courses as preparation for graduate studies in social work. While some provincial associations already included welfare workers in their provincial organizations, the CASW was reluctant to consider membership possibilities for graduates of university social welfare programs until courses had been developed and there was an assessment of their effectiveness.29 As of 1962, there were 112 colleges and universities offering courses with social welfare content that were constituent members of CSWE, but not necessarily accredited by the council. In Canada, Sir George Williams, the forerunner of Concordia University in Montreal, was the only university whose undergraduate curriculum in social welfare gained membership in the CSWE. There were other developments at the undergraduate level in universities across Canada: social welfare courses were offered at McMaster and Waterloo Lutheran universities, and a three-year program of training for aides at the University of Sherbrooke in Quebec. In addition, programs were projected for the Université de New Brunswick and the Memorial University.30 During 1964–65, 288 students graduated with M.S.W. degrees from eight schools in Canada, and of these thirty-two were from the University of Ottawa and sixty-eight from the University of Toronto. A third graduate program was scheduled to open at Waterloo Lutheran University for the 1966–67 academic year. Ryerson Polytechnical Institute offered a two-year program in welfare services.31 L’Université de Sherbrooke established a program to prepare aides, while Memorial University of Newfoundland was preparing a program for welfare workers. By 1966, of the eight schools of social work, four had previously offered a B.S.W. and discontinued the degree program. The increase in graduate enrolments and the reintroduction of the B.S.W. degree resulted in a dramatic increase in social work graduates. At the end of

A D V A N C I N G S O C I A L W O R K E D U C A T I O N , 1 9 5 0 –– 7 0

215

Table 10.2: Degree Programs in Schools of Social Work, 1914–56

School Toronto McGill UBC Manitoba St. Patrick’s Maritime School Laval Montreal University

Date Founded

Date of First B.S.W. Degree

Date of First M.S.W. Degree

1914 1918–32 1945* 1930 1943 1949 1941 1943 1943

1947 (disc. 1965) 1947 (disc. 1952)

1947 1947

1947 1948 1950 (disc. 1957)

1947 1956 1951 1951 1948 1947

1947** 1947***

* McGill School of Social Work closed in 1932, reopened as the Montreal School of Social Work in 1933, and returned to McGill in 1945. ** The equivalent of a B.S.W. *** Offered a Diplome en Service Social, assumed to be a B.S.W. degree. There was no record of a degree being offered after 1960. Toronto and McGill universities also offered a Doctor of Social Work degree (NAC, MG 28, I 441,Vol. 42, File 2, January 1966, p.1).

the 1966–67 academic year, schools awarded 355 M.S.W. degrees and around one hundred non-university diplomas. The CAESS estimated that the enrolments were about to increase 500 percent to approximately 600 M.S.W. degrees and 450 new B.S.W. degrees by the conclusion of the 1971–72 academic year (Armitage 1971). The change in levels of social work education raised the question of competence that distinguished graduates from the M.S.W., B.S.W., and non-university diploma programs. Undergraduate education could no longer be viewed solely as preparation to graduate studies. Andrew Armitage (1971: 179–80) summarized the situation: “the employer is left uncertain as to whom to hire, the profession is uncertain as to whom should comprise its members, and the student and graduate are left wondering if they can obtain employment in the field for which they are trained or educated.” Brian Wharf (1966: 133) noted that there had been “a remarkable absence of debate” regarding the impact of the increasing use of undergraduate social workers and graduate education. He called on social workers “to relinquish their preoccupation with the treatment of pathology and devote attention to social reform, policy planning and administration” (Wharf 1966: 134). Edgar Perretz (1962), of the School of Social Work, University of Toronto, offered a critical examination of undergraduate education and recommended an “intraprofessional” preparation at the undergraduate level that was not at the level of a professional school and did not prepare the graduate for practice.

216

CHAPTER TEN

Similarly, Ernest MacDonald, executive director of the Catholic Family Centre in London, Ontario, argued that, while the graduates of the undergraduate program acquire knowledge, they are not prepared with the skills for professional practice and should not be members of the CASW.32 The absence of a clear role for social welfare workers, as distinguished from professional social workers, resulted in agency professionals undervaluing students in social welfare programs. In the case of the social welfare worker programs at Ryerson Polytechnical Institute, students found the agencies were not receptive when approached for field practicum opportunities. Similarly, social workers who were guest lecturers emphasized these students’ inabilities, and predicted that they would be second-class citizens within the profession (Globe and Mail 1965: 9). In 1966, William Davis, Ontario’s minister of university affairs, released a statement regarding the expansion of programs and facilities for social work education to include undergraduate and diploma programs (Globe and Mail 1965: 9). The University of Windsor was specifically selected to develop a graduate school of social work, as well as the first Bachelor of Arts degree in the social work field. Other universities were also being considered for B.A. degrees, but no expansion of graduate programs was considered at the time. Diploma programs, such as that at Ryerson Polytechnical Institute, were regarded as prototypes for colleges of applied arts and technology. Closely following the decision to expand social work education was the Conference on Manpower Needs in the Field of Social Welfare, where those attending unanimously passed five resolutions confirming the urgency of the personnel situation and a commitment to advancing social work education. The Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, in collaboration with other sponsoring bodies, agreed to establish a Continuing Committee to carry through with the goals established at the conference.33 The changing context of social work in Canada and the ongoing crisis in the shortage of social workers placed emphasis on expanding social work programs and active recruitment into the profession.

Meeting the Challenges in Social Work Education In the mid-1960s, the CASW was preoccupied with organizational difficulties and structure at the provincial level, the issue of registration and licensing, and the implications for the profession of the dramatic increase in social welfare workers without the qualifications associated with graduate professional social work education. A graduate degree was required for CASW membership. Increasingly, it became evident that the professional association was invested in the development of social work education in Canada and ought to have a process for input.

A D V A N C I N G S O C I A L W O R K E D U C A T I O N , 1 9 5 0 –– 7 0

217

With the increase in funding through the grants program of the federal government, the NCCSSW decided to become more active and to study its relationships with the CSWE, the Commission on Education and Personnel, and the CASW. There appeared to be a confusion of roles since social workers often served in all three constituencies and were addressing common concerns. For example, both the CASW and NCCSSW had mandates that included responding to the need for expansion of educational facilities and new schools of social work. In order to explore these concerns, a consultation with representatives from the CASW and NCCSSW was held in Ottawa on October 30, 1964.34 The CASW was questioned about what organization would be involved in training welfare workers since they would not gain membership in the CASW. The CASW representatives responded that the profession was concerned with improving standards of social welfare in general, and that there was a growing number of poorly prepared workers holding welfare positions with the title of social worker. In fact, in Quebec there had been the development of case aid schools, a three-year program to prepare social welfare workers. The content of this training program was similar to social work education programs, and in Ontario the Ryerson Institute was offering a similar program. Also, the CASW historically had become involved in community efforts to establish new schools of social work. A decision was made to call a meeting with NCCSSW so that all three associations could clarify roles and responsibilities. In 1965, the NCCSSW, in extensive consultation with faculty in schools of social work, adopted the “Statement Concerning the National Committee on Canadian Schools of Social Work and Its Relationship to Other Related Organizations, Particularly the Council on Social Work Education.” The executive secretary of the NCCSSW was invited to attend all meetings of CSWE’s board of directors, and there was always a Canadian representative on the accreditation committee. Despite this working relationship, it was decided that the function of educational accreditation eventually should be vested in a Canadian body rather than with the CSWE. In the interim, the NCCSSW planned on becoming more involved in activities affecting social work education in Canada and working toward the development of a stronger Canadian identity. Initially, the CASW was actively involved in social work education. However, the lack of official status with either CSWE or the CWC Commission on Education and Personnel increasingly excluded the professional association from active involvement in the preparation of its future members. Three factors combined to influence the direction of education in the social services in Canada. First, universities without schools of social service had a growing interest in the area of social welfare. This interest was sparked

218

CHAPTER TEN

by the 1965 meeting of the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada and NCCSSW to address manpower needs. The emerging social welfare programs often overlapped with social work. Second, many schools of social work accredited by CSWE were concerned about the chronic shortage of social workers and wished to develop bachelor’s programs that could be integrated with the existing master’s programs. The new formula –– a bachelor’s degree after three or four years and a master’s after an additional year of study –– was not accepted by CSWE since part of the teaching would be provided at the undergraduate level, and in Quebec at the CEGEP level. Finally the minister for national health and welfare had reconsidered his role and responsibilities with regard to professional education and elevated its importance.35 Therefore, a decision was made to modify the structure of NCCSSW to become an organization that represented concerned institutions and university teachers. As a result, the Canadian Association for Education in the Social Services (CAESS)/Association canadienne d’education pour les services sociaux, was officially founded in May 1967 and succeeded the NCCSSW. The first constitution was adopted on October 30, 1967, and David Woodsworth served as the first president. The CAESS enlarged the NCCSSW’s scope of purposes and was better structured to work in collaboration with “other educational, professional, learned, welfare or public bodies.”36 The four goals of the new organization, as stated in the constitution, were “to promote education in Canada for practice in the social services; to formulate criteria for use in assessing educational programs designed to prepare students for practice in the social services; to assist in the development of educational programs designed to prepare students for practice in the social services; and to represent the collective interests of members in relation to other educational, professional, learned, welfare or public bodies, whenever collective expression is desired.” There were four categories of membership: (1) ordinary membership held by an educational institution that met the conditions and standards of the association and offered a program of studies in social work or social welfare at the bachelor’s, master’s, or post-master’s levels; (2) provisional members available to an educational institution planning to conduct a program of studies; (3) associate members for institutions not eligible for ordinary membership but offering a related program in the social services; and (4) individual members engaged in education for the social services.37 In the following year (1969), Nicolas Zay became the second president and Andrew Armitage assumed the position of executive director. As of July

A D V A N C I N G S O C I A L W O R K E D U C A T I O N , 1 9 5 0 –– 7 0

219

1969, the offices of CAESS were located in Ottawa, sharing premises with the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada.38 The fundamental functions of the association were to develop education models for social work, particularly at the undergraduate level, and to establish an accrediting system to ensure basic standards of these programs. With reference to the latter point, a committee was formed, headed by Professor Helen Mann to complete this task. Initially the plan was to accredit all schools and then create a systemic rotating evaluation procedure.39 Discussions were held with CSWE (Dr. Kendelsperger and Dr. Reichert) regarding the establishment of a new accreditation procedure for Canadian schools, and it was agreed that a committee would be set up to plan for it.40 The commission accepted the proposal for a one-year moratorium for schools due for re-accreditation. A Canadian accreditation mechanism was expected to be implemented in 1970–71. Initially it would accept or extend accreditation of programs by CSWE and then move to study and accredit new programs. While there were supporters of an independent accreditation process in Canada, there were also those in schools of social work who doubted that CAESS had the resources or capacity to undertake such a task.41 There was even debate about the need for any accreditation at all. For example, members of the Carleton University Social Work Student–Faculty Assembly refuted the assumptions that the accreditation process would offer protection to the public and stimulate schools to improve their programs. Instead, they argued, quality control of educational programs ought to rest within the university, the local faculty, student body, and community.42 A three-year grant from the Laidlaw Foundation eased some of the initial financial pressure. However, it was anticipated that the financial situation for CAESS would be bleak during 1970–71 when the grant money ended.43 Although David Woodsworth suggested incorporation in 1969, the association was not incorporated until 1983. The CAESS arranged its first annual meetings with the Learned Societies in 1970.44 In 1971 a balloting process was implemented for the membership to determine a name; out of six choices, the name Canadian Association of Schools of Social Work (CASSW)/L’Association canadienne des écoles de service social (ACESS) was chosen.45 The first conference and annual general meeting was held in 1971 in Montreal. Establishing a new organization with such an expansive mandate was an onerous task, but social work education had come into its own; eight new schools were opened between 1965 and 1970. The Canadian Journal of Social Work Education was launched in 1974 with Professor Leonard Rutman as

220

CHAPTER TEN

Box 10.1: Social Work Education Organizations 1945 1957 1958 1960 1967

1971 2007

The National Committee of Canadian Schools of Social Work (NCCSSW) The Canadian Committee on Social Work Education (CCSWE) Canadian Council on Education and Personnel for the Social Services (CCEPSS) Commission on Education and Personnel (CEP) Canadian Association for Education in the Social Services (CAESS)/Association canadienne d’education pour les services sociaux Canadian Association of Schools of Social Work (CASSW)/ L’Association canadienne des écoles de service social (ACESS) Canadian Association of Social Work Education (CASWE)/ Association canadien pour la formation en travail social (ACFTS)

editor. In 1975, the CASSW applied for funding from the National Welfare Grant Directorate and was successful in obtaining a $50,000 annual grant for five years.46 By 1977, membership in the association included twentytwo schools and 180 individual members out of the potential of four hundred social work faculty members across the country.47 On the tenth anniversary, Marguerite Mathieu reflected on the achievements of the association: What can we learn from the experience of the first ten years? First a lesson of humility and realism. Running a national association within a country with such regional variation as is characteristic of Canada, for a membership which will always be limited in number and in a period when the profession of social work is experiencing so many transformations is, to say the least, a challenge. The situation calls for a realistic appraisal of the association’s raison d’etre and a recognition of the fact that, whatever the completence [sic] of its staff and volunteers serving on boards, commissions, and committees, it cannot pretend to rule alone over the destinies of professional education for social work in Canada. CASSW has many partners in this endeavour, and it must learn to cooperate more actively with them.48

The Unwelcoming University Schools of social work have not always found a welcome reception within universities. Ernest Hollis and Alice Taylor (1951: 214) capture this sentiment in their observation that “for one reason or another social work educators have tended to find themselves in the university but not always of it.” In their view in 1951, social work was in question “as lacking a sufficient body of scholarly knowledge, for failure to use scholarly research topics, for

A D V A N C I N G S O C I A L W O R K E D U C A T I O N , 1 9 5 0 –– 7 0

221

using unorthodox tools of research instead of foreign languages, and for failure to attract the quality of professor and student necessary for rigorous discipline required to advance the boundaries of knowledge” (Hollis and Taylor 1951: 289). Much later, social work scholars expressed similar concerns: “Social work suffers from low social status within the university because of its commitment to, among other issues, the promotion of ideology and not academic rigor” (Meinert et al. 2000: 2). During the formative years, the Church and the university had entered into an interdependent relationship, and it was Protestant social evangelism that sustained a number of the schools (Christie and Gavreau 1996) in English Canada and the Roman Catholic Church in French Canada. However, the reliance on funding from the churches to support educational programs absolved the universities from responsibility and placed some programs in precarious positions. For example, in early 1931 the Methodist, Presbyterian, and Anglican theological colleges withdrew their financial support for the McGill Department of Social Service and the school was closed. In the McGill situation, along with concerns of a financial nature, the decision by principal Sir Arthur Currie was based on the belief that the university’s responsibility to social work ought to be the provision of courses in social sciences, and that the application ought to be the responsibility of the social agencies.49 In response to a request from the alumni, the Montreal branch wrote a letter to Sir Arthur Currie to protest the department’s closure.50 A response from Currie stated that “McGill University would never reconsider its decision to the point of including in its activities a school of this nature.” In response, CASW formed a local Committee on Training Schools that would have representatives from groups affected by the closure, and would present concrete suggestions as to the foundation of a new school.51 Based on the serious shortage of trained social workers to meet the needs of Montreal social agencies, the Montreal School of Social Work opened in 1933 in a house owned by the university, with Dorothy King as the director. King has been quoted as saying that she started the school “on faith and forty cents,” the cost of the taxi to transport her and her books to the new school. The school was governed by a board of trustees, including Jane B. Wisdom, Helen R.Y. Reid, Carl Dawson, and Leonard Marsh, and financed by student fees, membership subscriptions, and other donations.52 In the conservative era of the 1950s, a number of schools found themselves in a vulnerable position since some educational institutions maintained doubts that social work education ought to be situated in the university. When universities faced budget shortfalls, social work seemed to be among the least favoured department. This was the case in Manitoba.

222

CHAPTER TEN

In 1943 the University of Manitoba started a one-year diploma program in social work. By 1948, the school offered a two-year B.S.W. and, in 1952, an M.S.W. program. However, in 1952, the “year of the great crisis,” the president made a decision to manage the university’s deficit by eliminating the School of Social Work. This was facilitated by the federal government’s decision to put resources into the general fund of the university instead of into the school.53 This decision meant that there was no social work education available between Vancouver and Toronto. Professor Helen Mann, the acting director at the time, refused to see the school close and organized a successful mobilization of community support from all over Manitoba. Not only did the school remain open, it expanded to include a two-year M.S.W. program.54 Although in 1950 the School of Social Work at McGill regained official academic status and was readmitted into the university, there were key university administrators who were not supportive of its inclusion. In a letter to Principal James, Dean H.N. Fieldhouse was opposed to such a move: “Does a casework school need a prop of university support? If we were starting from scratch, I should favour having the School in affiliation with us and no more.... I should like to see us take the chance of dropping the School if it can be done without damage to our public relations.” Part of his argument was based on the fact that the school was strong on casework and not public welfare and administration as was social work at the University of Toronto. He was critical of John Moore who, as incoming director, would continue the casework tradition and Moore was “not our notion of a University man.”55 John Moore, who took over as director, recalls that the transition was not a smooth one since the decision was not supported by the principal. Moore remembered the academic rigidity in the university and underlying tension regarding the school when he arrived, which was “at best ambivalence and at worst forthcoming disapproval and hostility.”56 Moore, identified in his time as a radical, for a brief time had been a member of the American Socialist Party. He was impatient with the profession and professionalism, and felt that while much time was given to trivial matters and technique, the profession’s contribution to world peace was not considered. In his view, the year 1950 was a time of contradiction and paradox. The hopelessness of the Depression had shifted to the war, “out of which there had risen again the hope of a united and peaceful world, this in turn to be replaced by the disillusionment, suspicion, cynicism, and retreat from idealism, first in the Cold War and then in the military and nuclear arms race, which was to lead to the outbreak of actual military hostilities in Korea and Vietnam.”57 The relationship between Moore and Principal James was one of mutual dislike. Moore felt that James was an intellectual bully, one who had once

A D V A N C I N G S O C I A L W O R K E D U C A T I O N , 1 9 5 0 –– 7 0

223

stated that “if the home and school and church did their job, there was no need for social work.”58 Moore led the school for seventeen years (1950–67). The Maritime School of Social Work, founded in 1941, was not established in a university until 1969 when it became a department in Dalhousie University. Prior to that, the school was an independent entity, a private school, and had affiliation and degree-granting arrangement with Acadia University, St. Francis Xavier University, and Mount Allison University (Hancock 1992).

Conclusion The development of a Canadian brand of social work education is a significant accomplishment. Social work education must be responsive to the economic, social, and political conditions in which social workers practise. For these reasons, a Canadian accreditation body is essential, as are the scholarly contributions of Canadian colleagues. In the past forty years, social work educators and practitioners have gained recognition at home and abroad. Currently there is a wide selection of Canadian social work texts and three major journals. As a profession, social work remains in high demand. This was clearly demonstrated in the 2001 sector study (Canadian Association of Social Workers 2001). Moreover, social work has a solid presence in universities, albeit not a prominent or influential one. There are currently thirty-five schools of social work, all accredited by the Canadian Association of Social Work Education. Among them is the School of Social Work at the First Nations University of Canada, the only school of social work in the country that is operated by Aboriginal peoples. In order to be relevant, social work curricula must interpret and critique prevailing social, political, and economic conditions. Being responsive to the mounting social inequalities and eroding social welfare services is an immense challenge for the profession. Partners in the social work education endeavour are more important than ever. It is for this reason that in 2007 the CASWE signed a memorandum with CASW to formalize their collaboration. Notes 1 This conflict is documented in Stanley Wenocur and Michael Reisch, From Charity to Enterprise: The Development of American Social Work in a Market Economy, particularly Chapter 18, “Social Work Education,” pp. 243–55. 2 University of Manitoba Archives, Faculty of Social Work, UA 37, Folder 003002C, National Committee of Canadian Schools of Social Work, minutes, April 6 and 7, 1956.

224

CHAPTER TEN

3 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 39, File 39-18, “National Committee of Canadian Schools of Social Work,” June 6, 1950, pp. 1–5. 4 MUA, John J.O. Moore, “A Report,” McGill University School of Social Work, November 1950, p. 25. McGill University Archives, McGill School of Social Work, 1918–59, RG66 C79 00001. 5 DUA, Maritime School of Social Work, UA 22 314 (1), “National Committee of Canadian Schools of Social Work, Statement Concerning the National Committee of Canadian Schools of Social Work and Its Relationship to Other Related Organizations, Particularly the Council on Social Work Education,” May 22, 1965, pp. 1–13, quote p. 4. 6 NAC, MG 28, I 10, Vol. 137, File 400, Canadian Welfare Council, “CCEPSS Minutes of the Interim Committee on Social Work Education,” May 11–12, 1957, pp. 1–14, quote p. 1. 7 NAC, MG 28, I 10, Vol. 137, File 400, Canadian Welfare Council, “CCEPSS Pattern of Organization,” October–December 1957, p. 2. 8 NAC, MG 28, I 10, Vol. 137, File 400, Canadian Welfare Council, CCEPSS, letter to R.E.G. Davis, executive director, Canadian Welfare Council, from Rev. Swithum Bowers, convenor of Canadian Committee on Social Work Education, January 6, 1957. 9 NAC, MG 28, I 10, Vol. 137, File 400, Canadian Welfare Council, “CCEPSS Minutes of the Interim Committee on Social Work Education,” May 11–12, 1957, 1–14. 10 NAC, MG 28, I 10, Vol. 137, File 400, Canadian Welfare Council, “CCEPSS Pattern of Organization,” October–December 1957, p. 2. 11 Ibid., p. 1. 12 NAC, MG 28, I 10, Vol. 137, File 400, Canadian Welfare Council, “CCEPSS Minutes of the Interim Committee on Social Work Education,” May 11–12, 1957, pp. 1–14; (Appendix C) Report of Sub-committee on Program and Priorities, pp. 1–5. 13 NAC, MG 28, I 10, Vol. 137, File 400, Canadian Welfare Council, CCEPSS 1958, “CCEPSS Minutes,” February 3 and 4, 1958. Those attending this conference included Father Guillemette (acting chair), Elinor Barnstead (Montreal), Carmen Couillard (Montreal), Professor W.G. Dixon (Vancouver), Margaret Griffiths (Montreal), Lawrence Hancock (Halifax), Ruth Harvey (Ottawa), Professor C.E. Henry (Toronto), A.M. Kirkpatrick (Toronto), Pauline MacDonald (Halifax), Joy Maines (Ottawa), Helen Mann (Winnipeg), Jean-Marie Martin (Quebec), Dora Wilensky (Toronto), and Phyllis Burns (secretary). 14 NAC, MG 28, I 10, Vol. 137, File 400, Canadian Welfare Council, CCEPSS, “CCEPSS Minutes,” June 7, 1958, pp. 1–11. 15 NAC, MG 28, I 10, Vol. 137, File 400, Canadian Welfare Council, CCEPSS, “CCEPSS Minutes,” April 9, 1959, pp. 111. 16 Ibid. 17 DUA, Maritime School of Social Work, UA 22 314 (1), “National Committee of Canadian Schools of Social Work, Statement Concerning the National Committee of Canadian Schools of Social Work and Its Relationship to Other Related Organizations, Particularly the Council on Social Work Education,” May 22, 1965, pp. 1–13.

A D V A N C I N G S O C I A L W O R K E D U C A T I O N , 1 9 5 0 –– 7 0

225

18 The three Quebec schools did not benefit from this funding program. NAC, MG 28, I 44, Vol. 12, File 17, Education for Social Work Committee, letter to Monsieur Philipe Garigue, dean of the Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Montreal, from Shaun Govenlock, director, École de Service Social, September 17, 1965, pp. 1–4. 19 NAC, MG 28, I 441, File 18, Education for Social Work Committee, “Minutes of the Consultation between the National Committee of Canadian Schools of Social Work and the Executive Committee, Commission on Education and Personnel,” October 29, 1964, pp. 1–15, quote p. 12. 20 Dalhousie University Archives, Maritime School of Social Work, UA 22 314 (1), “National Committee of Canadian Schools of Social Work, Statement Concerning the National Committee of Canadian Schools of Social Work and Its Relationship to Other Related Organizations, Particularly the Council on Social Work Education,” May 22, 1965, pp. 1–13, quote p. 5. 21 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 43, File 43-21, “Report of Workshop on Personnel Needs in Ontario’s Welfare Services,” pp. 1–14. 22 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 10, File 26, CASW and the Welfare Worker Special Committee, “The Canadian Association of Social Workers and the Welfare Worker,” June 1, 1964, pp. 1–10. 23 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 10, File 26, CASW and the Welfare Worker Special Committee, “Memorandum to Members of the Board of Directors CASW” from Harry Morrow, president, September 12, 1962, pp. 1–3. 24 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 10, File 26, CASW and the Welfare Worker Special Committee, “The Canadian Association of Social Workers and the Welfare Worker,” June 1, 1964, pp. 1–10, quote p. 1. 25 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 12, File 17, “Education for Social Work Committee, Extracted from a Memorandum Prepared by Professor C.E. Henry re. the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada and the National Committee of Canadian Schools of Social Work Meetings in Vancouver, B.C.,” October 25–29, 1965, pp. 1–2. 26 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 12, File 17, Education for Social Work Committee, “Editorial, Welfare the New Science,” The Province (October 29, 1965), pp. 1–2. 27 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 48, File 14, “The Profession’s Expectations of Undergraduate Education,” presented by Henry Stubbins, CASW, first vice-president, to the Conference on Manpower Needs in the Field of Social Welfare, Ottawa, November 29, 1966, pp. 1–8, quote p. 2. 28 Ibid., 3. 29 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 12, File 11, “The Canadian Association of Social Workers Statement on Undergraduate Education and Training for the Social Services,” June 1966, pp. 1–5. 30 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Box 37, Canadian Welfare Council, 1961–62. Edgar A. Perretz, “A Critical Review of Undergraduate Education for Social Work,” a presentation to the Committee on Undergraduate Education, Commission on Education and Personnel for the Social Services, Winnipeg, June 4, 1962, pp. 1–9. Also published in The Social Worker/Le Travailleur Social 4 (October 1962): 5–14.

226

CHAPTER TEN

31 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Box 41, File 16, “Education CASW’s Concern for Manpower Need”: Richard R. Medhurst, “The Manpower Crisis and Education for Social Work,” 1–12. 32 NAC, MG 28 I 441, Vol. 12, File 2, Education for Social Work Committee, letter to Florence Philpott, executive director, CASW, from Ernest J. MacDonald, M.S.W., executive director, Catholic Family Centre, London, Ontario, March 18, 1966, pp. 1–2. 33 MG 28, I 441, Vol. 44, File 4, Canadian Association for Education, “Report on the Consultation Held between National Committee of Canadian Schools of Social Work and Canadian Association of Social Workers,” Ottawa, October 30, 1964, pp. 1–7. 34 Ibid. 35 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 44, Canadian Association for Education, “CAESS Newsletter,” November 1969, pp. 1–3. 36 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 44, Canadian Association for Education, letter to Miss Florence Philpott, executive director, CASW, from Hayda Denault, executive secretary, CAESS, March 13, 1969. 37 CASSW National Office Archives, Marguerite Mathieu, “Executive Director’s Report to the Annual Meeting of the 1977 General Assembly,” pp. 1–8; MUA, R66 C175, Box 11, Canadian Association for Education in the Social Services, “Constitution and By-Laws (as Amended October 30, 1967), pp. 1–3. 38 CASSW National Office, Records, AGM Minutes, 1967–80, minutes of the second annual meeting, June 24–25, 1969, pp. 1–13. 39 CASSW National Office, Records, minutes of CAESS, March 1, 1969. 40 Ibid. 41 CASSW National Office, Records, minutes of CAESS second annual meeting, June 24–25, 1969, pp. 1–13. 42 CASSW National Office, Records, minutes of CASSW general assembly, May 28, 1975. 43 CASSW National Office, Records, minutes of CAESS, June 24–25, 1969, pp. 1–13. 44 CASSW National Office, Records, minutes of CASSW annual general meeting, May 29, 1974. 45 CASSW National Office, Records, CAESS, memo to the executive board from M. Mathieu, October 22, 1971. 46 CASSW National Office, Records, CAESS minutes of second annual meeting, June 24–25, 1969. 47 CASSW National Office, Records, Marguerite Mathieu, “Executive Director’s Report to the Annual Meeting of the 1977 General Assembly,” pp. 1–8. 48 Ibid., p. 8. 49 Moore, Education for a Caring Profession. 50 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 28 (6), minutes of the general meeting of the Montreal branch, November 16, 1931. 51 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 28 (6), minutes of the general meeting of the Montreal branch, January 27, 1932. In attendance were fifty-six social workers, forty-six of them members, the largest attendance in the past three years. 52 MUA, R66, C174, Box 10, 1938, “Montreal School of Social Work.”

A D V A N C I N G S O C I A L W O R K E D U C A T I O N , 1 9 5 0 –– 7 0

227

53 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 5, File 11, B.K. Sandwell, “University of Manitoba, School of Social Work Ends,” May 10, 1952. 54 University of Manitoba Archives, Faculty of Social Work, UA 37, Folder 009027, letter to President Sirluck from C.G. Gifford, director of the School of Social Work, summarizing accomplishments of Professor Helen Mann, December 2, 1974. 55 McGill University Archives, McGill School of Social Work 1918–59, RG66 C79 00001, letter to Dr. F. Cyril James, principal and vice-chancellor, from H.N. Fieldhouse, dean, November 26, 1949. 56 Moore, Education for a Caring Profession, p. 27. 57 Ibid., pp. 66–67. 58 Ibid., p. 262. In 1956, when the school was going through a particular difficult period of being overlooked and denigrated, Moore and the faculty decided that what was needed was a patron who might provide an aura of legitimacy. The unanimous choice of the faculty was Albert Schweitzer, a well-recognized humanitarian, philosopher, and physician, and they proceeded to explore the possibilities. Dr. Schweitzer responded and said that he would consider a proposal. The faculty immediately sent off a letter outlining the school’s philosophy, the concern with the world community and an international emphasis, and requested that he permit a proposal to the board of governors that the school be designated “The Albert Schweitzer School of Human Relations (or Applied Social Sciences) of McGill University.” If he were agreeable, they requested that he send a signed photograph of himself. Schweitzer replied in a letter dated August 23, 1956, agreeing to the proposal and included the requested photo. Moore promptly contacted the dean and forwarded the proposal to Principal James. James would not even consider the proposal because “the Board of Governors had a rule that no part of the university should be named after anyone who had not contributed a substantial amount of money to it.” The picture hangs in the hall in the School of Social Work at McGill today, unnoticed by students and faculty alike.

This page intentionally left blank

CHAPTER ELEVEN

Legal Regulation of Social Work: The Last Stage in Professionalization There seems to be fewer prophetic voices, less evidence of the quickened spirit, greater interest in social work as a career than as a cause. (Lee 1928)

Through the years, social workers have been preoccupied with achieving professional status, legitimacy, and recognition from members of social and political strata and from colleagues in other professions. Since it was founded, the CASW emphasized building the necessary components of a profession and acquiring the privileges of economic and social advancement and autonomy. However, the emphasis on professionalization presented the profession with a dilemma that conflicted with the social justice mandate that social work espoused. In an article in the CASW section of Social Welfare, Porter Lee (1928), director of the New York School of Social Work, observed that with acquired professional status, there was less interest in helping the cause of social justice and more interest in career advancement. This tension between profession-building and social and political action, which continues today, emerged once again during the campaigns to achieve legal regulation of social work practice. This chapter examines the ideological, theoretical, and political underpinnings of professionalization. In particular, it provides a historical account of the attempts to achieve legal regulation of social work practice, and reviews the accompanying debates that ensued among members of the profession. 229

230

CHAPTER ELEVEN

The Process of Professionalization Social work, like other emerging professions and its counterpart in the US, immediately strived to join the ranks of an established profession. Social workers set out to establish a professional association with membership criteria, a code of ethics, an identified body of knowledge unique to social work, standardized educational institutions to prepare social workers, and, finally, legislated regulation of the practice of social workers. Legal regulation of social work with the control of both title and social work practice is considered to be the last stage in the process of professionalization. This preoccupation with professional status has consumed social work since the Flexner dictum in 1915, which denied social work entry into the professional ranks because it lacked a distinct focus and body of knowledge. Since that time, “social workers have chased the elusive touchtone of exclusive knowledge and skill, thinking that if they could just properly define themselves, they could become a fully recognized profession” (Popple 1985: 573). In their quest for a theoretical base, for example, social workers embraced Freudian psychology in the 1920s, a decision that shifted the profession away from social reform toward counselling in the form of psychiatric casework, but social workers were not psychiatrists. Furthermore, there were dire consequences when social workers found themselves unprepared to deal with the human devastation wrought by the Depression. A number of theorists have drawn on the trait model that Flexner used and devised their conceptualization of a profession based on the possession of various attributes (Greenwood 1957; Etzioni 1969). In an influential article, Ernest Greenwood, a University of California social work professor, determined that there are five attributes that distinguish a profession from an occupation: (1) possession of a systematic body of theory, (2) an identified expertise, (3) community sanction, (4) a code of ethics, and (5) a professional culture (values, fundamental beliefs, norms). He viewed occupations as situated along a professional continuum with well-established and highly skilled professions such as medicine at one end and the least skilled occupations at the other end. Although Greenwood claimed that social work was a profession, he placed it among the less developed professions since, in his view, it had attributes of a profession only to a moderate degree. He noted that social work was “trying to rise within the professional hierarchy so it too might enjoy maximum prestige, authority, and monopoly which presently belong to a few top professions” (Greenwood 1957: 54). At the same time, Greenwood (1957: 55) speculated on the conservative impact of professionalism, and warned that “the attainment of professional prestige, authority, and monopoly by social workers will undoubtedly carry

LEGAL REGULATION OF SOCIAL WORK

231

disturbing implications for the social action and social reform components of social work philosophy,” and that social workers “might have to scuttle their social action heritage” (Greenwood 1957: 49). As greater attention was placed on developing social work expertise, methods, and techniques, the profession was in danger of pursuing the “know-how” at the expense of the “know-why” (Bisno 1956). There are definite gender dimensions of professionalization, and the rise of professionalism in social work must be understood within a historical context that considers the competitiveness of capitalism and the impact of patriarchy (Witz 1992). As a “female occupation,” social work never measured up when compared to the established and prestigious male professions such as medicine, and has been termed a “semi-profession” (Etzioni 1969; Toren 1969, 1972). In this category, Etzioni (1969) placed the aspiring professions of social work, nursing, elementary and secondary education, and library science, all occupations in which women predominate. According to Etzioni (1969: v), these occupations were in this category because “their training is shorter, their status is less legitimated, their right to privileged communication less established, there is less of a specialized body of knowledge, and they have less autonomy from supervision or societal control than ‘the’ professions.” Toren (1969: 146), who also identifies social work as a semi-profession, asserts that broader community sanction was limited because social work “does not have as yet a strong inclusive professional association in which membership is a necessary prerequisite for the right to practice.” However, Jeff Hearn (1982), in his assessment of professionalization as a patriarchal process, explains that the semi-professionalization classification reflects a state of partial male dominance of an activity, while full professionalization indicates complete male control. Furthermore, these occupations are caring professions based on a socially defined feminine model (Freedberg 1993). Pat Armstrong and Hugh Armstrong (1992), in a study of sex and professions in Canada, reported on sex segregation both within and between professions. Their data show that men are concentrated in the professions that have greater autonomy and power, and those men in female-dominated professions, such as social work, tend to hold administrative positions, work in areas of policy development and research, and earn higher salaries. Along with disregard for gender, a missing element in trait theorists’ study of professions and the professionalization process is an explicit acknowledgement of the ideology underlying these models. The “trait” approach to determining professions is based on the false assumption that “true” professions exist, and it does not consider that professionalization

232

CHAPTER ELEVEN

occurs within specific structural and historical conditions and is a function of private market economies (Larson 1977). Little mention is made of professionalism’s drive to achieve autonomy, influence, and status. These limitations have been well documented by several authors who advance a political economy model of the development of the professional enterprise (Wenocur and Reisch 1983; Larson 1977; Johnson 1972; Birmingham 1987). In their application of the model for the development of social work, Wenocur and Reisch consider the relationship of the developing enterprise to three sets of relationships and their interactions: “(1) the economic system; (2) societal elites and the class structure; and (3) competitive occupational segments within its specialized domain and the overall occupational hierarchy” (Wenocur and Reisch 1983: 703). Johnson (1972: 45) points out that “a profession is not an occupation, but a means of controlling an occupation.” Professions regulate most aspects of their members’ professional lives. Essentially, social works set out to identify a commodity (casework) and control the production, distribution, and consumption of that commodity. “The profession of social work emerged not because social workers had a body of knowledge and skill that they were able to sell, for they did not, but because society had a problem that needed to be managed” (Popple 1985: 573). The political economy position explicitly uncovers the manner in which professions are connected to social class. In a well-documented paper, Michael Birmingham argues for the conceptualization of professionalism as a system of property and the acquisition of professional property rights. “Professionalism, as a function of educational and credentialing systems created by the state, serves to legitimate the class system and sanction the values of the dominant class” (Birmingham 1987: 44). This alliance with the professional class often thwarts social action in social work. After all, if “an occupation is recognized as a profession when it asserts a right to be accorded such recognition by other professional groups and can make it hold,” as Austin (1983: 374) argued, it is unwise for the professional project to be seen as overtly political and aligned with the working class. Responding to this dilemma is an ongoing challenge for social work as the profession gains the recognition vital for its survival while attending to the commitments of advancing human rights and social and economic justice.

Legal Regulation: A Troubled Relationship with the State As the state assumed responsibility for social welfare, social work increasingly became a function of government and embedded in the state apparatus. The legal regulation of social work practice is assumed to protect the

LEGAL REGULATION OF SOCIAL WORK

233

public from harm and establish enforceable standards of professional conduct for the profession. A direct benefit to the profession is limiting practice to those who have the qualifications, “thus providing a mechanism for professional identity and public recognition, social prestige, and financial rewards” (Thyer and Biggerstaff 1989: 4). As early as 1934, the CASW began to consider professional regulation for social work. At that time social workers were concerned about the increase in social welfare workers during the Depression.1 However, it was not until the biennial meeting in 1944 that the first national committee on licensing and regulation was appointed. The move was inspired by a conference paper delivered by Alice L. Taylor. The nucleus of the national committee was established in British Columbia for a three-year period (1945–48) and then was rotated to Montreal (1948–52) and Regina (1952–54).2 In addition to the national committee, five branches devoted time to exploring the possibilities for legal regulation: British Columbia mainland, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, western Ontario, and Montreal. The plan was to experiment with voluntary regulation in B.C., but the program did not get under way during that time. The CASW was concerned about voluntary membership because it represented only a small number of social workers. Moreover, the title of social worker was increasingly claimed by those who had no educational qualifications in social work at all. In 1946 the association conducted a public opinion survey on social work and was dismayed that it was not recognized as a profession. Social workers also encountered “unco-operative” attitudes in their daily experiences from other professionals, government representatives, and employers. The CASW recognized that it had a limited influence in promoting current standards; it could advance only with the status of a professional body with authority to define the field of social work, determine conditions under which it should be practised, and enforce the educational qualifications for professional social workers.3 Similarly, in 1945 the American Association of Social Workers gave primacy to the task of bringing about legal licensing of social work. California was the first state to acquire legal regulation; in 1945 all social workers in the state were required to be registered and certified in order to be professional social workers. California’s first attempt to introduce an act in 1929 was unsuccessful due to opposition by a group of social workers. It was not until the early 1950s that the CASW gave its full attention to the task of acquiring a legal right to title and the domain of social work practice through the processes of registration (voluntary or mandatory), licensing, or certification (Gowanlock 1990).4 In the 1950 biennial meeting, the

234

CHAPTER ELEVEN

CASW formally adopted licensing as a goal for the profession and created a National Committee on Licensing. In 1954, after considerable study, the committee reported that registration rather than licensing was most suited for professionals such as social work. It argued that registration can be just as authoritative as licensing since it was the terms of the act, not the title, that was important.5 There seemed to be some confusion regarding the various possibilities since the Committee on Registration and Licensing of the B.C. mainland branch decided that registration was not adequate in protecting the public or the professional worker, and that licensing offered the opportunity to define professional practice.6 There are several mechanisms for establishing credentials (registration, licensing, and certification) and there is often confusion among them (Gaumer 1984). The restriction of title is a common component in all forms of professional regulation. Registration permits use of a specific title by individuals who meet the requirements set out in the provincial legislation. Registration and licensing are forms of statutory regulation that restrict the practice of a profession to those meeting the requirements. In licensing, the more stringent of the two, the eligible applicant is issued a licence based on competency to perform designated functions, usually assessed by examinations (Gaumer 1984; Maton 1988; Thyer and Biggerstaff 1989). For example, in some provinces, legislation includes “control of practice,” where only social workers are permitted to practise social work, as outlined within the scope of practice, which constitutes licensure (Bella 1995). Registration and licensing are similar in that neither can be awarded without meeting certain standards of professional competence, but in registration there is control only over the title, not the scope of practice. On the other hand, certification is issued by a professional body to people holding required qualifications. The emphasis in certification is on competence, specialized skills, and knowledge; it is a method of accreditation that is superimposed on a system of licensing and registration. Since regulating professional bodies is an issue of provincial jurisdiction, the first step toward regulation is provincial incorporation. Between 1948 and 1958, social workers in British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec formed provincial associations, and by 1975, associations were established in all provinces. Then in 1999, the Association of Social Workers in Northern Canada was formed, representing social workers practising in Nunavut, the Northwest Territories, and the Yukon Territory. Initially, provincial associations opted for registration, viewing it as a step toward licensing. The hesitation to impose restrictions on the profession through licensing was guided largely by the ongoing personnel crisis in

LEGAL REGULATION OF SOCIAL WORK

235

social welfare. Since provincial associations were initiating legislation independent of the national office, and with considerable provincial differences, several provincial associations recommended that the CASW should offer some leadership by developing an outline of the various aspects of legal regulation of practice.7 However, there was no indication that the CASW offered any guidance in this area. By 1999, all provinces had enacted legislation for regulating social work practice. The introduction of the Agreement on Internal Trade (AIT), signed by all provinces and territories in July 1994 and implemented on July 1, 1995, accelerated the movement toward mandatory regulation by all provincial social work associations so that they could meet the July 31, 2007, deadline for full compliance (“A Model of Mandatory Regulation” 2000). In March 2007, all ten provincial regulatory bodies entered into a Mutual Recognition Agreement on Labour Mobility for Social Workers in Canada, which assures that a social worker who is registered in one Canadian jurisdiction will be recognized in the others. The AIT provisions for mobilization of labour, in this case the mobility of members of occupations, based on the principles of free trade under the North American Free Trade Agreement, is a necessary requirement of the private market economy. The three territories are the only jurisdictions in Canada that do not have regulation, but the Association of Social Work in Northern Canada is in the process of establishing some form of regulation of social work practice (Dunlop 2006).

A Patchwork of Regulatory Legislation Currently there are no national guidelines or standards for social work regulation; each social work body negotiates its terms of reference with the government of the province within which it resides. And since regulations vary among the provinces, there is a patchwork of regulatory conditions across the country. Several authors have provided comprehensive summaries of the provincial legislation for regulation (Bella 1995; Foley 1999; MacKenzie 1999; McCorquodale 1999). The various forms of provincial legislation developed in different historical and political contexts, and many of the provincial associations had engaged in extensive government lobbying for years. In some cases, the efforts to regulate have been contentious and have met with opposition from some members of the profession. As a result, social work regulation in Canada is very fragmented. There is no uniformity in who regulates the various acts. For example, regulation in Ontario is under the Ministry of Community and Social Services; in Quebec it falls under the Ministry of Justice; in Alberta, the Ministry of Labour; and

236

CHAPTER ELEVEN

in Nova Scotia and Manitoba there is no ministry responsible at all. In seven of the ten provinces, the regulatory body and professional association are under the same umbrella. In British Columbia, Ontario, and Prince Edward Island, regulation is under a separate body. All provinces have provisions for protection of title and practice. The existence of two independent social work organizations has implications for membership in the professional associations. Given the choice of paying fees to two organizations, a number of social workers will choose the one providing registration so that they are able to use the title “social worker.” This has disadvantaged the CASW. The Ontario Association of Professional Social Workers (OAPSW) voiced concerns over its future if legislation was passed that would create a separate college to certify practitioners and regulate practice. There were doubts whether social work would be able to support two independent organizations given the limited resources. If the membership of OAPSW declined, there would also be serious repercussions for the CASW.8 The absence of uniformity and the wide variation of standards across provinces have created enormous problems for the profession. In Alberta, for example, the minimum requirement for registration as a social worker is a community college social service worker diploma, while the minimum in all other jurisdictions is a B.S.W. Since the AIT requires occupational mobility within Canada, a college graduate with a diploma can transfer to another province and become registered as a social worker. Convincing Government and Social Work In a majority of provinces, social workers have had to engage in protracted periods of lobbying and often met with unreceptive governments, as well as intolerance from members within the profession. The divergent views among social workers over the regulation of practice reflected differing ideologies about the role of social work. In 1964 the membership of the Manitoba Association of Social Workers (MASW) approved a proposed Bill Respecting the Practice of Social Work, legislation that would protect title and the public by licensing practitioners with a degree in social work. A separate legal entity, the Manitoba Institute of Registered Social Workers (MIRSW), was incorporated under the act to be the regulatory arm of the profession and issues a certificate of registration to members. Both MASW and MIRSW share a board of directors. The decision not to require MASW membership was contested and opposed by some members.9 After over fifteen years of effort by the British Columbia Association of Social Workers (BCASW), the Registered Social Workers Act was passed in

LEGAL REGULATION OF SOCIAL WORK

237

December 1968. Glen Hamilton (1970: 15), executive director of the BCASW, acknowledged that the hostile political climate shaped the act, and therefore it is “a compromise between the ideal and the attainable.” Social workers in Quebec remained with the Corporation of the Professional Social Workers of Quebec from 1960 to 1973. The 1966 Board of Inquiry on Health and Social Well-Being (Castonguay-Nepveu Commission) had a mandate to examine the professional organizations of Quebec. Based on recommendations of the commission, in 1973 the National Assembly in Quebec adopted Bill 250, the Professions Code (Code des professions). The new law changed the standing, role, and function of the thirtyfour professional corporations. It stipulated that the primary responsibility of the corporations was to protect the public; therefore, the Professional Corporation of Social Workers of Quebec could no longer both protect the public and defend the social and economic interests of its members. Bill 250 did not pass without debate and some opposition since the main purpose of the bill was to protect the public by enforcing public control of the professional organization partly by “fixing procedures for setting and controlling standards of practice, and partly by the addition of non-professionals to the bodies controlling the professions” (Woodsworth 1972: 14). In 1994 reforms to the Professions Code changed the name of all professional organizations and gave rise to the Ordre professionel des travailleurs sociaux du Québec (Quebec’s College of Professional Social Workers). The Ordre, along with regulating social workers, is authorized to issue licences to marital and family therapists. The pursuit of registration in Newfoundland spanned ten years. Although legislation for voluntary registration was introduced in 1979, the provincial government delayed its implementation (Bella 1995). The Newfoundland Association of Social Workers (NASW) took advantage of an opportunity in 1989 when the Hughes Commission was set up to examine the allegations of a possible cover-up by the Roman Catholic Church, police, and social services in the sexual abuse of young boys living in Mount Cashel Orphanage, operated by the Christian Brothers in St. John’s. The NASW was concerned that some of the employees in social services were social workers not adequately trained, although they would use the title. In a submission to the commission, based on interviews with social workers across the province, the NASW emphasized the need to have social work regulated in the province, and that control of title and the scope of practice were necessary to insure that social workers provided competent and ethical services (Kimberley and Rowe 1991). The association was successful in its argument, and in 1993 acquired control of title and the practice

238

CHAPTER ELEVEN

of social work. Leslie Bella (1995: 112) points out that the brief blamed social workers, primarily women. Among some social workers in the province, the arguments presented to the commission were viewed as “selfserving and a betrayal of those who tried to serve the young people at Mount Cashel.” Particular concern was expressed that” “[the] real culprits, the abusers themselves and the ministers, senior bureaucrats, church officials, and senior officers –– all male are invisible in the brief, except to say that they would have presumably all have been brought to account if social workers had just been more professional.” Dennis Kimberley and William Rowe (1991) in their article “Mount Cashel: What Went Wrong?” avoid any reference to these “real culprits” but instead put the spotlight on social work as a profession in need of legal regulation. Legislation on regulation for social workers was initiated by the Ontario Association of Professional Social Workers (OAPSW) as early as 1969. At that time, questions were raised about the professional nature of social work and the impact on those who did not have the credentials.10 Although regulation was a priority of OAPSW since 1982, legislation was delayed until 1998 primarily because of government ambivalence and the organized and sustained opposition from a number of social workers. As an interim measure, in 1982 the Ontario College of Certified Social Workers (OCCSW) was established by OAPSW as a voluntary, self-regulatory body with a central purpose of protecting the public. The college was based on criteria in the Ontario Health Disciplines Act, the act that governs nurses and physicians, and provided procedures for investigating complaints and implementing disciplinary action. Although the intention was also to be regulated within the Health Disciplines Act, in 1984 the provincial government decided that social work was not appropriate for legislation under the Ministry of Health and instead was designated to the Ministry of Community and Social Services. The opposition to regulatory legislation in Ontario was the most visible, organized, and sustained of all provinces. To date, Project Legislation, as it was called, has been the single most costly, time-consuming, and contentious activity of Ontario social workers. By 1985 Project Legislation, a partnership between OAPSW and the college, had already cost over $90,000, and the OAPSW board implemented a membership fee increase to fund the lobbying activities against the membership’s wishes.11 The costs included paid staff and researchers, and consultation with public relations firms and lobbyists. By 1989 the price of trying to convince the government to introduce social work legislation had soared to $300,000. Social worker Eva Kenyon expressed her concern over the actions of the association and college:

LEGAL REGULATION OF SOCIAL WORK

239

I’ve been amazed by the fervour with which my professional colleagues have been supporting Project Legislation. No other project, in my memory, has engendered so much enthusiasm. The goal of achieving government certification has even inspired OAPSW Board of Directors to pass a motion imposing a $50 additional fee for each full-time employed member, only a day or two after the membership at the annual general meeting clearly expressed its preference for voluntary contributions. It appears as if the call of the day is “legislation” at any price” and the price is not only financial.... (OAPSW Newsmagazine, October 1987)

Members wrote to Joachim Fecht, president of OAPSW, in support of Eva Kenyon’s letter and questioned the lack of democratic process in the decision to raise fees. Others wondered how “the fever for certification” coincided with social work values, and were of the opinion that the association’s resources ought to go toward social action and addressing the structural basis of inequality in society.12 A Draft Social Work Act for Ontario was published by OAPSW in April 1987, outlining the necessity for legislative regulation of social work: The lack of a social work Act means: 1) the users of Social Work services are vulnerable to substandard and unethical practice; 2) employees and members of other regulated professions have no reliable external reference point for determining the competence of Social Workers; 3) the means of holding Social Workers accountable for their practice is not officially sanctioned; 4) the substantial public investment in professional Social Work education and social services is not protected; 5) the social work profession is excluded from making a significant contribution in areas where the profession has major expertise; 6) the Social Work perspective is often overlooked in the development of public policy. (1987: 5)

While the primary purpose of regulation was allegedly to protect the public from “unethical and incompetent practitioners,” there were definite professional interests underlying the organizing. Malcolm Stewart, OAPSW executive director, admitted that “a side effect of professional regulatory legislation is the increased credibility and legitimacy of regulated professions. In the case of social work, this is particularly important, since it has tended to be seen as lower in the hierarchy of professions than some others.”13 It was assumed, therefore, that a social work act would place social workers on equal footing with lawyers, psychologists, and physicians. This concurs with Globerman’s (1992) perspective that while the primary motive for pursuing legislation is based on an ideology of ethics or a moral conviction of one’s position, social workers’ self-interests are also involved. In a Ministry of Community and Social Services’ consultation paper, “Regulation of Social Work and Other Social Service Practitioners,” after protection of the public, the second principle is the acquisition of “some degree of monopoly over

240

CHAPTER ELEVEN

the provision of services to those permitted by regulation to provide them” (Ontario Ministry of Community and Social Services 1989: 11). A sustained opposition –– primarily by the Social Reform Group, based in Toronto, representing a coalition of practitioners, professors, unions, and social service agencies –– was unable to curtail the momentum that had been developing. The lobbying campaign culminated in a press conference at the Sky Dome in Toronto, and on December 18, 1998, Bill 76, The Social Work and Social Service Work Act, was given Royal Assent. While social workers’ energies and financial resources were devoted to the task of convincing government that the public was at risk from the unregulated practice of social workers, the Conservative government of Ontario, under its “Common Sense Revolution,” had dismantled many parts of the social welfare system with massive cuts to public sector services, social assistance, subsidized housing, and health care, pushing the most vulnerable populations into poverty and homelessness. The desperate situation was noted in an editorial, “Social Workers Taking the Wrong Approach,” in the Ottawa Citizen: The real crisis in social work in Ontario is a perpetual shortage of staff because of routine under funding. There is simply no evidence of widespread incompetence among social workers. The author points out that regulation was self-serving and instead, social work should be building bridges to the troubled native, ethnic, and low-income communities. (Ottawa Citizen 1990)

Similar arguments were made by Ben Carniol and Brigitte Kitchen (1990: 62) in their opposition to social work regulation in Ontario. They emphasized that the crisis in the province was not from unethical and incompetent social workers. “Rather it is a crisis of under funding and of structures which perpetuate inequalities. It is a crisis experienced daily by social service clients who are not provided the means by which to escape poverty. As a consequence, child poverty, homelessness, and hunger escalate to scandalous levels, even within prosperous Ontario.”

The Impact of Professionalization Professionalism always has been a highly contentious and debated topic among social workers. Social workers who believe that the profession ought to be more engaged in social action have raised concerns about the primacy of the professionalization agenda, while those who give priority to the public and legal legitimation of the profession have been its key proponents (Bella 1995). Since prestige and power are exclusive features of a profession, social work’s professional pursuit has had a conservative influence (Cross 1985).

LEGAL REGULATION OF SOCIAL WORK

241

There is an ongoing tension generated from the attempts to balance competing interests of the public, the profession, and the individual (Casey 2006). Because professional power and privileges are granted by governments, professions can be viewed as “occupational groups which have been taken over by the state or have forged an alliance with it” (Wilding 1982: 15). Paul Wilding argues that the state needs professions to provide expertise in carrying out its responsibilities to ameliorate problems in society and among the population. In regulation, the responsible minister is given authority to control and direct the regulatory body so that it is “accountable to the state and, through the instruments of the state, the public” (Ontario Ministry of Community and Social Services 1989: 12). This conservative political strategy and ideology “affects workers in their relationships with their agencies, clients, colleagues, and workers in allied fields” (Wagner and Cohen 1978: 47). Unlike other professions, there is an ideological tension between the commitment of some social workers to social justice and social reform and those who are more inclined to support the professionalization project (Bella 1996). In his study of radical social workers, David Wagner found that social workers varied in their association and commitment to professionalism, depending on their type of work. “Those closest to the dominant ‘core skill’ in social work –– clinical social work –– had the strongest association with professionalism, while those whose job functions are more in community organizing, administration, fundraising, or teaching feel more removed from professional identification” (Wagner 1990: 152–53). For example, those who work in agencies serving families and individuals were more identified with professionalism than those working in alternative agencies, educational institutions, unions, or community settings. The concern with status guided a number of positions taken by social work over the years; particularly evident is the restrained and cautious approach in the area of social action. The profession has tended to participate in acceptable forms of political engagement (briefs, reports, and letters) and has avoided conflict-based responses. “The choice of professionalization over unionization as a strategy of collective mobility, at least in the early phase, is of general significance: professionalism, indeed, makes an important contribution to the ideological denial of structural inequality” (Larson 1977: 156). Bob Maton (1988: 88) shares these concerns and offers some thoughts on the likely effects of the push to professionalization: “The news is not good for those of us who view social work not merely as a tool for intervening in the lives of individuals, families, and groups, but also as a vehicle for social change and reform on broader levels in the Canadian political economy.”

242

CHAPTER ELEVEN

Marion Walsh (1990) admits that there is concern regarding the direction of professional regulation. Since regulatory bodies are appointed by ministers and professional associations are not charged with the responsibility of regulating social work practice, she argues that the fundamental reason for pursuing regulation is lost. Furthermore, the membership and resources of a small profession have been fragmented. Stuart Alcock (1990: 27–28) questions the entire purpose of regulation: “How does the control of title or practice protect the public interest, especially when the vast majority of social workers are employed by organizations which are subject to scrutiny and provide for the investigation of clients’ complaints?” His point is well taken since social workers, other than those in private practice, work under legislative mandates and the policies of their employing agencies in the voluntary and public sector.

Conclusion The regulation of social work has not been supported by all social workers, and the division has been primarily ideological. Opponents have voiced concern regarding the conservatizing nature of regulation. The argument that the public has been unprotected and therefore subjected to incompetent and unethical social workers has never been substantiated with systematic research. Research evidence does not inspire confidence that regulation accurately assesses the practice competence of applicants, enhances quality of service and professional practice, or protects the public (Globerman 1992; Gaumer 1984). Regulation has been implemented in all of the provinces. The general membership of the CASW has increased as a result, largely due to the regulation requirement for membership in the provincial association in all provinces except British Columbia, Ontario, and Prince Edward Island. The US has established an organization of regulatory boards, the Association of Social Work Boards (ASWB), which supports licensing boards and promotes regulation of social workers. The ASWB also develops and administers licensing examinations based on minimum competency standards. Membership is comprised of the regulatory boards of forty-nine states, the District of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands. In Canada the CASW belongs to the Canadian Network of National Associations of Regulators, and the provinces of Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia have joined it. “The challenge for the profession is not to deny its self interest, but to manage its regulatory structure so as to hold onto its original ethical intentions” (Globerman 1992: 240). Maintaining this fine balance between self-

LEGAL REGULATION OF SOCIAL WORK

243

interest and a mandate to alleviate social and economic injustice and human rights violations both nationally and international will take concerted and dedicated effort. After all, it was in the process of organizing a social welfare response that social workers became noted as more knowledgeable about the psychological, sociological, and economic impact of personal and social hardship than any other group. That is our strength and legacy.

Notes 1 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 14, File 20, Licensing and Regulation Committee, 1951–53, “National Committee on Licensing and Regulation,” January 1951, pp. 1–3. 2 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 48, File 18, Canadian Association of Social Workers, “Licensing and Provincial Organizations,” January 1955, pp. 1–12. 3 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Box 38, File 22, Board of Directors, Western Regional Conference on Social Work 1948–49, “A Report on Licensing and Registration of Social Workers,” February 1948, pp. 1–15. 4 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 14, File 16, “Report to the President’s Committee (Preparation of Guidelines for the Use of Associations of Social Workers in Respect to Licensing, Registration, and Control of Practice),” January 1968, pp. 1–14. 5 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 14, File 21, Licensing and Regulation Committee, 1951–53, 1955, “National Committee on Licensing Biennial Report 1952–1954.” 6 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 27, File 4, “Report of Committee on Registration and Licensing, B.C. Mainland Branch, Canadian Association of Social Workers,” April 25, 1951, pp. 1–4. 7 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 14, File 16, Legal Regulation of Practice Committee, 1962–68, 1973, “Report to the President’s Committee, CASW,” January 1968, pp. 1–14. 8 Personal files of Colleen Lundy, Ontario Association of Professional Social Workers, “Interim Report Prepared by the Strategic Planning Committee,” September 1987, pp. 1–7. 9 Manitoba Culture, Heritage and Tourism Provincial Archives, MG 10, H 33, Box 3, January 1961–December 1964, minutes, “The Social Workers’ Act –– Draft Bill,” pp. 1–7. 10 NAC, MG 28, I 441, File 7, “OAPSW Summary of Interview with Hon. John Yarmemko, Minister of Social and Family Services, in Regard to the Proposed Draft Legislation on Registration,” November 7, 1969. 11 Personal files of Colleen Lundy, letter to from Joe Fecht, OAPSW president, and Francis Turner, chair, Project Legislation Steering Committee, to OAPSW members regarding fee increase for Project Legislation, October 1987. 12 AO, F4175, 5937864, Box 91, File 4, Project Legislation Fee Increase 1987, a number of letters from members dating from August 20 to June 20, 1987. 13 Personal file of Colleen Lundy, letter from Malcolm Stewart to Terry Skillin, OAPSW president, September 21, 1988, pp. 1–4, quote p. 3.

This page intentionally left blank

CHAPTER TWELVE

Staying the Course: Choosing Professional Status over Progressive Politics We have exercised the right wing so often that unless we move a little to the left, we will forget how to fly. (MacLean 1969: 9)

The postwar welfare state continued to develop into the 1960s and early 1970s. In the spirit of “co-operative federalism,” the federal and provincial governments worked together to expand the range of social programs and services that would become cornerstones of the welfare state –– hospital and medical insurance, a comprehensive program of social assistance, and a range of pensions for the elderly. Also on the government’s agenda were social issues such as combating poverty among seniors, improving the status of women in society, youth employment, promoting multiculturalism and human rights, addressing housing concerns, and improving Aboriginal affairs. Many individual social workers and small local groups of social workers were involved in grassroots activities in the 1960s and 1970s. However, the CASW focused on consolidating and advancing its professional status, putting much of its energy toward participating in government social policy deliberations and preparing briefs that were regularly solicited by government. In 1966, CASW president Anne DuMoulin commented that “The association is 40 years old –– for a long time we were doing a lot of talking, but there were no ears. Now we’re being called upon to give our professional opinion by royal commissions, governments, and hospital planners” (Argue 1966: 61). This involvement in the development of public programs and 245

246

CHAPTER TWELVE

services, in fact, built on the tradition that social work had established in the 1940s, when it played a central role in the early development of the postwar welfare state (Dyck [1979] 1995: 329). Focusing on some of the major activities (and inactivity) of the CASW in the 1960s and 1970s, this chapter demonstrates that the association chose to work closely with governments, and that this co-operative effort was consistent with the association’s objective of promoting itself as a professional body. But by doing so, social workers’ capacity as a group to present more critical strategies and options for advancing social welfare was seriously compromised. Moreover, the CASW did not support its members who confronted serious work-related problems. Reminiscent of the travails of Mary Jennison, several social workers were left on their own or in their local organizations to struggle with large-scale systemic injustices. This chapter explores the involvement of social workers in a variety of social reform initiatives in the 1960s and 1970s. In particular, it provides an overview of the CASW’s responses to some important government strategies, and also highlights some of the internal challenges that the association faced in developing these policy positions. Another section of the chapter provides some examples of serious issues that arose for social workers, but where the professional association was conspicuously absent in taking a position or in providing support or advice. Bridget Moran’s lonely struggle with British Columbia’s Social Credit government, as well as the ethical issues that arose in the Warrendale situation, are cases in point. In several other situations across the country, individual social workers were engaged in emerging concerns, such as urban renewal and political action against injustices, without the involvement or endorsement of the CASW.

Selective Responses to Government Initiatives The CASW expended considerable energy responding to an active government social policy agenda during this era. The national office, in consultation with provincial associations, took responsibility for addressing issues of a federal nature; provincial branches and associations developed policy positions on both provincial and federal concerns. In some instances it was only through the urging of provincial branches that the national office acted on an issue. For the most part, the CASW’s policy positions were in reaction to government initiatives. It was selective in its responses, and too often its reactions were determined by factors such as the availability of resources –– personnel, time, and money. In selective cases, the national office chose not to take a stand on an issue that it considered too politically sensitive. Typically the CASW’s policy positions were cautious and rarely highly critical of

STAYING THE COURSE

247

government. In many cases they supported the government’s strategies and contributed simply by profiling the important contribution that social workers could make in the subject under study. There were exceptions to this, however; its policy positions on poverty and taxation, for example, were exemplary. Based on years of first-hand experiences with impoverished populations, social workers made significant contributions in highlighting the importance of socio-economic factors in poverty, moving the focus of poverty away from blaming the individual. The processes of coordinating, preparing, and presenting thoughtful policy positions on behalf of social workers across Canada, however, was a resource-intensive task for which the newly restructured CASW was not fully prepared, and the quality of CASW-prepared documents varied considerably. It did not have a well-developed approach for prioritizing the issues, coordinating responses from the regions, and delivering the responses. Despite these limitations, the CASW co-operated with governments in producing an impressive number of briefs and social policy statements during this time. Its relationship with government was so co-operative, in fact, that in 1969 it was invited to prepare a brief for the Policy Committee of a Liberal Party conference.1 Health care was one of the first areas to which social work organized a response in 1960s. Since the early years of postwar reconstruction, the CASW supported the development of health insurance. Throughout the 1950s, the issue appeared regularly on the pages of The Social Worker, and with the appointment of the Hall Commission on Health Services in 1960, the CASW had an opportunity to adopt a definitive position on the subject. The Social Action Committee of the CASW took the lead in preparing a submission to the commission. While the committee favoured one common brief representing the branches, the executive of the CASW did not want to discourage provincial associations and branches from making their own submissions, provided that they reflected support from their local membership. In the end, the Social Policy Committee collected various responses from branches and put together a “united front” position supporting health insurance; a delegation of the CASW formally presented the brief to the commission on May 28, 1962 (Latimer 1972: 255). The comprehensive brief effectively outlined the interdependence of health and welfare services and the need to strengthen the latter to ensure effectiveness of the former. It argued for health care as a right, not a charity, and for the importance of comprehensive health services for all citizens. Five social workers appeared before the Royal Commission on Health Services to respond to questions regarding the submission.2 It is unclear why

248

CHAPTER TWELVE

so many people from a resource-strapped organization would appear before the committee, but what perhaps is more surprising is the group’s lack of preparedness regarding the arguments contained in their own brief. For the most part, the social workers’ responses to the committee members’ questions were tentative, subjective, and not substantiated with data or clear policy positions of the CASW. For example, while the CASW submission advocated for the role of social workers in health care, including county health units, and recommended that all hospitals have a social service department staffed by qualified social workers, there was only a vague response to questions about the prevalence of social workers in health care, and whether people were going without physicians’ services because of lack of money. The CASW does not appear to have played a direct and formal role in the development of the Canada Assistance Plan (CAP) of 1966. This important policy was not contentious and developed easily between the two orders of government, representing the “ultimate in cooperative federalism” (Dyck [1979] 1995: 328). The CAP, moreover, incorporated principles outlined in the CWC brief “Social Security for Canada” (Dyck [1979] 1995: 329), principles that the CASW undoubtedly supported. The CASW took several opportunities to present its views on issues related to Aboriginal peoples. For example, in a submission to the Northwest Territories Board of Liquor Inquiry, the association, in consultation with social workers in the North, approached the issue of alcohol consumption from a socio-economic perspective. It argued that excessive alcohol consumption was primarily a social and health problem that required social support programs and prevention strategies, and that blame needed to be shifted away from the individual. The association highlighted the specific concerns of the “Indian, Eskimo, and Métis” population and emphasized that “excessive drinking is a symptom of a multiplicity of social and emotional conditions such as: lack of employment opportunities, loss of status and self-worth, immaturity, grief, boredom, sickness; and that these apply to drunkenness anywhere in the world.”3 The CASW also provided a modest critique of the 1969 federal “White Paper on Indian Policy.” In a letter to the minister of Indian affairs, it emphasized the vulnerabilities of impoverished Aboriginal peoples and expressed concern that shifts in government policy might exacerbate problems that this population faced, but at the same time it commended the federal government for its commitment to assisting Aboriginal peoples.4 The most impressive contribution of the CASW to federal government social policy was the work of its Committee on Poverty, chaired by Brian Wharf. In 1970 it produced the “Brief on Poverty” for the Special Senate

STAYING THE COURSE

249

Committee on Poverty. This was to become one of the CASW’s most comprehensive, well-developed, and well-received submissions. The twentythree-page scholarly report, supported by six pages of references, clearly outlined the effects of poverty on the population and made recommendations for a program of tax reform, a guaranteed annual income, and improvements in public assistance and social services.5 Similarly, the “Brief on Taxation” was produced by a committee comprised of James Gripton, Michael Wheeler, and Ken Calmain, with assistance from Sylva Gelber of the Women’s Division of the Department of Labour. Emphasis was on the role of taxation in redistribution of wealth, the taxation of the poor, and the need to integrate social security policy and taxation policy.6 The CASW also developed a strong position in a 1971 “Brief to the Commission of Inquiry into the Non-Medical Use of Drugs” (the Le Dain Commission). Specifically, it urged the removal of criminal sanctions against those charged in the use of cannabis, and the establishment of a marketing system similar to that for the sale of alcohol.7 Initiatives by Provincial Associations In 1965, the Ontario Association of Professional Social Workers (OAPSW) took the initiative to submit an impressive brief to the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism.8 It conducted a survey of fifty-seven agencies across Ontario to determine the extent that services were available to French-speaking clients. In the thirteen communities with a French-speaking population over 5 percent, 54 percent of the agencies identified themselves as bilingual. The OAPSW argued that for a service to be most effective, it should be rendered in the language in which the client best communicates. Another important provincial initiative was taken by the Nova Scotia Association of Social Workers (NASW). In 1970 it submitted a comprehensive brief to the attorney general’s Committee on Legal Aid. It profiled the work of the NASW’s Legal Aid Committee and social workers’ participation in the Bar Society’s Legal aid Clinic in Halifax. Among the proposals in the brief was that legal aid should be made available to the poor, and that legal aid services should be coordinated with other essential services, such as those provided by social work.9 There were occasions when responses from provincial committees came under question and when there was conflict among the members within both the provincial and national bodies. While many of the positions were debated at CASW delegate meetings, others were submitted by the provincial branches without formal approval of the membership. An example of this occurred over the abortion debate in the early 1970s. The Montreal English

250

CHAPTER TWELVE

chapter took the position that abortion was a decision to be made between a woman and her doctor. It recommended that the federal government remove abortion from the Criminal Code and expand abortion facilities across the country. The CASW refused to endorse the brief, so it was submitted directly by the Montreal chapter.10 The reasons for the CASW’s refusal to endorse this brief were not made explicit in the documentation. However, we speculate that it was related to the highly political nature of the abortion debate, and the CASW’s endorsement may have run the risk of alienating some of its members or the larger social welfare community. This inaction points to a serious indiscretion on the part of the CASW. It represented another important missed opportunity for providing a voice, and possibly leadership, for its members and for all women.

The CASW Critiques Its Own Responses to Government In the 1960s and early 1970s the CASW responded, with varying degrees of success, to social policy issues that were raised by governments. Typically, the association provided a response to an issue; it rarely raised issues on its own accord. And even when it responded to the government’s agenda, the responses were varied –– sometimes it adopted strong positions, other times the positions were weak and fraught with internal conflict, and at times it chose not to respond. Recognizing that its submissions were inconsistent in quality and development, in 1971 the CASW invited social work professor John Barnes to review and critique its briefs to government and to offer advice. Barnes examined seven documents for their quality of writing, demonstrated levels of expertise, and comprehensiveness.11 He found only two –– the briefs on taxation and poverty –– that successfully met the specifications he was measuring, and he suggested that they become models for future submission. In his opinion, the others fell short “by several furlongs” in terms of scholarship.12 Although he applauded the comprehensiveness and scholarship of the “Brief on Poverty,” Barnes was critical of the narrow definition of poverty, which, he argued, resulted in a conservative policy position. Rather than using economic norms to define a poverty line, Barnes suggested a definition that disclosed the role of poverty in society. Such a focus, he argued, would have resulted in a solution that addresses the roots of poverty in Canada and therefore “the institution of poverty and the set of social relationships it structures would have been the target of social policy considerations.”13 Barnes also offered criticism regarding the CASW’s “Brief on the Young Offenders Act.” The CASW described the experiences of social workers working with children in a number of settings, including juvenile courts,

STAYING THE COURSE

251

probation services, training schools, child-care agencies, youth counselling centres, and children’s institutions, and recommended some amendments to the act.14 Barnes noted that the ill-conceived act was rejected several years before by a federal–provincial conference, and then a decision was made to reassess it. However, the act had remained relatively unchanged. The fact that the CASW did not mention this as background information in its submission and recommendations prompted Barnes to question whether a protectionist attitude existed in Ottawa that inhibited “frank criticism of [a] policy issue because it is ‘among friends’.” He concluded his review with the following comments: The implementation of more effective –– that is less naive and less contradictory –– policy documents will require that more thought be given to this aspect of professional activity. The definition of the professional position cannot be left to chance, or assigned on the basis of internal professional politics. It cannot be carried out in a vacuum that ignores previous positions taken by the organization. The professional skill, and the leadership the profession might offer to others, demands that all CASW documents be comprehensive and scholarly in nature.15

Silence on the Status of Women One very important topic on which the CASW national office was silent was the Royal Commission on the Status of Women. Given that social work is a profession with a preponderance of women, and social workers work primarily with women, this was a very serious oversight and a lost opportunity, similar to the lost opportunity on abortion legislation. While the western Ontario branch, the New Brunswick Association, and the Nova Scotia chapter managed to submit briefs, the national office expressed that it had no time to organize a committee to prepare a statement by the due date of February 29, 1968.16 As late as January 1971, the Status of Women Report was listed under “Future Concerns,” and continued to warrant little priority within the CASW.17 This omission did not go unnoticed. On June 8, 1973, Sylva Gelber, director of the Women’s Bureau in the Department of Labour, gave an address entitled “Social Work and the Status of Women” at the CASW annual meeting in Vancouver. Gelber expressed concern that the profession’s national office was the silent voice in matters of urgent social reform in general, and on the status of women in particular. Gelber noted that according to the findings of the 1970 CASW Employment and Salary Survey, the proportion of women in administration, management, and policy-making was only 35 percent of all such positions even though women comprised well over 50 percent of the membership. The survey also revealed salary discrepancies

252

CHAPTER TWELVE

based on sex; men in administrative positions had salaries that, on average, were 14.7 percent higher than women with the same education (Gelber 1973). In an unconvincing argument, Albert Rose, president of the CASW, explained that the association did not have the resources to prepare a brief on the status of women because it was undergoing serious financial difficulty during 1969–71.18 Rose did not account for the fact that the date for responding to the commission was 1968, apparently before the onset of the CASW’s financial crises. Moreover, when the final report was released and the NDP Federal Caucus Committee on the Status of Women asked the CASW to support it and urged immediate implementation of its over fifty recommendations, the CASW’s leadership decided that it was not “in a position, without careful study of the actual recommendations referred to, to give unqualified support.”19 During this same time period, however, the national office had managed to produce responses on a number of issues deemed to be of greater priority. Rose’s response to Gelber was clearly a public “face-saving” gesture, but in his president’s report to the membership at the same annual meeting that Gelber addressed, he offered a glimpse into the growing divisions within the association. He referred to the volume of letters he had received from social workers expressing two divergent and contradictory points of views. Some social workers felt that the CASW had reached its lowest level in terms of status and financial position in 1971 “by virtue of its failure to thrust itself into the forefront of social reform through social action,” and advocated demonstrations, marches, polemics, and caustic briefs to the parties in power.” For others, Rose noted, the primary concern “lay in the fact that the Association had neglected its professional responsibilities to its members and had dissipated its resources and energies of its leadership in espousing social change, social reform, and social action.”20 Unable to reconcile these two positions, the CASW chose to ignore it and not offer its views on the status of women in Canada. In the end, this inaction made the association appear weak, uncommitted, and unable to take a strong leadership role on important social issues. To add even more disappointment to the profession’s reticence on status of women issues was the fact that the Canadian Association for Education in the Social Services (CAESS), representing social work educators, also neglected to comment on the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women. On the other hand, the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada recognized the importance of a response from educators and established a small committee to gather views from members. George Hougham, president of CAESS, was asked to submit the association’s views on four of the recommendations specifically related to univer-

STAYING THE COURSE

253

sities.21 Marguerite Mathieu, executive director, responded that Hougham had indicated that the CAESS would not be able to meet the deadline of six weeks to respond to the request.22 In a later letter, President Hougham reported that the executive board had met and studied the request, but failed to see on what grounds it would take action since these were concerns normally dealt with by the CASW.23 While women represented the majority of the members of the profession, there was little acknowledgement of the division of roles based on gender and the overall status of women in society. Gelber questioned this situation: Why then has CASW fallen so silent in recent years; and why has it evaded such an important issue as the changing status of women in contemporary society? Can it be that the existence of discriminatory practices within the ranks of the Association itself has precluded serious consideration of discriminatory practice generally in society; and if so, then how can professional social workers cope with the problems of the women in society who look toward them for a helping hand? (Gelber 1973: 197)

The status of women in social work prompted James Gripton to study the situation and conclude that “What is little appreciated is the extent to which sexism pervades professional education and practice and the organization of social work services, and the degree to which men dominate the profession” (Gripton 1974: 78). By 1970, men comprised 45 percent of Canadian social workers, up from 28 percent in 1951. The male takeover was demonstrated by their overrepresentation in administrative positions, higher salaries, and influence in personnel decisions. Between 1966 and 1975, males were president of the CASW for eight of the ten years. Schools of social work were no exception –– by 1973, two-thirds of the faculty were male (Gripton 1974: 85). It appears that there was little concern or resistance regarding this takeover among female social workers or the leadership of the CASW. As perplexing as this is, social work’s inattention to the woman question is not surprising. Leslie Bella (1995: 109) points out that social work was an occupation that was “born in the caring work of women.” However, it “used the technical and scientific language of men.” This was not unique to Canada. Among the twenty-one female presidents of the US National Conference of Social Work –– less than 20 percent of the total over seven decades –– none discussed gender inequalities or issues pertaining to women or used her position to advance the status of women (Stotzer and Tropman 2006). The social work leadership’s inability to actively engage in policy debates over the status of women also isolated it from the larger women’s movement in Canada, and the “women’s profession,” which could have played an important leadership role, was disturbingly absent.

254

CHAPTER TWELVE

Housing and Urban Renewal In the 1960s social work continued its long-standing involvement in promoting the need for affordable and adequate housing, community development, social planning, research, and urban renewal. In 1968 the CASW submitted a comprehensive brief to the Federal Task Force on Housing and Urban Development, the Hellyer Task Force on Housing. It argued that housing was a basic human need, and suggested that the funding arrangement used in the Canada Assistance Plan should be applied to housing. That is, the federal government would take the primary responsibility for the financing the program, but would enter into partnerships with the provincial and municipal levels of government for paying some of the costs and for administering the policy. The brief also reiterated the CASW’s ongoing concern over the shortage of affordable and accessible housing for low-income families and the impact of recent urban renewal initiatives. “In too many cases public housing projects have been an off-shoot of urban renewal ‘redevelopment projects.’ What has happened is that, in many cases, the poor have simply been dispersed when they have moved from the target areas, and have located themselves in houses which may be worse than those they were required to vacate.”24 The CASW’s concerns were valid and demonstrated foresight. Unfortunately, individual social workers supported the redevelopment projects that the association criticized. As early as 1948, social work educator Albert Rose was a leading advocate in the movement to establish Regent’s Park, a large public housing project in Toronto. In a study a decade later, Rose (1958) was optimistic regarding the outcome, but noted the lack of community services within the project. Similarly, Leonard Marsh (1950), a social work professor at the University of British Columbia, completed a demonstration slum-clearance project in an area of Vancouver. Marsh argued that overcrowding and squalor created an environment that produced social problems. In the housing survey, Marsh gathered information on family composition, ethnic background, and housing conditions. However, like many of the urban renewal initiatives, there was little attention given to the fact that the residents formed a community, had a shared history, and relied on each other in times of need. A number of the urban renewal initiatives involved the forced relocation of working-class families from downtown areas, called “slums” or “ghettos,” to public housing developments. Social workers were often involved in relocation programs by providing welfare and counselling for the trauma of being uprooted from a community, if these concerns were even identified. Since many of the relocation projects operated in the interests of real estate developers, it is not surprising that the internal strengths and resources of

STAYING THE COURSE

255

communities labelled “blighted” were not considered. For example, the study by the Social Planning Council of housing “deterioration” in Hamilton’s north-end working-class community took little note of the population’s high degree of overall stability, high rate of home ownership, community cohesiveness, and low crime rate.25 In addition, the researchers conducted a survey of the population and found that three out of four dwellings were, on average, in favourable condition, which contradicted the city planning department’s claim that 45 percent were classified as “clearance.” One of the most infamous urban renewal projects took place in a Black community in Halifax, called Africville. Africville was a community of four hundred people, comprising eighty families, most of whom had ancestral roots going back a century (Clairmont and Magill 1971, 1999). Although within the Halifax city limits, the community had been neglected for several years, and there had been no attempts to provide the people with even basic services, such as sewage disposal, water, paved roads, or other essential services, despite the residents’ petitions to the city. The city’s only intervention was the expropriation of land from the community for the development of a railway and to use some of the property for an open city garbage dump. In the early 1960s, the city decided to commission an expert on urban renewal, Albert Rose, director of the School of Social Work at the University of Toronto, to study the situation (The Mail-Star September 1963). Based on a forty-eight-hour visit to Halifax, including a two-hour tour of Africville, Rose prepared a report for the City of Halifax recommending that land be expropriated, the community be resettled, and the site cleared. His recommendations were consistent with the views of the city council that hired him. Rose (1971: A62) claimed that the people of Africville appeared “ready and to some extent eager” to negotiate a settlement, and emphasized that housing, employment, and income were fundamental needs of the people. Rose described Africville as one of the most intensively studied communities and argued that no further research was required to respond to the situation. In his report, he failed to acknowledge the roles of structural racism and the inequalities facing the people of Africville, nor did he mention the history, strengths, and resources within the community. The tragedy of Africville’s residents received international coverage; it became an example of overt racism. Where was the voice of the social work profession during and after the relocation? How could destruction of a community and severe racial discrimination of a group of people go unnoticed by the social work profession? Although a social worker was assigned to coordinate the relocation, there is no evidence of involvement by the Nova Scotia Association of Social Workers or by the CASW. From one article in

256

CHAPTER TWELVE

the NSASW Newsletter, it appears that the association endorsed the bulldozing of Africville because it ended “a community which for many years had nagged the conscience of Haligonians, embarrassed much of Nova Scotia, and provoked criticism from one end of Canada to the other” (Nova Scotia Association of Social Workers Newsletter 1967).

The Absence of the CASW in Social Workers’ Political Struggles In the 1960s and 1970s the CASW was actively involved in assisting in the development of social programs and policies across the country; this had become one of its major functions. Unfortunately, it was much less attentive to, and supportive of, the political struggles that some of its members were involved with. Going It Alone: Bridget Moran’s Battle with British Columbia’s Social Credit Government The expansion of social welfare varied across the country. In British Columbia, the situation was bleak, particularly with regard to child welfare. When the Social Credit government of Premier Bennett came to power in 1952, the conditions in the Social Welfare Branch changed almost immediately as caseloads skyrocketed and the services provided by the branch deteriorated. Bridget Moran, a social worker and child welfare worker, became disillusioned with the Social Credit government’s policies on child welfare, and became convinced that the welfare department “was the biggest contributor to child abuse in the province” (Moran 1992: 42). Moran’s disillusionment was shared by social workers across the province. A few years earlier, the superintendent of child welfare, Ruby McKay, had quit her job and made a public statement about the conditions in the province. Amy Leigh, director of welfare, cited the year 1955 as the date when welfare services in British Columbia began to decline, changing it from a province that had the most progressive welfare program on the continent to a point where “we had deteriorated to such a point that it is difficult to know where we stand” (Moran 1992: 58). Dave Barrett, social worker and later the NDP premier of British Columbia, also noted the rapid decline: In 1952 there was one social worker for every 5,100 people in the province; by 1963 there was one social worker for every 7,500 people. Comparing figures between 1952 and 1963, he said that the population of the province had increased forty percent, the number of children by sixty percent, and that while caseloads for social workers had increased by almost half again, staff had increased by only eight bodies. (Moran 1992: 59)

STAYING THE COURSE

257

One particular child welfare case was the catalyst that made Moran take action. In 1963 Moran had been working for months with a young Native girl who was a chronic “runaway” and was known to harm herself. Moran tried repeatedly to get services for the child and to secure a good foster home for her. In the end, the only choice she had was one she found impossible to live with –– to commit the child to a reform school. Moran wrote a letter to Premier Bennett about the appalling state of child welfare services in British Columbia and sent it to the media (Moran 1992: 68). Moran was not prepared for the public attention that the issues she raised received. Her letter attracted a great deal of interest from the media and the public, and fury from the Social Credit government. Although she expected to be fired, this did not happen –– at least not immediately. She received support from professionals, other social workers, schools of social work, and many others. But as the issue continued to make headlines in British Columbia, the government eventually suspended Moran and a number of other social workers. After a year and half of legal debates through her lawyer, Harry Rankin, Moran was finally told that she was suspended under Section 67 of the Civil Service Act for misconduct. Although the suspension was lifted, Moran found that there was no work available to her and, at the age of fifty-four, Moran found her opportunities in the government had ended. She found work, however, as a social worker for the Prince George School District. Her contributions to social justice did not go unnoticed, and in 1996 she received an honorary Doctor of Laws at the University of Victoria. In her book A Little Rebellion (Moran 1992), which chronicles her battle with the government of British Columbia, Moran makes no mention of the CASW and whether the association supported her. However, on the day she received her suspension, the BCASW was in Victoria presenting a brief on the very problems that she was dealing with. In a brief to the government, the BCASW outlined that “the welfare department required an additional 106 workers. The Association’s brief also called for a twenty-three percent wage boost for social workers, increased treatment facilities and services for children, and a request that all levels of government get together to devise an enlightened overall plan for public welfare” (Moran 1992: 109). Moran’s case raises many important questions for social workers. Why, if there were so many disgruntled social workers in the province during this time, didn’t the BCASW or the CASW act on their behalf? Is it up to individual social workers to take public stands on their own? Moran’s story clearly shows that, along with many other workers, she found the situation in which they worked intolerable. She claims that her actions to send a

258

CHAPTER TWELVE

letter to the media came only after repeated requests had been made to senior bureaucrats. She also mentions that she was not the only social worker who took this action; many social workers decided to quit their jobs and were driven away by unworkable situations. Accountability and Ethics in Social Work Practice: The Warrendale Affair The 1960s ushered in a demand for increased accountability on the part of social workers and attention to professional ethics in their places of work. One well-documented case, the Warrendale Inquiry of 1967, placed social work under scrutiny in terms of social workers’ unethical behaviour and placed the CASW in a precarious position. Warrendale was a Toronto treatment centre for emotionally disturbed children, many abandoned by their parents.26 In September 1966, social worker John Brown, director of the Warrendale, was dismissed after thirteen years of service, largely because of allegations by John Pollock, president of the Warrendale board. The entire staff resigned in protest, leaving fifty-seven children without services; the provincial government immediately took over the administration of Warrendale. In a document released to the press, Pollock accused Brown of uncontrollable rages, forcing staff to undergo therapy that he provided, and irregular management of finances, often to benefit himself. Tory MPP George H. Peck, who claimed that he was speaking as an individual, raised concerns about Brown’s management of finances and the shocking and filthy conditions at Warrendale. He called the mass resignation of the staff “incredibly irresponsible.” He continued: “I will not go into detail as to the sickening and almost indescribable display of hysteria, emotional instability, physical violence, name-calling, and other actions by the former staff in the days and weeks that followed” (Globe and Mail 1966b). The Ontario welfare department hired an accounting firm to investigate the financial affairs, and the auditor’s report confirmed the presence of hiring and financial irregularities. Brown immediately provided a very convincing point-by-point rebuttal and demanded an apology from the accounting firm and threatened legal action against the centre for back wages. In the seven-page letter, Brown and his attorney accused the accounting firm of using “hearsay testimony” and libelous innuendos in the report. Brown pointed out that the same firm had audited Warrendale’s books for at least six years without any problems, and found fault only after he was dismissed (Toronto Daily Star, March 27, 1967).27 In November 1966, as a result of “the cloud of confusion and anxiety” left by the Warrendale Inquiry, the secretary-general of the International Union for Child Welfare was invited to make a thorough and impartial study of the treatment methods.28

STAYING THE COURSE

259

Both the OAPSW and CASW were concerned about the events at Warrendale, but they were mainly concerned over the negative publicity it gave the profession and the legal position facing the CASW. In a letter to Jean Palmer, the OAPSW president, Florence Philpott, concerned about the public statements and news releases, emphasized that it was imperative that the public’s confidence in social work and social workers and in other disciplines engaged in child welfare services be strengthened as quickly as possible.29 Palmer wrote to Ontario Premier John Robarts expressing regret that “at a time when the inadequacy and insufficiency of services for emotionally disturbed children are so well known, that the facilities of Warrendale have to be restricted.”30 Frank Turner, editor of The Social Worker/Le Travailleur Social, referred to the accusations and counter-accusations of misconduct and incompetence as a “journalistic field day and a professional nightmare,” and urged CASW to conduct an inquiry and for the profession to speak out (Turner 1966: 204). On October 22, 1966, CASW’s board of directors appointed its own Committee of Inquiry to determine whether the alleged misconduct and activities contravened professional ethics (Globe and Mail 1966a).31 As a result of the inquiry, one member of the association received a letter of reprimand and another had his membership cancelled.32 Brown retaliated with a libel charge against the CASW for publishing the decision to terminate his membership in a 1967 newsletter.33 The Warrendale situation raised a number of questions for the profession. Since the professional associations had a responsibility to deal with ethical concerns, the role of the national office was in question. While the bylaws of the Ontario and Manitoba associations stated that a member must adhere to the CASW Code of Ethics, there was no mention of this in the bylaws of Alberta, New Brunswick, and Saskatchewan. Although there was a signed memorandum of agreement between each province and the CASW that stated “Organization member agrees to accept the Code of Ethics of CASW and other policy statements adopted by CASW as a guide for its own activities,” the degree to which it was legally binding was questionable.34 Both the OAPSW and CASW were unprepared for an inquiry of this magnitude. Both the provincial and national associations identified factors for future consideration in responding to similar concerns. These included an awareness of provincial libel laws; the cost of conducting an inquiry and court costs in the event that the member takes legal action against the association; the inclusion of policy statements in the association bylaws for disciplinary measures; consultation with legal counsel before releasing an inquiry report; and the retention of a litigation lawyer if the member takes legal action.

260

CHAPTER TWELVE

By the mid-1970s the CASW was struggling to deal with a serious financial crisis and a membership that was divided on ideological grounds. Although the factors contributing to the financial situation are unclear, it is likely that the costs incurred during the Warrendale affair were sufficient to place the association in financial jeopardy. Furthermore, in 1969, with the withdrawal of second-class mail rates, postage for The Social Worker increased by 300 percent (The Social Worker 1969). There was little time and few resources to allot to social concerns as the CASW attended to organizational difficulties. Increasingly the national office expected that much of the social action would be at the provincial level, and the associations would develop briefs and submit them to the Social Concerns Committee, which would serve as a “watchdog” and offer guidance. Increasingly experts were called upon to guide the profession in social policy directions.35 Exercising the Left Wing: Social Workers Promoting Social Change While the CASW tended toward a commitment to the status quo and gaining professional standing, there was a small group of social workers who supported radical social change and who were strongly interested in breaking with tradition. These social workers expected a more proactive response from the CASW on social issues, and began to challenge colleagues to become more politically active. An important example of this was when three collieries of the Dominion Coal Company in Cape Breton closed in 1961, leaving 2,800 miners without jobs. Social worker Sister Thomas Marie raised concerns about the lack of a social work response, and urged social workers to consider the impact on the miners, their families, their communities, and the country as a whole: “Does it mean anything to the rest of Canada that so many Canadians are suddenly bereft of means of subsistence because of an economic system which places unequal burdens on various parts of the country we call Canada?” (Marie 1961: 44). Cape Breton social workers also joined the “March of Concern” on Sunday, November 19, 1967 to oppose the closing of the steel plant. However, they did not march under a social work banner, and instead identified themselves by their agencies with placards such as “Child Welfare Concerned” and “Family Agencies Are Involved” (Nova Scotia Association of Social Workers Newsletter December 1967). The action of taking a public stand and confrontation to bring about social change was not common in the profession. Some social workers directly addressed the importance of militant social action for promoting social justice. For example, a member of the Manitoba Association of Social

STAYING THE COURSE

261

Workers’ Social Action Committee urged social workers to undertake strategies, which included civil disobedience cases where injustice persists. Social action is an integral, not an optional, part of our professional responsibility. Aside from the agency efforts at social action, our professional association has a role to play in the total decision-making process of our community. By applying a process of problem identification, goal setting, strategy definition, and implementation, based on understanding, facts, and an applied sense of timing, we, though few in numbers, can bend and influence the direction of our society to make it a more humane place in which to live. To do less would be negligent.36

Despite this urging from some members, there were others who distanced themselves from any activity that might be viewed as radical or militant. When the Winnipeg and District Labour Council organized a demonstration in favour of medicare, the MASW was hesitant to align itself with labour since it was a “political force” and decided that the Social Action Committee would present a brief independent of the Labour Council.37 The 1960s was also a time of increased consciousness and Black communities’ organized resistance against racism. Although social workers were not directly involved, there was recognition of the struggle. In 1968, an article by J.R. Oliver, “The Way It Is: Through the Eyes of a Blackman,” appeared in the Nova Scotia Social Work Association newsletter. He eloquently described the impact of racism: “Social injustices corrode and damage the human personality, thereby robbing it of its effectiveness, of its creativity, if not its actual humanity. No matter how desperately one seeks to deny it, this simple fact persists and intrudes itself. It is the fuel of protests and revolts” (Oliver 1968). A number of events supported the mobilization of Black activists. The Black United Front was formed under the leadership of William Oliver, a Nova Scotia Human Rights Conference was held, and in early 1969 a “Teach-In on the Black Man in Nova Scotia” was held at St. Francis Xavier University. The presentations detailed the dehumanizing conditions endured by Nova Scotia’s 15,000 Blacks. Among the speakers at the Teach-In was Burley “Rocky” Jones, then a student at Dalhousie University, who stated “that Blacks are living in a racist country governed by capitalism and imperialism” (O’Brien 1969: n.p.). There is no indication of the level of social workers’ involvement in these events even though they were reported in the NASW newsletter.

Conclusion Throughout the 1960s and early 1970s, a time of social activism and grassroots action on many fronts, social workers expressed their concern with the profession’s minimal involvement in social action in response to injustice.

262

CHAPTER TWELVE

The social action activities of the CASW’s national office at this time appear to have been limited largely to preparing social policy briefs in response to government initiatives. As had occurred in the 1950s, “social action” again became an issue in the CASW. There was debate over the use of terms such as “social issues,” “social action,” and “social concerns.” In late 1970s, a decision was made to adopt the term “social concerns” for matters of wide public interest or legislation outside of the CASW. Subsequently a committee was established to identify social concerns and strategies for social action.38 While the CASW contributed to the social welfare development and prepared an impressive collection of briefs, little time and resources, and maybe political will, were spent on collective struggles for social change. While brief writing was viewed as a legitimate role for a professional association, there was less certainty regarding the engagement in social action. While many of the submissions to government contained forward-thinking and progressive recommendations, the CASW did not have the means or a strategy to pressure for their implementation. Concern for protecting professional status has a conservative impact and constrains radicalism in the profession. Joseph Ryant explained how an increase in prestige and income that accompanies professionalization reduces the likelihood “that social workers will regard a socio-political system which rewards them as inherently oppressive and unjust –– a required belief for favouring radical modes of social action” (Ryant 1969: 155; emphasis in original). Social workers today continue to face the dilemma of achieving professional prestige while participating in progressive politics and social change.

Notes 1 NAC, MG 20, I 441, Vol. 42, File 13, “CASW Brief to Liberal Conference,” Harrison Hot Springs, B.C., November 22, 1969, pp. 1–4. 2 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 23, File 22, “Submission of the Canadian Association of Social Workers,” n.d., pp. 1–14. 3 NAC, MG 20, I 441, Vol. 42, File 22, “CASW Brief to North West Territories Board of Liquor Inquiry,” December 1968, pp. 1–4, quote p. 3. 4 NAC, MG 20, I 441, Vol. 23, letter to Hon. Jean Chrétien, minister, Department of Indian Affairs, from Henry Stubbins, CASW president, August 14, 1969. 5 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 43, File 43-2, “Brief to the Special Senate Committee on Poverty,” March 24, 1970, pp. 1–23. 6 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 43, File 43-18, “Brief to the Committee on Finance, Trade, and Economic Affairs on the Proposal for Tax Reform,” June 1970. 7 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 17, File 17-13, “CASW Brief to the Commission of Inquiry into the Non-Medical Use of Drugs,” April 1, 1971, pp. 1–7. 8 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 43, File 43-5, “A Brief to the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism from the Ontario Association of Professional

STAYING THE COURSE

9

10

11

12 13 14

15 16

17 18

19

20

263

Social Workers, Prepared by an Ad Hoc Committee of the Association,” April 30, 1965, pp. 1–17, plus appendices. NAC, MG 20, I 441, Vol. 42, File 12, “Brief Presented to Attorney-General’s Committee on Legal Aid by Nova Scotia Association of Social Workers (Atlantic Branch),” November 1970, pp. 1–11. NAC, MG 20, I 441, Vol. 28, File 6, “Position Paper of the Montreal English Chapter of the Corporation of Professional Social Workers of the Province of Quebec on Abortion Practices in Canada,” 1971, pp. 1–3; letter to Anthony Gray, executive director, CASW, from Dorothy E. Barrier, president, Montreal English chapter, April 12, 1972. Saskatchewan Archives Board (hereafter SAB), R-956-I 31, “A Review of CASW Briefs and Social Policy Statements,” September 8, 1971, pp. 1–12. Barnes reviewed the “Brief on Taxation,” the “Brief on Poverty,” the “Brief on Unemployment Insurance,” the “Social Policy Statement on the Guaranteed Income,” the “Social Policy Statement on Rehabilitation,” the “Brief on the Canada Pension Plan,” and the “Brief on the Young Offenders Act.” SAB, R-956-I 31, “A Review of CASW Briefs and Social Policy Statements,” September 8, 1971, p. 8. SAB, R-956-I 31, “A Review of CASW Briefs and Social Policy Statements,” September 8, 1971, p. 5. NAC, MG 20, I 441, Vol. 42, File 10, “CASW Brief to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, Respecting Bill C-192, the Young Offenders Act,” April 1971. SAB, R-956-I 31, “A Review of CASW Briefs and Social Policy Statements,” September 8, 1971, p. 12. MUA, MG 2076, C28 5100B, “Submission on the Status of Women by the Western Ontario Branch of the Ontario Association of Professional Social Workers,” March 20, 1968, pp. 1–12. NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 43, File 43-8, “A Brief to the Royal Commission on the Status of Women in Canada,” February 1968, pp. 1–7. New Brunswick Association of Social Workers, pp. 1–12. Provincial Official Office, Nova Scotia Association of Social Workers, Nova Scotia Association of Social Workers Newsletter 2, 3 (March 1968). NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 9, File 13, “CASW Social Concerns,” January 16, 1971, pp. 1–3. NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 44, Files 3–9, Annual Meetings, letter to Miss Sylva Gelber, director, Women’s Bureau, Canada Department of Labour, from Albert Rose, June 19, 1973. AM, MG 10, A33, Box 5, File 1970–74, minutes of the Executive Committee meeting, March 29, 1971. In attendance were four women and three men. See also the letter to L.E. Levine, CASW president, from Andrew Brewin, MP, and Grace MacInnis, MP, NDP Federal Caucus Committee on the Status of Women in Canada, March 15, 1971, and the response to the committee by Florence L. Philpott, executive director, April 2, 1971. NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 44, Files 3–9, Annual Meetings, “Report of the President of CASW to the Annual Meeting of CASW,” June 9, 1973, pp. 1–7, quote

264

21

22 23 24 25

26

CHAPTER TWELVE

p. 2. Rose’s interpretation of the letters of the pro social action group as calling advocating “polemics” and “caustic briefs” reflects which side he stands on. CASSW National Office, Executive Correspondence, 1970–72, letter to George Hougham, president of the Canadian Association for Education in the Social Services, from Colin B. MacKay, executive director, Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, July 22, 1971. CASSW National Office, Executive Correspondence, 1970–72, letter to Colin B. MacKay from Marguerite Mathieu, executive director, CASW, July 30, 1971. CASSW National Office, Executive Correspondence, 1970–72, letter to Colin B. MacKay from George Hougham, president, draft, n.d. NAC, MG 20, I 441, Vol. 42, File 7, “CASW Brief to the Federal Task Force on Housing and Urban Development,” 1968, pp. 1–13, quote p. 5. Social Planning Council of Hamilton and District, “The Social Costs of Urban Renewal,” Hamilton, 1963. Of the respondents to a survey, 49 percent had lived in the same house for seven or more years, 15 percent had lived in their home for more than twenty-six years, while 64 percent owned their own homes, and of these 56 percent had no mortgages. A film, Warrendale (1967), covered seven weeks at the centre and the experimental treatment of providing physical contact and the opportunity to express anger and aggression in a safe environment. It is one of the most well-known documentaries ever made. However, CBC refused to broadcast it because of the foul language and the emotional footage, and director Alan King released it on its own with positive reception. A member of the Cannes Film Festival commented that it was one of the most remarkable documentaries, and it went on to win the Prix d’art et d’essai at Cannes and shared the British Academy’s Best Foreign Film Award. In Canada it received Canadian Film Awards for best feature film and King for Best Director. It was eventually shown on television thirty years later. Wyndham Wise, The Canadian Encyclopedia, http://www.thecanadianen

cyclopedia.com. 27 “Warrendale Report ‘Political,’ John Brown Demands Apology,” Toronto Daily Star (March 27, 1967). He claimed that the primary reason he has been targeted is because of his decision to stand as the New Democratic Party candidate for the new provincial riding of Beaches-Woodbine. He defended a decision to hire Michelle Lewis, partner of NDP MPP Stephen Lewis, for promotion work because she was the most qualified, and added that the Warrendale board had approved this decision. 28 UTA, Accession no. A70-0004/024, Box 24, Michelle Landsberg, editor, “Newsletter from Brown Camps,” October 1966, pp. 1–9. Along with his employment at Warrendale, John Brown founded Brown’s Camps as a private agency for children who were emotionally disturbed, and the board felt that this raised a conflict of interests for Brown. Brown’s Camps were expanding across the country, with centres in Toronto, Vancouver, Moose Jaw, and Windsor. 29 AO, F4175, Box 96, File Ethics, Warrendale, 1966–68, letter to Jean Palmer from Florence Philpott, September 20, 1966. 30 AO, F4175, Box 96, File Ethics, Warrendale, 1966–68, letter to the Honourable John Robarts from Jean H. Palmer, president of OAPSW, October 4, 1966.

STAYING THE COURSE

265

31 Members of the committee included Thomas Blue, past president of the Nova Scotia Association of Social Workers; Patricia Woolley, a board member of the Manitoba Association; Dr. Elizabeth Govan, a former president of the Canadian association; and Rev. Peter McCabe, president of the western branch of the Ontario Association of Professional Social Workers. 32 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 14, minutes of the CASW Ethics Committee, April 12, 1967. 33 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 14, letter to provincial presidents from Anne Du Moulin, CASW president, April 29, 1968. 34 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 14, File 12, letter to Miss Eleanor J. Bradley, BCASW, from Florence Philpott, executive director, CASW, January 14, 1966. 35 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 43, File 43-10, letter to R.E. Splane, professor, UBC, from Anthony Gray, executive director, November 21, 1973, pp. 1–2. In 1973 Dick Splane was recruited to head a committee on the development of a position on social security since the CASW lacked a “valid and representative policy thrust.” 36 AM, MG 10A33, Box 7C, “Brownlee, A Social Worker’s View of Social Action,” February 1969, pp. 1–7, quote p. 7. 37 AM, MG 101733, Box 3, MASW minutes, executive meeting, May 13, 1968, pp. 1–2. 38 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 43, File 43-4, letter to Dogan D. Akman, professor at Memorial University, from Florence L. Philpott, executive director, CASW, December 14, 1970.

This page intentionally left blank

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

Social Work in a Declining Welfare State, 1974–2000 This chapter traces some of the activities of social work from the mid-1970s to the beginning of the twenty-first century, a period that witnessed the demise of the postwar welfare state. The earlier crises of the welfare state endured from approximately 1974 to 1989 with the slow erosion of programs and services through clawbacks and cutbacks. This was followed by a more dramatic retrenchment of programs and services, which began in the early 1990s and continued into the twenty-first century. During the early phase (1974–89), the social work profession continued to work with the state, playing a role in the development of social policies and providing suggestions for policy changes, but its main focus was on internal organization of the CASW. During the second phase of the dismantling of the welfare state (1990–2000), the profession’s relationship with government changed; it no longer had a role to play in contributing to the building of the welfare state, but instead was witnessing and responding to its demise. The attack on social programs and services was problematic for both social workers and their clients; both were left unprotected and vulnerable, and the nature of social work began to shift away from advocacy toward monitoring and regulating the poor and underprivileged. Since the historical trajectory of social work was to develop a professional body and, as part of this, to align itself with the state, the profession was ill equipped to provide a strong leadership role in the changing social welfare field. True to its past practices, the professional association focused inwardly, while individual social workers protested changes in the field by aligning with activist organizations such as anti-poverty groups.

268

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

Cutbacks to the Welfare State and Changes in the Profession, 1974–89 The optimism and growth of the postwar welfare state began to change in the mid-1970s when conservative and business forces started to pressure governments to cut back social programs and services. Governments, they argued, were overspending on social programs and creating an unreasonable reliance on the state. The solution was to reduce public spending and shift responsibility back to the individual, family, community, and voluntary sector or to the private sector. Both federal and provincial governments began devolving their roles in social welfare, reversing a trend that had been developing since the Depression of the 1930s. Clawbacks to social programs began, and costs for programs and services were transferred from the federal government back to the provinces and ultimately to the municipalities and, in some cases, away from governments entirely. Privatization ushered in a new era and the dismantling of the welfare state began (Lightman 2003). These changes, which, in many respects, brought the welfare state full circle, had an important impact on the social work profession. Not only was the role of social workers changing from one that emphasized the importance of advocacy to one that involved monitoring and regulating clients, but the profession’s role in helping to construct public programs and services was diminishing as the welfare state began its decline. During this period the CASW was completing its internal reorganization whereby significantly more autonomy and power was afforded to the provincial branches. When this was finalized in 1974, the CASW was transformed into a federation of provincial associations. As they became more established, the provincial associations increasingly focused on issues within their own jurisdictions. In fact, this became the future trend in the profession. The new structure of the CASW gave the provinces more autonomy to act on issues of concern and interest to them, but it introduced the potential of isolating them from each other and from the national office. A national voice with potential for representing the interests of all social workers across the country was threatened, and the future of the national office became uncertain (Turner 1975). This became clear when, in 1977, the Manitoba Association of Social Workers (MASW) expressed concern about the lack of communication with the national office, as well as the funding formula, which required the association to allocate 40 percent of revenue to the national office, which devoted resources to internal developments.1 Frank Turner (1975: 4) voiced concern that “if we continue to expend time, energy and resources in a continuing struggle around procedural and structural questions, then I seriously question whether we can continue to justify our existence.” Nonetheless, he was optimistic and stated, “we have an

S O C I A L W O R K I N A D E C L I N I N G W E L F A R E S T A T E , 1 9 7 4 –– 2 0 0 0

269

exciting possibility to start something new that could have a significant impact on society if we are sufficiently daring, imaginative and creative to use the new structure well” (Turner 1975: 4). This confluence of events, which culminated in the mid-1970s, placed tremendous pressure on the association for years to come. A declining welfare state that no longer actively called for the profession’s input, combined with a newly established federation whereby the provinces could work separately with no necessary points of contact with each other, called into question the role of the association and, in particular, the role of the national office. Moreover, the association’s protracted preoccupation with internal restructuring occurred at the expense of broader political action, and opened it up to serious criticism from some elements of the social work community. With these circumstances the profession entered a period of disquiet in the 1970s. Malaise in the Profession In 1970 Bernard Shiffman, from the University of Manitoba, took a swipe at social work in a presentation titled “Social Work in the 1970s: Innovation or Annihilation?” He drew attention to the tremendous challenges facing social workers and the need to engage with these issues rather than continue with the narrow focus on professional matters. Social work, he conceded, was not “revolutionary force” in society, but nonetheless it had a responsibility to at least attempt to seek answers to looming societal issues. Social workers needed to think about the survival of society in general, not simply the survival of the profession. He posed a choice to social workers: “Will we commit universal genocide through repetitive wars, atmospheric pollution, narcotics, ‘stop and go’ pills, and through the maintenance of social injustice, or will we solve man-made problems through planned investments in our human resources?”2 Gweneth Pollitt (1976: 2), of the Alberta Association of Social Workers, posed a similar issue and wondered if social work wasn’t experiencing an identity crisis. It wasn’t clear, she noted, if social workers in Alberta had allegiances to unions, to their professional associations, or if they were preoccupied with securing their own employment. Similar sentiments came from British Columbia. In a provocative 1977 address to social workers, David Barrett, former premier of British Columbia and NDP leader of the Opposition, described social workers as “bogged down,” “weak-kneed,” and reluctant to get involved in social issues. Characteristically, Barrett’s message was clear and unequivocal; he implored his audience to “get off your rear ends and get more politically involved” (Barrett 1977: 3).

270

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

Social Work Practitioners Shift to the Left Discontent was also obvious at the level of social work practice, where the unhappiness was directed toward the unsatisfactory models of practice. Largely in response to the social activism of the 1960s and the more conservative era of the 1970s, social work practitioners began to challenge both the diagnostic and functional approaches to social work (Robinson 1930; Taft 1935). The respective influences of these two social work traditions on individual functioning and the lack of attention to structural conditions were regarded as anachronistic in a time of social activism and with a client base that was increasingly political. These social work practitioners were searching for a practice approach that recognized the connection between “private troubles and public issues” (Schwartz 1969: 40). One response to this was that a number of social workers in the early 1970s turned to general systems theory as a framework for social work practice. Models of practice, such as Howard Goldstein’s (1973) Social Work Practice: A Unitary Approach and Allan Pincus and Anne Minahan’s (1973) Social Work Practice: Model and Method attempted to connect individual concerns with the larger social system. Also, there was the hope that a systems model would integrate the practice of casework, group work, and community practice, serving to unify the profession. Although systems theory, and its shift away from a focus on individual deficiency, was welcomed, it was devoid of an explicit political dimension, and instead was based on the assumption that problems are the result of a breakdown in communication between clients and various levels of society. Systems theory, moreover, disregarded political, social, and economic power and inequalities based on gender, social class, and race (Marchant and Wearing 1986; Leonard 1975; Drover and Shragge 1977). The perceived weaknesses of systems theory, combined with the devastating cuts to social programs in much of the Western world, fuelled the development of left-wing movements and radical approaches to social work. Left-leaning social workers offered critical analyses of the economy, social welfare, and social concerns, and developed social work critiques based on the premise that individual problems were rooted in broad social, political, and economic conditions and class exploitation. Similar to their forbears during and after the Depression, radical social workers in the UK and the US were influenced by Marxism, and advocated for a transformed society organized on socialist principles (Brake and Bailey 1975; Leonard 1984; Galper 1980). In Canada, several influential social worker educators argued that the profession had digressed from its original roots in the social reform tradi-

S O C I A L W O R K I N A D E C L I N I N G W E L F A R E S T A T E , 1 9 7 4 –– 2 0 0 0

271

tion, and that this focus on individual behaviour was out of step with an increasingly politicized clientele (Shapiro 1975). Charles Hendry, director of the University of Toronto’s School of Social Work, for example, argued that social work’s preoccupation with psychiatry and psychoanalysis had had the effect of “upsetting the balance between psychosocial, economic, and political factors in the whole field of social work” (Hendry 1966: 9). This view was shared by other social work educators, who emphasized that without a sound social work analysis of the economic, social, and political conditions and the assault on the social welfare state, social workers will be “doing casework while Rome burns” (Webber 1977). Ben Carniol argued that there was a concentration of power and resources among a small elite few, and that there was a strong need to redistribute wealth in the country. He urged social workers to advocate for clients and communities and thereby engage “in a political process through which we may regain our voice over decisions affecting our future” (Carniol 1974: 25). However, it was the faculty at the Carleton School of Social Work who actively began to shift the orientation of social work education from a diagnostic approach to an eco-systemic approach, culminating in the birth of the structural approach to practice in 1974. One of the main proponents of this approach was Maurice Moreau of Carleton University. Former director, Roland Lecomte, initially influenced by Freudian theories, recalls this shift in orientation: “We had become uneasy with the overwhelming attention given to the influence of consciousness and unconsciousness over a person’s existence, the lack of historical contextualization, the focus on individual pathology, the limited possibilities for social change, and the dualistic nature of ‘private’ and ‘public’” (Lecomte 1990: 36). The aims of the structural approach were “to redefine problems in their material and collective contexts,” and “to work to breakdown social distance (alienation from self and from others) so as to eliminate the client’s own contribution to his/her own oppression or to that of others” (Moreau 1989: 17). Emphasis was on both changing the social context, as well as promoting individual change. The approach was unique because of its attention to patriarchy, racism, and heterosexism, along with class exploitation. Faculty and students formed a number of groups to further develop the approach, including a feminist caucus, the first in a Canadian school of social work (Lecomte 1990: 44). During this developmental period, Mike Brake and Peter Leonard, from the UK, were both visiting professors, and Jeffrey Galper, from the US, was a regular visitor to the school. In the UK, the rolling back of the social welfare state prompted some social workers to draw on a Marxist analysis to understand the role of the

272

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

state in capitalist societies. The London Edinburgh Weekend Return Group, a collective of eight socialist state workers, documented the impact of the deepening crisis and the need for an organized resistance in a book entitled In and Against the State (London Edinburgh Weekend Group 1980). Similarly, an organization/movement of socialist social workers, called Case Con, introduced a radical alternative to traditional social work and published a journal by the same name (Bailey and Brake 1975). In the US a collective of left-leaning social workers founded Catalyst: A Socialist Journal of Social Services in 1978. However, as the conservative political climate continued into the 1980s, the left became worn down with responding to the relentless attack on social welfare and the weakening of social movements. By 1990, the collective could no longer maintain a journal, and Haworth Press was approached to take over publication. The Catalyst became The Journal of Progressive Human Services (Wagner 1990) and maintained the traditionally left perspective. Although there was a definite shift afoot both in casework and the direction of social work generally in Canada, not all schools, nor all social workers, adopted a radical approach to social work education or practice. For some social workers who dared speak and act on their political convictions, the consequences were severe. The circumstances of social work professor Marlene Webber in 1976 are reminiscent of those of Mary Jennison in the 1940s. Both women were released from their places of work as a result of their political convictions and their political actions. Persecution of a Left-Leaning Social Work Professor In 1977 in Newfoundland, the targeting of a left-leaning social work professor made national news. The contract of Marlene Webber, who began a twoyear contract as an assistant professor of social work at Memorial University (MUN), was not renewed after one year because of her political beliefs and involvement in a number of left-wing activities, most notably those associated with the Communist Party of Canada–Marxists Leninists (CPC-ML).3 In his letter to Webber, Dr. Thompson, director of the School of Social Work, clearly indicated that it was Webber’s ideology that was the problem: The mandate [of the School of Social Work] also dictates that one of the prime objectives of the School is to train professional social workers for various provincial agencies and to meet other local and provincial needs. Your political activities have indicated considerable divergence from the philosophy and purposes of the School and your involvement both on and off campus with a political movement, which is totally inimical to and destructive of the system upon which the government is based, necessitates my decision not to recommend an extension.4

S O C I A L W O R K I N A D E C L I N I N G W E L F A R E S T A T E , 1 9 7 4 –– 2 0 0 0

273

Dr. Harris, VP Academic, who emerged as the administration’s spokesperson for the case, clearly stated that the role of social work education was to turn out students to fit the system. He went on to elaborate further in a television interview: “Miss Webber is not teaching in an ordinary academic department.... She is teaching in a school which is training people who are going to work in a certain system, and that system is predicated on certain assumptions which we call a democratic democracy and the people who are so trained have to work in that system and be part of it.”5 In a memorandum circulated to faculty, Harris stated that Professor Webber “in fact, espouses and actively promotes a political doctrine which has as its objective the overthrow of our system of government by revolutionary means” (emphasis in original).6 The university attempted to justify its decision by focusing on the uniqueness of the School of Social Work. The president’s office released a statement, indicating that it is not an ordinary academic department: “it has to work within and cooperate with a given political system, and train social workers to function smoothly within and cooperate within that system. Webber’s political orientation rejects that system altogether and preaches radical social and political change. She is therefore an ideological misfit, de facto unsuited to the School and the training of social workers.”7 Rumours began to circulate that the government of Newfoundland and Labrador had intervened, and Thompson, director of the school, acknowledged in an interview that “indirect” government pressure had been exerted.8 In fact, Minister of Social Services Charlie Brett was adamant that “his department could not approve of anyone with a communist bias, such as Ms. Webber, teaching in certificate programs which prepare students for government work.”9 Support for Webber quickly mobilized, and the “vigorous opposition to political persecution was expressed from many sections of the community.”10 Faculty members organized a committee, “Professors Opposed to Political Firings”; students began to circulate petitions in support; and on December 6, 1977, around three hundred students, faculty, and staff turned out for a meeting of the “Political and Academic Forum.” The Association of Social Work Students passed a motion that supported “the principle that no person be dismissed because of their legal political activities in the community.”11 Fred Anderson, a research assistant for Webber, was appalled at her firing since Professor Webber expressed the “basic sentiment of freedom for the Native People from the exploitation and oppression of our system.” Anderson (1978: 5) argued that the persecution of Marlene Webber was

274

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

because she promoted progressive ideas and translated those ideas into action, a deplorable act.12 The CASW executive director, Anthony Gray, confirmed that Webber was a member of the editorial board of The Social Worker, a member in good standing, and that contributions to social action and social change were consistent with professional performance. He went on to add that the CASW Code of Ethics and general objectives “strictly prohibit discrimination on the basis of political affiliation. Membership and participation in political activities outside of the work sphere should not and must not have a bearing on your competence.”13 Yet there was no active defence of Webber from the CASW. Within the School of Social Work at MUN, there were major divisions, and only a minority of faculty supported Marlene Webber. In a letter to administration, eight social work faculty members supported the university’s decision, while at the same time they espoused their support for the democratic right of people to express their views. The faculty supported Webber’s non-renewal because, in their view, she had failed to assume corresponding obligations and responsibilities, which are “particularly critical in a School of Social Work where constructive social change is one of the basic tenets of our existence and where methods of change are intimately linked to professional goals and objectives.”14 Gaile Noble and four other members of faculty refused to sign the letter, and Noble submitted her resignation because of the environment that showed “so little tolerance for diverse perspectives,” and it supported the “unprofessional and unconscionable treatment” of another faculty member.15 Since the faculty at Memorial University was not unionized, Webber’s only recourse was to launch an appeal to the University Appeals Panel, which she did on January 3, 1978. The committee consisted of five people. Webber argued that an assessment of her political activities as criteria for consideration for renewal was a contravention of the “Terms and Conditions of Employment for Teachers,” especially the clauses relating to academic freedom.16 In April 1978, the Appeals Committee was convened to hear evidence about the Webber affair and to evaluate her teaching, scholarship, fieldwork, service to the school, and community action. Her scholarship was described as “polemic and locked into an ideological framework that is very limiting –– her writing reflects hostility towards social systems of the western world.” In terms of her activities in the school, she was described as “divisive,” and her community activity “doesn’t bring credibility to the School –– it invokes negative feedback.”17 With regard to her classroom teaching, key phrases in her

S O C I A L W O R K I N A D E C L I N I N G W E L F A R E S T A T E , 1 9 7 4 –– 2 0 0 0

275

course outlines, such as “capitalist social system,” “monopoly capitalism,” and “social class system in Canada,” were offered as proof of her leftist orientation.18 The evidence constructed by the administration consisted of unsubstantiated allegations and subjective views with no concrete data. However, Webber lost her appeal to the university.19 The faculty association at MUN expressed its strong support for Webber, and requested that the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) initiate an investigation into the adequacy of protection available for the exercise of academic freedom at MUN.20 The CAUT established a committee of inquiry into Webber’s non-renewal.21 On June 15, 1978, the CAUT began its investigation by conducting two full-day interviews at the university, and concluded that the reasons for the recommendation for non-renewal were “wholly unacceptable by any standard of academic freedom belief set out in the official university policy statement in the Terms and Conditions of Employment,” and that the MUN should offer Webber a renewal of contract for a number of years, which is the normal process for two-year contracts. Failing this, MUN would be put under censure, the most serious sanction the academic community is able to take against a university. The university refused to budge and academic censure was invoked in May 1977, prohibiting the university from advertising in journals and bulletins and signalling that proper standards of academic freedom and due process were not guaranteed. Although CAUT continued to pressure for redress, MUN refused to negotiate. On January 11, 1980, second-stage censure was invoked, and on May 15, 1980, third-stage censure. Memorial University remained under censure until 1989. Regarding settlement, Marlene Webber was unwavering in her demands for the equivalent of three years’ salary, MUN’s public admission of its errors, and full protection of academic freedom at the university.22 Attempts were made to negotiate a package acceptable to all involved: the president and board of regents, Memorial University’s faculty association, CAUT, and Webber. The final settlement was assurance for academic freedom, and a financial payment of less than $40,000 by the university to CAUT, with transfers to Webber. In a letter to CAUT, Webber voiced her disappointment that the association had allowed Memorial University to circumvent compensating her directly for lost salary resulting from wrongful dismissal.23 Marlene Webber’s firing and CAUT’s subsequent censure was debated at the annual general meeting of the CASSW’s general assembly in June 1979. Although complete documentation regarding the case had been circulated to all members, there was reluctance to support the motion of censure passed by CAUT and the motion to do so was defeated (twenty-two for and

276

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

twenty-nine against). The assembly passed a weaker motion instructing the CASSW president, Harvey Stalwick, to communicate to President Morgan the association’s grave concern with the first-stage censure placed on MUN, and to recommend that Webber’s case be submitted for third-party arbitration.24 Some members of the CASSW who were attending the conference independently signed a petition of support for the president of CAUT. The political persecution of Marlene Webber drew attention to the limitations of the accreditation guidelines on addressing discrimination on the grounds of political belief. Dennis Kimberley notified CAUT that amendments to the accreditation manual had been passed at the annual general meeting.25 The Board of Accreditation decided to review the accreditation status of the school and would make a decision during the meeting in November 1979.26 At the 1980 annual general meeting, the issue of MUN’s School of Social Work’s accreditation was debated. The CASSW’s Board of Accreditation (BOA) gave notice to MUN that the School of Social Work’s accreditation of the B.S.W. program would be withdrawn unless the BOA was satisfied with the school’s policy. On further examination, the board felt that the school was currently in line with the accreditation standards, and that there was no basis for withdrawal of accreditation status. Helen Levine noted that the Board of Accreditation had not applied the new standards, and Larry Shulman expressed concern that the issue ought to be reopened and examined in the light of the new standards. Ben Chud, of UBC, wished to go on record as saying that the Board of Accreditation has “dealt a severe blow to academic freedom.”27 The CASSW membership finally decided to support CAUT on the imposition of the third-stage censure on Memorial University. The motion was passed (thirty-seven for, fourteen against). In Webber’s view, the firing was an open-and-shut case of political persecution based on political conviction, and it destroyed her career as a university professor.28 This case raised concerns for academics across the country, as well as within the social work community. The state’s role in monitoring social work curricula and the faculty’s theoretical stance was particularly worrisome. Equally disturbing was the expectation that schools of social work simply produced workers to fit into the state bureaucracy. It is particularly disappointing that academic colleagues were hesitant to support Webber and the CAUT censure on Memorial University. Not long after Webber’s clash with the Newfoundland government, the minister of social services fired a social work manager and three workers in Labrador who opposed a policy directive that they believed was culturally inappropriate and potentially harmful to the Innu community where they

S O C I A L W O R K I N A D E C L I N I N G W E L F A R E S T A T E , 1 9 7 4 –– 2 0 0 0

277

practised (Lundy and Gauthier 1980). The social work manager pursued legal action and argued that his actions were based on the 1983 CASW Code of Ethics, which directed social workers to “subordinate the employer’s interests to the interest of the client.” Although the social workers had ample evidence about the potential harm of the policy implementation to the Innu people, when the case reached the Supreme Court of Newfoundland, the court supported the government’s actions. A subsequent appeal to the Newfoundland Court of Appeal was also dismissed on the basis that the social worker’s breach of duty was a fundamental breach of the master–servant relationship. While the Newfoundland Association of Social Workers organized support for the social workers, the national office was silent. Similarly, the CASW had little involvement in the case of David Cassidy, executive director of the Alcoholism Treatment Foundation in Prince Edward Island. Recruited from Ontario for his expertise, Cassidy was hired to work for the foundation for two years, at which time his position would be evaluated by the provincial government, but Cassidy was dismissed without any apparent reason and without due process before the period ended. His resignation was requested on the grounds that he had not “shown the capability of the position” even though there had been only a vague job description for his position. A special committee of the foundation was appointed to review and evaluate his performance. The committee met on three occasions and reached a unanimous decision that he had not shown the capability required for the position.29 Ken DesRoche, a board member, viewed the decision as a “deplorable act” since the other board members were not aware of the existence of “a special committee,” there was no record of it in the minutes, and the evaluation was conducted without any clearly established criteria. Since the dismissal, members and clients of the community voiced their support for Cassidy.30 The CASW responded by raising concerns over the “ethical questions involved in the failure to follow well established and recognized procedures respecting performance evaluation,” and called for his immediate reinstatement.31 The CASW, by its own admission, had little influence in labour disputes and had “no control over employers except by persuasion.” The one recourse available to the association was to discourage social workers from employment in the agency because of the lack of adequate personnel policies.32 These individual cases of unfair treatment of social workers in their workplaces were unlikely to be the only cases that occurred. In the mid1970s, the political climate regarding social welfare was starting to deteriorate, and the impact was not only on members of the CASW, but on all social workers and clients of social services.

278

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

A Wholesale Attack on the Welfare State, 1989–2000 The early phase of the decline of the welfare state, which occurred approximately from the mid-1970s to the late 1980s, has been characterized as a period of “fiscal crises of the welfare state” (Rice and Prince 2000: 84). It was followed by a period of retrenchment of social programs and services across Canada that is continuing into the twenty-first century. Over the quartercentury following World War II, the tax burden for social programs and services increasingly shifted away from the corporate sector and toward middle-income wage earners. But increasingly middle-income earners began to complain about carrying the heavy burden of taxes, and support for the welfare state began to decline over the years. Added to this was pressure from the business community for less government involvement in social programs (Rice and Prince 2000: 83; Finkel 2006: 286). These pressures on the state led to fiscal crises of the welfare state, which lasted for approximately fifteen years. This crisis of the welfare state was followed in early 1990s by a period of government restructuring, tantamount to a dismantling of the welfare state. This occurred in the context of a growing globalization of the economy. Not only were programs and services dismantled but the underlying commitment to the welfare state as a safety net for the population was abandoned. This commitment was replaced with the traditional views that individuals, families, and communities are responsible for their own welfare. At the federal level, this approach was exemplified by the Mulroney era’s preoccupation with debt and deficit reduction and cutting programs and services beginning in 1993, followed by the Chrétien Liberals from 1993 to 2003. At the provincial levels, some of the more restrictive measures occurred under the Conservative governments of Ralph Klein in Alberta and Mike Harris in Ontario (Ralph, Régimbald, and St-Amand 1997). The strategy adopted by the Mulroney Conservatives was to reduce program expenditures by financial measures. For example, Finance Minister Michael Wilson made cuts to unemployment insurance, eliminated federal contributions to unemployment insurance, clawed back the old age pension and the family allowances benefit, and reduced indexation of the Established Programs Financing (EPF) for health and post-secondary education, effectively ending “the ‘cooperative federalism’ that built the postwar social security system in Canada” (Battle and Torjman 1995: 3). Wilson’s 1990 budget was also responsible for imposing the “cap on CAP,” which set a 5 percent ceiling on annual increases of funding for the Canada Assistance Plan (CAP) for the three richest provinces –– British Columbia, Alberta, and Ontario. The Tories’ strategy of eliminating important programs and services has been criticized not only for what it meant to those affected by the policies

S O C I A L W O R K I N A D E C L I N I N G W E L F A R E S T A T E , 1 9 7 4 –– 2 0 0 0

279

but because of the undemocratic nature of how it was done. This “social policy by stealth” was undertaken through financial measures such as clawbacks and de-indexation, processes that are not clearly visible or understood by most people (Battle and Torjman 1995: 6). During the Mulroney era, the Department of Finance “came to rule decisively over social policy-making, outflanking and overshadowing Health and Welfare” (Battle and Torjman 1995: 7). After years of eroding family allowances, the policy was finally eliminated in 1992 with limited public debate and replaced by the child tax benefit. The demise of the family allowances program, which Margaret Gould described in 1945 as helping to “take the meanness, the destructiveness and the economic fears out of the everyday struggles of life,” removed an important postwar welfare state commitment to the welfare of Canadians. The Liberal government of Jean Chrétien continued with the agenda of the Mulroney Conservatives. In January 1993, the federal government announced a Standing Committee on Human Resources Development Canada that would examine Canada’s social security system with a view to modernizing and restructuring it. The committee, headed by Lloyd Axworthy, minister of Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC), consulted for a year with the public, producing a variety of reports and incorporating various positions from a broad set of interest groups. The Final Report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development was tabled in House of Commons on February 6, 1995; eleven days later, on February 27, the budget speech was read and it was announced that the CAP and the Established Programs Fiancing would become a single fund, called the Canada Health and Social Transfer (CHST), and the process of eliminating the CAP was set in motion (Jennissen 1996a: 248). By the end of the 1990s, the postwar welfare state was fundamentally restructured in many respects, returning it to the pre-war period. The federal presence, both in terms of financial support and standard-setting, had been significantly reduced, giving the provinces more authority over the structure of social programs and services. The strong arguments that were presented in the 1940s about the importance of a federal presence and financial support for programs and services that were too costly for the provinces and municipalities to carry alone were replaced with arguments that highlighted the significance of provincial autonomy and the importance of local communities responding to their specific needs –– needs that the federal government would not be able to comprehend. At the same time, the reduction of funding and a reliance on partnerships with the non-profit and corporate sectors returned issues of social concern back to the community and placed a particular burden on social workers.

280

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

Responses from the Social Work Community The era of retrenchment of social programs and services –– that is, the fundamental dismantling of much of the postwar welfare state –– had serious consequences for Canadians, particularly the least privileged. And for social workers who work with the most vulnerable populations in society, these changes affected not only their own work environments but also their relationships with their clients. In a climate of cutbacks, social workers had more work to do with fewer resources while conditions of their work became more difficult. The process of retrenchment also meant a more restrictive, punitive environment, and the functions of social work once again changed significantly. For example, with more restrictions placed on the recipients of welfare, the social worker’s job became increasingly one of social regulation and control –– front-line social workers had to implement the “spouse in the house rule,” respond to snitch lines, and act as police and regulators in the new social environment. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s the CASW continued to make formal statements and briefs on policy issues of the day, typically in response to the government initiatives. For example, it made a statement on tax reform and the principle of universality (Drover 1985: 65–69), child care (CASW June 1986), the Constitutional Accord (CASW 1988b), privatization of personal social services (CASW 1988a), and a statement expressing concern over the GST (CASW 1989). In a presentation to the Standing Committee on Health, Social Affairs, and the Status of Women in 1990, the association expressed serious concern over the federal government’s preoccupation with debt and deficit reduction, and condemned cuts to women’s programs, the Canada Assistance Plan, unemployment insurance, and family allowances (CASW 1990). In 1993 the CASW also made a presentation to the Royal Commission on Aboriginal People, acknowledging the long-standing “difficult” relationship between social workers and Aboriginal peoples. The association called for recognition of the uniqueness of Aboriginal cultures and the importance of culturally relevant social work education. It also endorsed the self-governance of Aboriginal peoples (CASW 1993). The CASW produced three documents in response to the 1994 Axworthy Social Security Review process and the subsequent federal budget of 1995. In March 1994 it prepared a short statement expressing grave concern over the short time frame allotted for responding to the social security review, and it expressed concern that the agenda of the review was fiscally driven (CASW 1994b: 1). The association drew attention to the structural nature of unemployment and what it perceived as an undue focus on the costs of unemployment insurance (UI) and welfare. The decrease in UI benefits, it

S O C I A L W O R K I N A D E C L I N I N G W E L F A R E S T A T E , 1 9 7 4 –– 2 0 0 0

281

argued, would place more people on the welfare rolls and meanwhile, welfare was also being cut back with the reductions in the CAP. The CASW also condemned the cuts to welfare programs and the creation of an adversarial social policy climate (CASW December 1994). It underscored the importance of the federal government in social welfare: The Association believes the federal government has a major role in proclaiming and promoting these positive human values in its social and program delivery. But we want to see conviction on the part of government that it is giving leadership to Canadians, advancing our sense of nationhood and dealing effectively with the welfare opposition, many of whom oppose government social programs out of self-interest, private gain, and agreed. (CASW 1994a: 2)

In June 1995 the CASW prepared a strong document in response to the socially devastating 1995 federal budget that eliminated the CAP and severely cut funding to other social programs (CASW 1995). The association condemned the Finance Department for undermining the work of the Human Resources Committee that led the 1994 social security review: “The 1995 budget largely undermined the Committee’s report on priorities and guiding principles, indicating a position of the federal government on social justice and the role of the state which we oppose. We suspect a desire to destroy the social safety net and return to the early Victorian poor law” (CASW 1995: I). As the association indicated in early submissions to the social security review process, it stood strongly opposed to a focus on the debt and deficit reduction at the expense of the poor: “We stand for a principle which the Standing Committee enunciated in the form of a plea that was ignored in the budget, ‘that our national fiscal debt should not be replaced by a national social debt’” (CASW 1995: 3). Among other issues, the association’s brief deplored the government’s failure to protect against unfair global competition, an inequitable taxation system, a move away from cost-sharing to block funding, and the devolution of funding and national standards for the provinces. It concluded: “We oppose the direction taken in the 1995 federal budget which is concerned with economic values and principles to the virtual exclusion of social values and well-being. We believe remedies to human problems must be humane and fair to individuals, families, and communities, and include social change” (CASW 1995: i).

Social Work Demonstrates Its Relevance These cuts to government spending, particularly in health, education, and social services, had a significant impact on social work in the community, as well as in schools of social work. In the fall of 1996, representatives of the

282

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

Canadian Committee of Deans and Directors of Schools of Social Work (CCDDSSW), the Canadian Association of Schools of Social Work (CASSW), Regroupment des unités de formation universitaire en travail social du Québec (REFUTS), and the CASW met to see how they might work together to consider the future of social work in Canada. The first initiative was to conduct a preliminary review of the literature on approaches to strategic planning and the study of social work (Shera et al. 1997). It was then decided to approach Human Resources Development in Canada (HRDC) for funding to study the social services sector. The outcome, the culmination of five years of research, is the sector study report In Critical Demand: Social Work in Canada (Canadian Association of Social Workers 2001), a thorough labour market analysis and comprehensive profile of social workers, their areas of practice, and their working conditions. The report confirmed that social work is a vital profession in high demand. This is reflected in the 23 percent increase in social workers between 1991 and 1996, bringing the national total to 37,470. Social work remains a woman’s profession, with women comprising 76 percent of social workers. This increase in social workers in the context of financial cutbacks and reduced positions is in some ways surprising. However, during this time, permanent full-time jobs were filled with part-time contract positions. A key area of inquiry on the general working conditions of social workers revealed the serious impact of the funding constraints. Social workers reported having to do more with less; caseloads increased while poverty, unemployment, and social dislocation contributed to the complexity of client concerns. The erosion of sustainable funding made fundraising a major component of practice. A primary challenge in the workplace was employee burnout, considered “an inevitable condition of work” (Canadian Association of Social Workers 2001: 92–93). While there was an increased demand for social workers, the profession had lost ground in a traditional area of health care practice. Hospital restructuring had eliminated social work departments, and social work was reclassified as an allied profession along with physiotherapy and occupational therapy. Social work was unsuccessful in identifying specific tasks, and the practice of grief therapy and crisis intervention was increasingly taken over by nursing, a visible and standalone profession in hospitals. The report made a number of recommendations, the most controversial being the development of national competencybased occupational standards for social work, the only recommendation that did not emerge from the data (Westhues 2001: 13). In the fall of 2001, the CASW organized a Social Work Forum, financed by HRDC, to encourage communication among the practice, education,

S O C I A L W O R K I N A D E C L I N I N G W E L F A R E S T A T E , 1 9 7 4 –– 2 0 0 0

283

and regulatory components of the profession, and to identify common issues and plan collaboration on priority concerns. It was the first time in Canada that the three sectors –– education, practice, and regulation –– came together to strategize, and they identified seven sets of common priorities: (1) the promotion of better links among practitioners, educators, and regulators; (2) the enhancement of social work; (3) the promotion of human rights and social justice; (4) the definition and clarification of social work competencies; (5) working in a world based on social exclusion; (6) the deterioration of the workplace; and (7) the development of practice-based research. (CASW 2001: 2)

Unfortunately, there was little opportunity to develop a plan of action to move the issues forward.

Conclusion The period from 1975 to 1999 was one of dramatic change in the social welfare and social work communities. The optimism and growth of the 1960s and early 1970s gave way to a period of the dismantling of social programs and retrenchment of the welfare state. The dismantling of the welfare state began with clawbacks to programs and eventually escalated to a full attack on the welfare state. By the end of the 1990s, the commitment for a welfare state that required strong government funding and efforts to standardize programs and services had all but vanished. In the context of this demise of social programs, the attention and resources of the CASW went largely to internal organizational concerns and the challenges of working effectively in the new federated structure. Members criticized the association for its inaction and lack of leadership. While submissions were made in response to some social welfare issues, the CASW fell short in mounting a resistance against government decisions and engaging in social action initiatives. Similarly, there was only a tepid response from both the CASW and the CASSW when members of the association were persecuted for their political beliefs or when they advocated for clients and opposed unjust social policy directives. The provincial associations responded as best they could in their jurisdictions. However, the CASW made little attempt to support these initiatives or to organize a united national voice. Notes 1 AM, MG 1, A 33, Box 5, Folder 1975–79, letter to Mr. Z. Bryniawsky, president, CASW, from John Chudzik, president, MASW, September 28, 1977, pp. 1–2. 2 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Box 49, File Delegate Conferences, 1970, Bernard M. Shiffman, “Social Work in the 1970s Innovation or Annihilation,” University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, February 21, 1970, pp. 1–10, quote p. 1.

284

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

3 Interview with Marlene Webber, May 12, 2004. 4 NAC, MG I 208, Vol. 450, File 8, letter from Dr. J.V. Thompson, director of the School of Social Work, MUN, to Marlene Webber, December 6, 1977. 5 NAC, MG I 208, Vol. 450, File 8, “Report of the CAUT Committee of Inquiry into the Webber Case at Memorial University of Newfoundland,” 1978, p. 4. CJON Television, “Here and Now,” with Anne Budgell, December 5, 1977. 6 NAC, MG I 208, Vol. 450, File 8, “Report of the CAUT Committee of Inquiry into the Webber Case at Memorial University of Newfoundland,” 1978, p. 5. Also a complete memo contained in Marlene Webber’s personal file, “Memo to Faculty from Vice President (Academic) Harris,” December 9, 1977. 7 NAC, MG I 208, Vol. 450, File 8, “Statement of MUNFA Executive on Questions Involved in the Webber Case; Memo from President,” December 20, 1977. 8 CBC Radio and TV News, December 2, 1977. 9 “Government Involved in the Webber Affair,” Evening Telegram (December 14, 1977). 10 NAC, MG 28I, Vol. 450, File 8, “Statement on Appeals Committee Hearing in the Case of Professor Marlene Webber,” from Professor Roger Clark and Professor Marlene Webber, April 4, 1978, pp. 1–7, quote p. 1. 11 Ibid., quote p. 1. 12 Ibid. 13 Letter to Marlene Webber from Anthony Gray, executive director, CASW, February 3, 1978. 14 Marlene Webber’s personal file, “Memorandum to Director Thompson” from members of faculty, December 12, 1977. 15 Marlene Webber’s personal file, letter to students, staff, and faculty of Memorial University from Gaile Noble, April 3, 1978. The letter also appeared in the Muse as “An Open Letter from Gaile Noble, Assistant Professor, MUN School of Social Work,” April 7, 1978, p. 7. 16 NAC, MG 28, I 208, Vol. 50, File 11, letter to Don Savage, executive director, CAUT, from Peter O’Brien, professor, Department of Biochemistry, MUN, July 3, 1978. Peter O’Brien, a supporter of Webber, called into question the appeals committee and the integrity of its chair, Dr. Woolridge. The appeals committee, he argued, was not “elected” but appointed by Dr. Woolridge. He questioned Woolridge’s suitability as chairman of the committee since Woolridge had exercised a decision, in another situation, that demonstrated his intolerance for differing religious affiliations. This stand, O’Brien argued, “makes it clear that he was unfit to be chairman of the appeals committee and panel, let alone be concerned with a Marxist professor. His overtly fervent Baptist beliefs are surely in conflict of interest with anyone’s right to political or religious beliefs.” 17 NAC, MG I 208, Vol. 450, File 9, “Statement on Appeals Committee Hearing in the Case of Professor Marlene Webber to MUN Community” from Roger Clark, April 4, 1978. 18 NAC, MG I 208, Vol. 450, File 8, “Statement on the Appeals Committee Hearing in the Case of Professor Marlene Webber” from Professor Roger Clark and Professor Marlene Webber, April 4, 1978, pp. 1–7, quote p. 3.

S O C I A L W O R K I N A D E C L I N I N G W E L F A R E S T A T E , 1 9 7 4 –– 2 0 0 0

285

19 NAC, MG 28, I 208, File 9, “Report of the Appeals Committee in the Case of Marlene Webber,” Appendix A. 20 “Statement of the MUNFA Executive on Questions Involved in the Webber Case,” April 12, 1978. 21 The committee consisted of C.B. MacPherson (chair), Jack Weldon (Economics, McGill), Dale Gibson (Law, University of Manitoba), and Olga Favreau as secretary to the committee (Psychology, University of Montreal). 22 MG I 28I, Vol. 450, File 3, letter to Victor Sim, Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee, CAUT, from Marlene Webber, April 13, 1981. 23 MG I 28I, Vol. 451, File 13, letter to Gord Piche, CAUT, from Marlene Webber, August 9, 1989. 24 CASSW National Office, “Canadian Association of Schools of Social Work, Annual Meeting Minutes of the General Assembly,” Saskatoon, June 5 and 6, 1979, pp. 1–10. 25 MG I 28I, Vol. 450, File 12, letter to Victor W. Sim, executive secretary, CAUT, from Dennis Kimberly, executive director, CASSW, October 31, 1979. While the amended document was presented to the CASSW annual general meeting in 1979, there is no record of a decision in the minutes. 26 MG 28I, Vol. 450, File 12, letter to Victor W. Sim, associate executive secretary, from Brian Wharf, chair of the Accreditation Committee, July 16, 1979. 27 CASSW National Office, minutes of the thirteenth annual meeting of the general assembly, Montreal, June 3–4, 1980, pp. 1–16, quote p. 11. 28 Interview with Marlene Webber, May 12, 2004. 29 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 36, File 36-27, Prince Edward Island branch, includes minutes, 1963–72, “The Alcoholism Foundation of Prince Edward Island Re: Executive Director,” n.d., pp. 1–2. 30 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 36, File 36-27, Prince Edward Island branch, includes minutes, 1963–72, memo from Ken DesRoches, board member, to the board of directors of the Alcoholism Foundation of P.E.I., July 9, 1971, pp. 1–3. 31 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 36, File 36-27, Prince Edward Island branch, includes minutes, 1963–72, letter to Mr. William Murphy, president, Alcoholism Treatment Foundation, from K.F. Costello, president, P.E.I. branch, CASW, and V.E. McIntyre, director, national board, CASW, July 16, 1971, pp. 1–2, quote, p. 2. 32 NAC, MG 28, I 441, Vol. 36, File 36-27, Prince Edward Island branch, includes minutes, 1963–72, letter to Mr. V. McIntyre, family allowances, and old age security office from Florence L. Philpott, executive director, CASW, July 20, 1971, p. 1.

This page intentionally left blank

CHAPTER FOURTEEN

One Hundred Years of Social Work: Looking Back and Moving Forward into the Twenty-First Century A Time of Transformation This one-hundred-year history (1900–2000) of social work in English Canada is situated within two distinct historical epochs. The first is the rise of industrial capitalism and the growth of the post–World War II Keynesian welfare state. The other is a period that Teeple (1995) refers to as the “triumph of capitalism,” which is characterized by the demise of the socialist economies of the Soviet Union and eastern Europe and the entrenchment of a global capitalist economic system. Globalization and its accompanying neo-liberal policies have dismantled not only welfare state programs and services of earlier decades but also nation-states. The impact of this worldwide transformation affects almost everyone around the globe, and it has particular consequences for social welfare and social work. The negative effects of a weakened welfare state are disproportionately weighted against the most disenfranchised members of society and the social workers who work with them. Industrial capitalism, which began in Canada around the 1860s, led to the development of economic and social dislocation in the form of unemployment, poverty, inadequate housing, disease and illness, industrial accidents, and public health concerns. In response to these issues at the turn of the twentieth century, charity work made its first appearance in Canada, 287

288

CHAPTER FOURTEEN

and these early pioneers faced enormous challenges in initiating organized responses for those in need. Capitalism brought about the growth of a “free” labouring class, which played a central role in the production of goods and services, but which had an inequitable share in the wealth that was developed. Industrialization and the use of power-driven machinery, moreover, led to an erosion of skills. The grouping together of industrial workers in common work sites created an environment conducive to political organizing. Craftsmen, resisting the encroachment of power-driven technology on their crafts, banded together to protect their trades through trade unions. Later, industrial workers organized in their own interests through the development of labour unions. Driven by the imperatives of a private market economy, industrial capitalism produced a society with major class divisions and engendered an environment of discontent, dissension, and countermovement (Polanyi 1965: 130), creating pressure for social and economic reforms, many of which were supported by the labour movement and social democratic, socialist, and communist political parties. Canadian society has undergone major changes in the last century with important achievements made in the field of social welfare, including the development of a welfare state responsive to the major vicissitudes of life, human rights legislation, and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. From the post–World War II era until the mid-1970s, both the federal and provincial governments in Canada continued to develop social programs and services that provided an environment conducive to the growing social work profession, but this would change in the mid-1970s, when the retrenchment of the welfare state began. The initial optimism that the welfare state would reduce inequality through the distributive effects of its social programs and services was shortlived. Since the mid-1970s there has been a dismantling of the welfare state, first with clawbacks and cutbacks to programs and services and, more recently, with a wholesale undermining of the fundamental principles of the welfare state, including the erosion of public funding, the elimination of national standards, the devolution of programs and services from the federal government back to the provinces and onto the municipalities, and the move toward a heavy reliance on charitable contributions. The 1980s was the transformative decade between these two epochs. It was “a watershed decade, a turning point in the history of capitalism ... the arrival of the global economy, and the adoption around the world of neoliberal policies whose principle was the unrestrained economic power of private capital” (Teeple 1995:1). Gary Teeple asks what the new system of

ONE HUNDRED YEARS OF SOCIAL WORK

289

production based on the principles of the private market means for the future. He states: we have entered a transitional era between two phases in the development of capitalism. In this period there has been a profound shift from a mode of production based on semi-automated processes, sometimes referred to as advanced Fordism, to a more automated mode based on microelectronics and computer applications. In this transformation, in which nationally based economic development has been more or less transfigured into a self-generating global economy, all the social and political institutions associated with the national economy come into question and indeed begin to undergo a commensurate transformation. (Teeple 1995: 5)

The global market economy and its neo-liberal policies render this a precarious time for social work. As a profession that has evolved in conjunction with the welfare state in Canada, the transformation to a more raw and virulent form of private market economy and a withdrawal of welfare functions of a capitalist state has meant a change in the nature of the work and resources available to social workers. And it has meant an increase in inequality and economic and social injustice for those who depend on social programs and services. Within this context it is imperative that we question what the future of social work will be in the twenty-first century. What are the prospects for social work in this socio-economic climate? Will it continue to have any relevance? If so, what is its role and how will that be determined? If not, what will replace it? Are there roles for professional bodies in social work? Can we expect to continue the mission that our forbears in social work envisaged and worked toward? Can social workers engage in other forms of resistance and what might they be? There are no simple answers to these and many other questions, but we believe that it is critical to begin a dialogue about the future of social work in this uncertain time.

Social Work Entering the Twenty-First Century: An Uncertain Time External Challenges This is a very challenging time for social work. As we move into the twentyfirst century, the profession is faced with a reordered world economically, politically, and socially. The changes that have occurred since the 1980s are not simple modifications to capitalism; rather, they represent an elemental shift in how societies are organized. In the current context of economic globalization, the challenges before us are even more urgent as “the state unburdens itself of its social agenda” (Teeple 1995: 104) and we return to a reliance on charities to assist those in need.

290

CHAPTER FOURTEEN

In some ways we are witnessing a return to conditions of the past, when the destitute had to rely on their families, the Church, or poorhouses and workhouses. Today, new institutions and programs have been created for the same purposes –– shelters for the homeless, food banks, and work for welfare. The temporary nature of the shelter system forces the destitute out into the streets without any stability in housing, and requires them to line up at the end of the day for the possibility of another bed for the night (Wagner 2005). Poverty continues to be a serious problem in this country and stands as a formidable barrier to equality and justice. It results from the loss of work, insufficient work, declining value of real wages, low wages, death or disability of a family income earner, breakup of a family relationship, health problems, or other unforeseen circumstances that introduce unanticipated costs and expenses. And while many Canadians are at risk of poverty at some time in their lives, certain groups of Canadians are at disproportionately higher risk –– young families, lone female parents, single women, children, Aboriginal peoples, elderly women, and people with disabilities comprise some of these categories. Social workers continue to witness human rights violations on a daily basis –– individuals and families who are without shelter and food. The current climate of neo-liberalism is also contributing to the dismantling and commodification of occupations. Effectively diminishing the role that unions have played in regulating conditions of employment, neo-liberal policies are now focused on attacking occupations because occupations, through their professions, set standards of efficiency, codes of conduct, quality control, and ethical codes. Guy Standing, a British political economist, articulates the processes and impact of dismantling and commodifying occupations such as social work: Commodification occurs as a craft or profession loses control of its ability to reproduce itself (setting standards of practice, levels of acceptable qualification, training methods and so on), or loses the capacity to operate its own association (the way it runs itself), or loses control of its work, the ability to determine what quality is acceptable, the ability to control the timing and extent of work to be preformed, what goes on in the workplace, the market for its services and its relation to the state. (Standing 2009: 147)

Increasingly, proponents of globalization are imposing measures of control over occupations and workers, including the practice of social work and social workers; this is facilitated by international trade agreements and conservative governments.

ONE HUNDRED YEARS OF SOCIAL WORK

291

Challenges Internal to the Profession The Ongoing Struggle to Address Our Inherent Contradictions One of the ongoing challenges is the tension over what the primary role of social work ought to be. Is it to develop professional status, or to commit itself to social and economic change? Concern over a too narrow focus on professionalism was addressed directly in 1953 in The Social Worker, the official organ of the CASW. It was noted that “no professional organization in which the underlying basis is a helping service to people can afford the luxury of narrow professionalism” (J.E.L. 1953: 1). The process of restricting membership, determining educational requirements, and establishing standards of performance are necessary elements of professions, but also they assist in establishing and maintaining positions of dominance and authority over the social work process and the boundaries of the social work field. The incompatibility of protecting professional status and taking stronger, action-oriented positions on social problems created a division among social workers and, in most cases, profession-building was favoured at the expense of social change. This apparent contradiction in the role of social work is not unexpected given that the profession was borne out of, and is perpetuated by, the social and economic disparities inherent in a private market economy. Social work, particularly as it developed a professional status, became increasingly circumscribed by the socio-economic structure of which it is a part. Social work, as we know it, is a function of capitalist economic development; this fact has been reinforced in recent years with the appearance of social work as a profession in Russia, China, and other eastern European countries that have abandoned socialism for capitalism (Lundy and Jennissen 2009: 127–49). But as our history demonstrates, social work is more than a profession. It is comprised of individuals and groups of people who do not see themselves necessarily working to support the existing structures in society, and many of whom are active in advancing the status of the least privileged and in effecting social change. This liberatory aspect of social work is a strong theme in our history and its impact should not be underestimated. Nonetheless we cannot lose sight of the fact that constraints were placed on social workers who were considered by society and the profession to be too radical, too vocal, or who were regarded as so committed as to act on their convictions. As a result, radical social workers, particularly those who operated from a class-based perspective, often worked outside of the profession to effect social change. Similar to the contradictions inherent in the welfare

292

CHAPTER FOURTEEN

state generally, social work offers opportunities for offsetting some of the harshest effects of a private market model, but in the final analysis, the profession remains subordinate to the demands of a private market economy. Losing Ground in the Workplace and in Society While the achievement of professional status has meant that social work is now an established and recognized body, this achievement has done little to protect the profession or its members. In fact, social workers in Canada have lost ground in recent years. Social workers have lost autonomy in many workplaces and have less control over their working conditions. Permanent positions are increasingly filled with temporary contracts. The demise of social programs and the impact of this on individuals, families, and communities have led to more complex caseloads for social workers. Mounting caseloads, the complex needs of clients, staff shortages, and concerns over personal safety are common concerns of social workers today. Social workers are increasingly performing unpaid overtime, and workplace stress is escalating (Ontario Association of Social Workers 2006). In the area of social policy, where social workers of the post–World War II era made major contributions, the voices of social workers are largely absent as governments rely increasingly on economic indicators to determine the social welfare agenda. Global economic transformation, to a large extent, is responsible for these changes, but inextricably linked to this are the divisions within social work, as well as its increasing invisibility in society. Professional associations and regulatory bodies typically are the public face of professions and their membership, and speak on behalf of their members. But in Canada, slightly over 42 percent (16,000) of approximately 38,000 social workers are members of the CASW (Canadian Association of Social Workers 2001). In three provinces –– Ontario, Prince Edward Island, and British Columbia –– regulation is the responsibility of bodies that are separate from the professional associations. In the remaining seven provinces the provincial associations have the responsibility for regulating social work practice, and in these provinces membership in the professional associations is higher than it is in the three provinces with a separate regulatory agent. There are social workers who have chosen not to belong to either organization because of ideological differences, financial concerns, or apathy. Further, a number of workplace settings do not require social workers to be registered. The divisions among social workers have been exacerbated by the current circumstances whereby professionally educated practitioners graduating from accredited schools of social work are legally prohibited from referring to themselves as social workers unless they are registered with the regulatory

ONE HUNDRED YEARS OF SOCIAL WORK

293

body. As a result of this requirement, rather than becoming registered, social workers refer to themselves as child-protection workers, community workers, or social policy analysts. These “subcategories” of social work diminish the visibility of social work overall. The effect of this is that the very profession that pioneered and continues to educate workers in social welfare, child welfare, community development, and policy development and analyses has effectively been written out of a large part of its work. This increased fragmentation of professional categories, moreover, diminishes solidarity among workers who are increasingly inclined to focus on their particular subcategory of social work. Another example of the waning visibility and importance of social work is in hospitals, where the trend is to remove social workers from heading central social work units. Social workers in many hospitals across Canada are no longer supervised by a social work director, but instead by members of other disciplines. In this sense social work has lost its administrative role and some of its authority as a necessary part of a health care setting. The Canadian Association of Social Workers in Health Administration, once a vibrant organization, experienced a decline in membership in the mid1990s because there were fewer social workers in administrative positions (Foley 1999), and it eventually met its demise. Fragmentation of Social Work Bodies Historically, the CASW, and later the CASWE, played key roles in unifying and standardizing social work and social work education. Currently, however, both of these institutions are in peril as they face the challenges of being national associations with small memberships distributed over a vast geographic area in Canada. Although this situation is not new, the growing autonomy of provincial associations and the growth of regulatory bodies has led to an increased fragmentation of the profession whereby provincial bodies cannot speak with a common voice for social workers across Canada and, equally important, do not speak with a united voice on behalf of the people with whom social workers work. This problem intensified in the CASW when, in 2004, the Ordre professionel des travailleurs sociaux du Québec (Quebec’s College of Professional Social Workers) withdrew from the national association. Its departure resulted in a significant loss of membership in CASW, as well as the dissolution of the CASW’s bi-national heritage, representative of all provinces. In some respects the departure was not unexpected. Over the years, the Ordre had expressed the difficulties it faced as a member of an association that primarily represents English-speaking social workers. While the CASW has

294

CHAPTER FOURTEEN

made efforts to be bilingual, the reality is that social workers overall in Canada have not shared the same commitment. Conference papers are delivered mostly in English, and the majority of articles published in journals by both national professional associations are in English. Linda Turner (2005) points out that while we have two official languages, 67 percent of the population speaks only English. Although the accreditation standards of the CASSW require a focus on the francophonie, not much attention is placed on this outside of Quebec and New Brunswick. In 2009–10 the CASW, in collaboration with its member organizations (the provincial associations), hired an external consulting firm to conduct an organizational review of the CASW. The consultants’ report was well received and board members, presidents, and executive directors of CASW member organizations, as well as the CASW executive director (an ex-officio member), considered the findings and developed a plan for implementing the recommendations. One recommendation, a change to the fee structure, has already been implemented and resulted in a 20 percent fee reduction for the two largest provincial organizations, the Ontario Association of Social Workers (OASW) and the Alberta College of Social Workers (ACSW). In a surprise move, the OASW and the ACSW gave notice of their intention to leave the CASW, effective March 31, 2011. Their decisions are perplexing in light of the recent organizational review with its full consultation process, a set of approved recommendations (including agreement to a more equitable fee structure),1 and an agreed-upon plan of action. Members of the OASW and the ACSW were not consulted in the decisions to withdraw from the CASW and there is organized opposition among social workers in response. Provincial discontent is not new in the history of the CASW, but in the context of growing regionalism in Canada this move significantly raises the level of concern over the future of the CASW and the status of social work in Canada. Social Work Theory and the Question of Theoretical Robustness Since its earliest years, social work has been involved with theory development –– testing, applying, and advancing theories about individuals, families and communities, and their interactions with broader societal structures. The theoretical literature in social work has evolved significantly over the century. To characterize this complicated process in simple terms is to say that it evolved from an initial reliance on casework, with its focus on the individual, to a major break with that tradition around the 1970s, when the structural approach to social work was first formally introduced (Moreau

ONE HUNDRED YEARS OF SOCIAL WORK

295

1979; Bailey and Brake 1975; Leonard 1975). Although casework was dominant during the early twentieth century until the 1960s and 1970s, social work theory and practice were influenced, nonetheless, by broader social events and social movements in society. As our study has demonstrated, the rankand-file movement in the US, the League for Social Reconstruction in Canada, the peace movement, the civil rights movement, and the women’s movement all had an impact on how social work was understood and practised. In the 1970s structural social work, based on Marxist theory, took hold and made a major contribution to our understanding of individual and social problems within economic and political contexts. Structural social work began with a solid theory base with attention to both the structural context and the individual condition, but over the years it appears to have lost some of its rigour and supporters. And while the structural perspective still exists in Canadian social work, there is a plethora of new theories, models, and approaches that are currently in use –– some are structural and some are deemed post-structural. One of the trends in social work theory over the last two or three decades has been to move away from theories with broad explanatory power toward those that are more narrowly focused, often on single identities. This trend resulted partly from the critique that a Marxist analysis did not adequately integrate several inequalities in society –– inequalities based on sex, sexual orientation, “race,” Aboriginal heritage, ability, and age, among others. While recognizing the contributions that theories about specific social problems or identities can make, we believe that as social workers, we have to tread carefully in this area. Social work deals with promoting equality, social and economic justice, and social change. This necessarily implies a relatively broad analytic base that incorporates several societal structures. If we limit our analysis to any particular identity, we run the risk of encountering at least two related problems. One is the potential of losing the broader context of the issue and thereby limiting the explanatory power of the theory. A second issue is that people have several identities that overlap and interact and when they do, something more than two separate identities can be created. This reality is not captured with single identity analysis. Highlighting one of these identities, in fact, might not be the most effective approach to assisting our clients. As we struggle to understand the multifarious effects of globalization on people and societies, we need complex, robust theories that will help us understand what is occurring in society and guide our practice so that we can assist people and continue to work toward social change. The division into specific identities, in many respects, reflects the fragmentation of the work of social work. In an enlightening thesis, Alison Tutak

296

CHAPTER FOURTEEN

(2010) identifies how social work has become fragmented into a range of subcategories. She notes that the one category that social work has abandoned over the years is social assistance work; this has occurred even though poverty is the theme that unites most of social work, historically and contemporarily. The recent shift away from theories with broad explanatory power to those with a narrower focus on identity has tended to move the profession away from a structural context and a critique of class toward a more individualized approach to social concerns. This harkens back to the version of psychoanalysis employed by social work in the last century, when the clients’ individual perceptions and interpretations of their objective realities was at the centre of social work; not much recognition was given at that time to understanding the material conditions of their lives. We should therefore not be surprised that social workers are neither at the forefront of antipoverty movements nor in the lead in analyzing and devising strategies to address the growing inequalities in Western societies. The current trend toward individualization, moreover, creates a climate of competition and a lack of community –– both conducive to the demands of a growing global economic market, but detrimental to impoverished and marginalized members of society. Related to identity is the concept of diversity or diverse identities. Currently in Canada there is a preoccupation with diversity, understanding it and celebrating it. There is merit in appreciating diversities and educating people to understand and embrace it. But at the same time, we must recognize that the underlying causes of racism, sexism, ableism, and several other inequities in society cannot be overcome simply by developing awareness in people. The struggle for equality demands more than educating the population about the issues. Walter Michaels (2006), in The Trouble with Diversity: How We Learned to Love Identity and Ignore Equality, raises several concerns about the American left’s preoccupation with diversity. Michaels argues that the “obsessive interest” with diversity has led the left away from dealing with economic inequality. He argues that in the US there has been a tendency to ignore economic inequality and instead focus on cultural differences. In fact, he says, we treat economic disparities as though they are cultural differences. And if we can stop thinking of the poor as people who have too little money and start thinking of them instead as people who have too little respect, then it’s our attitude toward the poor, not their poverty, that becomes the problem to be solved, and we can focus our efforts on reform not on getting rid of classes but on getting rid of what we like to call classism.... More generally the trick is to

ONE HUNDRED YEARS OF SOCIAL WORK

297

think of our inequality as a consequence of our prejudices rather than as a consequence of our social system and thus to turn the project of creating a more egalitarian society into the project of getting people to stop being racist, sexist, classist homophobes. (Michaels 2006: 19–20)

The focus on differences and the notion of many truths creates an enormous challenge in forming a united opposition, which is central for addressing issues of disparities and social injustice and for advancing social change. The disappearance in social work theory of an explicit class perspective, based on a Marxist tradition, is disquieting. While “class” continues to be mentioned in most structural social work perspectives, the actual engagement of a class analysis using a historical materialist understanding of the world is often not articulated. Rather, the concept of class is introduced simply as a discussion of poverty without an elaboration of several other important elements that a class analysis might reveal, such as the causes of poverty, the existence of the working poor, deteriorating conditions of work, policies and programs introduced by the state, and our roles as professional social workers. Our disengagement from the theories of Marx and proponents of Marx’s work occurred when the economies of eastern Europe and the USSR were replaced with a particularly brutal form of capitalism and as we entered a global economic era. One of the characteristics of the transformation to global capitalism is the dramatic increase in the gap between poverty and wealth. While some consider Marx’s theories to be redundant, visiting or revisiting his work and the theorists that he influenced will likely provide us with valuable insight. An important observation that we have made in writing this history of social work in Canada is how little we reflect on and value our histories. We would do well to heed the sage advice of social work historian Baldwin Reichwein (2004c) when he encourages us to use the path of history to guide us forward. Losing Our Historical Roots in the Peace Movement Historically, social work in Canada and the US has had a connection to the peace movement. But as we move into the twenty-first century, this historical connection –– and related to it, human rights and social and economic justice –– is absent. Canada is the sixth-highest military spender within the twenty-eight-member NATO alliance and the thirteenth largest military spender in the world. In 2008 Canada’s military spending reached $19.3 billion per year, the highest level since World War II. Estimates for 2009–10 are $21,185,000,000, twenty times the budget for the federal Environment

298

CHAPTER FOURTEEN

Department (Robinson 2009). Militarization is closely linked to social injustice and social neglect, and is antithetical to human development (Lundy 1987). Given social work’s formal and long-standing commitment to economic and social justice and human rights and our legacy of peace work, it is surprising that the profession has not opposed the economic sanctions imposed against Iraq in 1990 and the recent destruction of the country, which has resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians. As a profession, we have not made public, national statements on the invasion and occupation of Iraq, nor on our presence in Afghanistan. Nor have we offered an analysis of Canada’s increased military spending at the same time as we are dismantling the welfare state. Harding argues that it is our professional obligation to address human suffering in the international community. “Inspired by our values, social workers must oppose apathy on issues of war and peace, structural violence, and human rights, and instead emphasize our collective responsibility as social workers in a global society” (Harding 2004: 194).

Moving Forward Our profession left some foot prints that warrant following and others that should be carefully sidestepped. (Reichwein 2004c: 19)

Maintaining and Improving Solidarity Our forbears shouldered immense burdens as they forged a place for social work within Canadian society. They have left us a rich history and heritage from which some lessons for the future can be drawn. If we are to have relevance in society, we must strengthen our commitment to both individual and collective action on urgent social and economic issues. The definition of social work, adopted by both the International Association of Schools of Social Work (IASSW) and the International Federation of Social Workers (IFSW) in 2004, can guide us in our actions. The social work profession promotes change, problem solving in human relationships and the empowerment and liberation of people to enhance well-being. Utilizing theories of human behaviour and social systems, social work intervenes at the points where people interact with their environments. Principle of human rights and social justice are fundamental to social work. (International Social Work n.d.: 5)

Social workers have a responsibility to promote social justice and in doing so the international human rights declarations and conventions are particularly relevant.

ONE HUNDRED YEARS OF SOCIAL WORK

299

The profession continues to be affiliated with the international social work community and the CASW, along with professional associations in seventy-eight countries, and is a member of the IFSW. The other major national social work association, the Canadian Association of Social Work Education (CASWE), oversees accreditation standards for all schools of social work across the country, and is a member of the IASSW. There is active collaboration between these two bodies at both the national and international levels. In 2006, the CASW and the CASWE signed a memorandum of agreement, pledging to develop a closer collaboration around common concerns. These developments are positive attempts to join collective forces with social workers around the world to advance our common goals in a global economic environment. For several years, Canadian social workers have had an ambiguous alliance with the labour movement. Unlike the rank-and-file movement in the US in the 1930s, Canadian social workers were slow to accept unions as legitimate agents for representing their interests. Developing a stronger alliance with organizations such as labour, social justice, anti-poverty, women, and environmental groups could help raise the profile of the profession and, because of the broad range of issues with which social work is concerned, social workers could take the opportunity to provide strong leadership in these areas. Fighting for Control over Our Work Retired social worker and activist Ken Collier wrote a letter to editor of the Advocate (the provincial newsletter of the Alberta College of Social Workers) in response to the Fall 2009 issue, which reported on the Agreement on Internal Trade (AIT) and the need to develop “competencies” for the profession. Collier cogently summarized his opposition to competency-based practice: “In this urgent mission, the flexibility and discretion that characterized social work is stifled, to be replaced by competencies and skills that increasingly resemble standardized machinery parts, transferable to any part of the country, representing an assumption that exercise of these skills and competencies supposes a guarantee of service quality” (Collier 2009: 1). Regrettably, the ACSW decided not to publish the article. Collier effectively highlighted the dangers of the rapidly growing drive toward competencies, an issue that is driven by the broader global agenda. The Agreement on Internal Trade is a part of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the Trade, Investment, and Labour Mobility Agreement (TILMA). The intention of these agreements is to harmonize and develop universal standards, mainly to increase the movement of workers and capital. The regulatory

300

CHAPTER FOURTEEN

bodies in Canada and the push toward competencies are a result of these agreements. The social work regulatory bodies are by far the most stable financially because of the fees collected from social workers, who are required to maintain registration and receive federal government grants. When counterpoised by the fee structures of the CASW and the CASWE, it is clear who wields more economic power. The national office of the CASW relies on contributions by the provincial associations, whereas the CASWE relies on fees from individual and institutional members; both are somewhat tenuous and inadequate sources of revenue. Besides the imbalance in funding and, subsequently, influence among the CASW, the CASWE, and the regulatory bodies, there is a concern over the increasing influence that Conservative governments have over the future direction of the profession. For example, in Ontario, the Ministry of Community and Social Services appoints one-third of the board of the Ontario College of Social Work and Social Service Workers. Registered social workers, the vast majority of the members, represent only one-third of the board; registered social service workers represent the final third. Who will speak for social work? This is even more troubling since there is the possibility that candidates with no social work education can gain entry into the profession and use the title of “registered social worker.” There is a further tension in the CASW over the issue of provincial autonomy versus a Canada-wide focus. As the provincial associations become increasingly inward-looking and unwilling to contribute to a national office, which appears to them to be increasingly anachronistic, the role of the national CASW is seriously threatened. At the same time, the Canadian Council of Social Work Regulators (CCSWR) is poised to control social work education by incorporating licensing exams, based on a competency profile that will force schools of social work to teach specific, dictated curricula. The Canadian Association of Social Workers supported the provinces in developing their professional associations and was instrumental in establishing social work education across the country. A national voice is critically needed, and both the CASW and the CASWE have the mandate to give leadership in bringing social workers together and connecting Canadian social workers internationally. An erosion of their voices at this crucial moment in social work history will undoubtedly mean not only a loss of their role in determining the future of the profession but the start of a new and more conservative type of social work and social work education, both of which bode poorly for the clients of social work.

ONE HUNDRED YEARS OF SOCIAL WORK

301

Returning to Our Legacy of Resistance Throughout the history of social work, there have been those who were deeply committed to social equality, social justice, and peace. They opposed repressive policies, stood firmly in their convictions, and dared to act on them. For the most part, they were involved with other radicals in social movements outside of the profession since they often found little support in social work. They were frequently placed under government surveillance, lost university positions, and were left without work or a pension. The state viewed involvement in the peace movement as particularly subversive. There are social workers today who take positions on issues that are in keeping with the social work Code of Ethics and social workers’ responsibilities in advancing social justice and human rights, but these struggles continue to be difficult. Matthew Colton describes the ambivalence of the profession: “Social justice and social work are inextricably linked, but the relationship between the two is fraught with tension, contradiction and conflict at both the ideological, conceptual and theoretical levels of policy and practice” (Colton 2002: 659). Abramovitz adds to this analysis a point that rings true today; that is, the view that the political climate of a time period has a direct impact on shaping the relationship of social work and its commitment to social reform. She argues “that in periods of conservative reaction or economic decline, social work’s ability to reconcile social and corporate needs recede further” (Abramovitz 1998: 518). Social work practice today remains a politically charged struggle between the desire to address human needs and bureaucratic limitations and regulations that are removed from the everyday problems of the least privileged in society. Lundy and van Wormer (2007: 737) argue that “the challenge for social workers is to understand the political dimensions of social work practice and the links between the local and global within a social justice, human rights-oriented framework of practice.” Reinvigorating Our Theory Base There is a need for social work to develop a more complex, robust theory base that can help us understand the complexities of this era of global capitalism. We need to ask what is relevant to social work today and devote efforts to advancing theories for strong social work practice. The abandonment of class analysis is particularly problematic in an environment where the disparities between the rich and poor are increasing. A social justice framework has become “mainstream” in Canadian social work to the extent that its meaning is often not clearly explicated, but taken for granted. The consequences of this has been that many social workers

302

CHAPTER FOURTEEN

espouse practising from a social and economic justice framework, but this framework is not reflected in either their ideological positions or their practices. The term “social justice,” in many respects, has become so all-embracing and without a strong theoretical base as to be almost meaningless. David Wagner, a social work professor from the US, questions whether anyone is actually practising a radical form of social work. “I have to say that I have met many more radical poor people, carpenters, farmers, gardeners, park rangers, and even sanitation workers than radical social workers” (Wagner 2009: 105). Social workers have moved away from a class analysis of societal problems. This trend has meant that there has been a weakening of a critique of social injustice to the extent that the relationship among poverty, racism, sexism, and all others forms of injustice is no longer in focus. Promoting Social and Economic Justice, Not Charity The “war” on poverty, the notion of a guaranteed income, and a host of social programs and services that were developed several decades ago gave us a sense that our society may be moving in the direction of income distribution that may go beyond meeting people’s basic needs. This optimism has all but vanished. The social needs currently facing impoverished populations in Canada are, in fact, basic needs for survival, needs that should be fundamental rights for all people –– the right to food, shelter, and clothing. The CASW and the CASWE are well poised to lead the challenge in securing these rights. They have both been given social justice mandates from their members, and they have an organizational structure in place with members working on the front line. There is much to be gained by engaging politically in solidarity with those who are exploited on a daily basis. Our mandate as social workers is a radical one, and our rich heritage reflects the possibilities and potential when we come together in solidarity with those who seek our services. The task, individually and collectively, is to challenge existing policies and practices that disadvantage a significant segment of the population. Our actions must be based in solidarity, not charity. Collectively and in coalitions we can fulfill the social justice mandate that we still proudly claim.

Note 1 CASW communiqué to members of CASW member organizations from the CASW executive, November 1, 2010.

APPENDIX A

CASW Branches, 1927–58 Montreal (English chapter) Toronto British Columbia mainland Hamilton Manitoba Halifax Vancouver Island Eastern Ontario Western Ontario Essex County Nova Scotia mainland Kingston Saskatchewan Quebec City Cape Breton Montreal (French chapter) New Brunswick/Prince Edward Island Alberta (north, south) Fraser Valley Corporation de Travailleur Sociaux de Province de Québec (CTSPQ) Prince Edward Island (separate branch)

1927 1928 1928 1929 1930 1931 1934 1935 1935 1941 1942 1942 1944 1946 1947 1947 1948 1950 1952 1958 1958

This page intentionally left blank

APPENDIX B

CASW Presidents, 1926–2001 1926–28 1928–30 1930–32 1932–34 1934–36 1936–38 1938–40 1940–42 1942–44 1944–45 1945–48 1948–50 1950–52 1952–54 1954–56 1956–58 1958–60 1960–62 1962–64 1964–66 1966–68 1968–70 1970–71 1971–73 1973–75 1975–77

G.B. Clarke, Montreal G.B. Clarke, Montreal Mrs. G. Cameron Parker, Toronto Mrs. G. Cameron Parker, Toronto B.W. Heise, Toronto B.W. Heise, Toronto Miss Nora Lea, Toronto Martin Cohn, Toronto Martin Cohn, Toronto Joy A. Maines, Ottawa Florence Christie, London Stuart K. Jaffrary, Toronto Majoria L. Moore, Winnipeg Bessie Touzel, Ottawa Shaun Govenlock, Montreal Ruth Harvey, Ottawa Bruce Mackenzie, Ottawa Hayda Denault, Quebec Elizabeth Govan, Toronto Harry Morrow, Toronto Anne DuMoulin, Winnipeg Henry Stubbins, Ottawa Leonard Levine, Hamilton Albert Rose, Toronto Francis Turner, Toronto Zenon Bryniawsky, Montreal 305

306

APPENDIX B

1977–79 1979–81 1981–83 1983–85 1985–87 1987–89 1989–91 1991–93 1993–97 1997–2001

Donald Karst, Calgary Dick Splane, Vancouver Gayle Gilchrist James, Edmonton Glenn Drover, Vancouver Madeleine Rivard Leduc, Montreal Marian Walsh, Toronto Gail McDougal, Halifax Margaret Dewhurst, Edmonton Julie Foley, Toronto John Mould, Edmonton

CHAPTER ONE

References Abbreviations of Archives AM AO DUA MUA NAC PAA PANB PANL PANS SAB SSC SWHA UBCA URA UTA UTA-TFRB

Archives of Manitoba Archives of Ontario Dalhousie University Archives McGill University Archives National Archives of Canada Provincial Archives of Alberta Public Archives of New Brunswick Public Archives of Newfoundland and Labrador Public Archives of Nova Scotia Saskatchewan Archives Board Sophia Smith Collection, Smith College, Northampton, Massachusetts Social Welfare History Archives, University of Minnesota University of British Columbia Archives University of Regina Archives University of Toronto Archives University of Toronto Archives, Thomas Fisher Rare Books Library

Archival Sources Consulted Alberta Alberta Association of Social Workers, office files Provincial Archives of Alberta (PAA) University of Calgary, School of Social Work, files 307

308

REFERENCES

British Columbia British Columbia Archives (B.C.A) British Columbia Association of Social Workers, office files University of British Columbia Archives, Library–Special Collections and University Archives Leonard Marsh Collection Manitoba Archives of Manitoba (AM) Manitoba Association of Social Workers, office files University of Manitoba, Faculty of Social Work Archives New Brunswick Public Archives of New Brunswick Newfoundland Public Archives of Newfoundland and Labrador Nova Scotia Dalhousie University Archives, Halifax Maritime School of Social Work Collection Nova Scotia Association of Social Workers, office files Public Archives of Nova Scotia Halifax Association for Improving the Conditions of the Poor (1867–1993) Ontario Archives of Ontario (AO) OASW Fond Canadian Association of Schools of Social Work (CASSW), office files Canadian Association of Social Workers (CASW), office files Canadian Association of Social Workers (1922–77) (CASSW Fonds MG 28) Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) Canadian Welfare Council I441; Canadian Welfare Council Fonds MG 28 I 10 National Archives of Canada (NAC) University of Toronto, Faculty of Social Work, office files University of Toronto Archives Elizabeth Govan Collection Harry Cassidy Collection University of Toronto Archives, Thomas Fisher Rare Book Library Kenny Collection Quebec McGill School of Social Work, office files McGill University Archives (MUA) Professional Corporation of Social Workers of Quebec, office files Saskatchewan Saskatchewan Archives Board (SAB) (Regina and Saskatoon) University of Regina Archives and Special Collections (URA) United States Sophie Smith Collection, Smith College Library, Northhampton, MA Bertha Reynolds Fond Mary Van Kleeck Fond

REFERENCES

309

Social Welfare History Archives, University of Minnesota Family Service Association of America Social Work Today

Interviews, Meetings, and Conversations Margreit Fidler (Ontario) Gayle Gilchrist James (Alberta) Gweneth Gowenlock (Ontario) Mary Hill (British Columbia) Gil Levine (Ontario) Helen Levine (Ontario) Brita Mickelburgh (Ontario) Brian Ouelette (New Brunswick) Dick Ramsey (Alberta) Baldwin Reishwein (Alberta) Wanda Thomas Bernard (Nova Scotia) Marlene Webber (Ontario)

Abramovitz, Mimi. 1998. “Social Work and Social Reform: An Arena of Struggle.” Social Work 43, 6 (November): 512–26. Adams, Ian, William Cameron, Brian Hill, and Peter Penz. 1971. The Real Poverty Report. Edmonton: M.G. Hurtig. Addams, Jane. 1897. “Social Settlements.” In Isabel C. Barrows (ed.), Proceedings of the National Conference of Charities and Corrections, 338–46, Twenty-fourth annual session, Toronto, July 7–14. Adler, Anne. 1944. “The Development of a Staff Association.” The Social Worker 2, 4 (March): 19–23. Aide, David C. 1929. “Some Backgrounds of Social Work.” Social Welfare 11, 10 (July): 221–24. Akman, Dogan D. 1972. Policy Statements and Public Positions of the Canadian Association of Social Workers: A Source Book. St. John’s: Memorial University of Newfoundland. Alberta. 1948. Report on the Child Welfare Branch. Edmonton: Department of Welfare, Province of Alberta (Chairman Howson). Alchon, Guy. 1999. “Mary van Kleeck of the Russell Sage Foundation.” In Ellen Condliffe Lagemann (ed.), Philanthropic Foundations: New Scholarship, New Possibilities, 151–66. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Alcock, Stuart. 1990. “Licensing the Social Work Profession, Who for?” The Social Work/Le Travailleur Social 58, 1 (Spring): 27–28. Alinsky, Saul. 1938. “The Basis in the Social Sciences for the Social Treatment of the Adult Offender.” In Proceedings of the National Conference of Social Work, 714–24. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

310

REFERENCES

Allen, Richard. 1971. The Social Passion. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Ames, Herbert. [1897] 1972. The City below the Hill. Introduction by P.F.W. Rutherford. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Anciaux, Alain. 1988. Rene Sand and the Culture of Human Values. Ottawa: International Council on Social Welfare. Anderson, Fred. 1978. Letter “Marlene Webber and Native Peoples Rights.” MUSE. St. John’s: Memorial University. Andrews, Janice, and Michael Reisch. 1997. “Social Work and Anti-Communism: A Historical Analysis of the McCarthy Era.” Journal of Progressive Human Services 8: 29–49. Argue, Marilyn. 1966.“Future in Social Work Big.”The Windsor Star (November 30): 61. Armitage, W.A.J. 1971. “Education, Competence, and Utilization.” The Social Worker 39, 4 (November): 179–83. Armstrong, Pat, and Hugh Armstrong. 1992. “Sex and the Professions.” Journal of Canadian Studies 27, 1 (Spring): 118–35. Austin, David M. 1983. “The Flexner Myth and the History of Social Work.” Social Service Review (September): 357–77. Bailey, Roy, and Mike Brake (eds.). 1975. Radical Social Work. New York: Pantheon Books. Baldwin, Warren. 1950. “Urge Contributory Plan for Old-Age Insurance.” The Globe and Mail (May 13). Bancroft, Frank C. 1940. “Social Workers and the War: 1917 and 1940.” Social Work Today (February): 16–18. Baragar, Fletcher. 1995. “Theory, Policy, and Institutional Structure: PC 1003 and Macroeconomics.” In Cy Gonick, Paul Phillips, and Jesse Vorst (eds.), Labour Gains, Labour Pains: 50 Years of PC 1003, 39–57. Halifax: Fernwood. Barrett, David. 1977. SASW Branch News (March 15): 1–3. Bartels, Dennis, and Alice Bartels. 2006. “Indigenous Peoples of the Russian North and Cold War Ideology.” Anthropologica 48: 265–79. Battle, Ken, and Sherri Torjman. 1995. How Finance Re-formed Social Policy. Ottawa: Caledon Institute. Battle, Millie. 1953. “History of the Canadian Association of Social Workers in Regina.” The Social Worker 22, 2 (December): 16–17. ––––––––– . 1984. “Interview with Millie Battle.” Oral History of Social Work Project, Karen Hill, project director. Ottawa: CASW. Bella, Leslie. 1995. “Gender and Occupational Closure in Social Work.” In Patricia Taylor and Catherine Daly (eds.), Gender Dilemmas in Social Work, 107–24. Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press. ––––––––– . 1996. “Profession as Ideology: Doctors, Nurses, and Social Workers.” In Bill Kirwin (ed.), Ideology, Development, and Social Welfare: Canadian Perspectives, 3rd ed., 145–64. Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press. Bellamy, Donald. 2005. “Settlement Houses (Canada).” In John M. Herrick and Paul H. Stuart (eds.), Encyclopedia of Social Welfare History in North America, 326–29. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. ––––––––– , and Allan Irving. 1995. “Pioneers.” In Joanne C. Turner and Francis J. Turner (eds.), Canadian Social Welfare, 3rd ed., 89–117. Scarborough: Allyn and Bacon Canada.

REFERENCES

311

Bernard, Wanda Thomas (ed.). 2006. Fighting for Change: Black Social Workers in Nova Scotia. Lawrencetown Beach: Pottersfield Press. Bliss, John Donald MacQueen. 1954. “A History of the School of Social Work of the University of British Columbia.” M.S.W. thesis, University of British Columbia. Birmingham, Michael. 1987. “Professional Property Rights: A Conceptual Framework to Examine Ideology in Canadian Social Work.” Working Papers of Social Welfare in Canada. Toronto: Faculty of Social Work, University of Toronto. Bisno, Herbert. 1956. “How Social Will Social Work Be?” Social Work 1, 2 (April): 12–18. Bowers, Rev. Swithum. 1957. “National Workshop on Social Work Education.” The Social Worker/Le Travailleur Social 25, 2 (January): 10–11. Bowley, Clare. 1988. “Collective Bargaining in Social Welfare Organizations in Ontario.” M.S.W. thesis, Wilfrid Laurier University. Boyd, Michelle Hebert. 2007. Enriched by Catastrophe: Social Work and Social Conflict after the Halifax Explosion. Halifax: Fernwood Publishing. Boyd, Sophie. 1939. “The Progressive Program.” The Social Worker 7, 3 (May): 3–4, 16. ––––––––– . 1940. “Relief Situation in Canada, June to October 1940.” The Social Worker 9, 1 (October): 5–9. Brown, Lorne. The Rise and Fall of the Relief Camp Workers Union. Toronto: James Lorimer and Co. Bruno, Frank J. 1948. Trends in Social Work as Reflected in the Proceedings of the National Conference of Social Work 1874–1946. New York: Columbia University Press. Burgar, Gertrude M. 1934. “The Hamilton Birth Control Clinic.” The Social Worker 2, 6 (April): 1–2. Bussey, Gertrude, and Margaret Tims. 1965. Pioneers for Peace: Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, 1915–1965. London: George Allen and Unwin. Caldwell, G. 1960. “The ‘Black Night’ of CASW.” In “Notes and Comments.” The Social Worker 28, 2 (April): 49–50. Canadian Association of Social Workers. 1986. “At the Crossroads: Childcare Services in Canada.” Ottawa: CASW. ––––––––– . 1988a. “Position Paper: The Privatization of Personal Social Services” (June). ––––––––– . 1988b. “Presentation to the Senate Committee on the 1987 Constitutional Accord: The 1987 Accord and the Future Development of National Social Policy and Programs” (March 2). ––––––––– . 1989. “Brief to the Minister of Finance Regarding the Proposed Goods & Services Tax” (December). ––––––––– . 1990. “Presentation to the Standing Committee on Health & Welfare, Social Affairs, Seniors and the Status of Women” (May 10). ––––––––– . 1993. “Brief Submitted to the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples” (September). ––––––––– . 1994a. “A Response of the Canadian Association of Social Workers to Agenda: Jobs and Growth. Improving Social Security in Canada: A Discussion Paper of the Government of Canada” (December). ––––––––– . 1994b. “Brief Submitted to the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development” (March).

312

REFERENCES

––––––––– . 1995. “The Budget and Beyond: Reactions of the Canadian Association of Social Workers following the 1995 Federal Budget” (June). ––––––––– . 2001. In Critical Demand: Social Work in Canada, Final Report. Ottawa: CASW. ––––––––– . 2001. Toward Sector Collaboration in Social Work: A Report on the Social Work Forum in Montreal. Ottawa: CASW. ––––––––– . 2005. Guidelines for Ethical Practice: 1–33. Canadian Association of Social Workers and Manitoba Association of Social Workers (CASW). 1986. “A Brief Submitted to the Special Committee on Child Care, Winnipeg, Manitoba” (June 19). Canadian Welfare. 1949. “Historical Highlights.” Canadian Welfare: 25th Anniversary Edition 24, 7 (January 15): 42–43. ––––––––– . 1951. “Vancouver Children’s Aid Society, 1901–1951.” Canadian Welfare 27, 1 (April 15): 20–24. ––––––––– . 1958. “Social Workers in Social Welfare” 32, 7 (March): 297–98. Carey-Belanger, Elaine. 1984. “The Emergence of Social Welfare in Quebec (1938–1963).” Intervention 70 (December): 31–57. Carniol, Ben. 1974. “A Framework for Community Organization Practice.” The Social Worker/Le Travailleur Social 42, 1: 90–98. ––––––––– . 1975. “Advocacy: For Community Power.” Canadian Welfare 50, 3 (May– June): 12–15. ––––––––– . 2005. Case Critical, 5th ed. Toronto: Between the Lines. ––––––––– , and Brigitte Kitchen. 1990. “The OAPSW Proposal Is a Disaster and Must Be Defeated.” Canadian Review of Social Policy (May): 62–63. Carr, E.H. 1987. What Is History? 2nd ed. London/New York: Penguin Books. Casey, James T. 2006. The Regulation of the Professions in Canada. Toronto: Thomas Carswell. Cassidy, H.M. 1930. “Winter Unemployment, 1930 Edition.” Social Welfare 12, 5 (February): 105–7. ––––––––– . 1932. Unemployment and Relief in Ontario, 1929–1932: A Survey and Report. Toronto: J.M. Dent. ––––––––– . 1933. “The Task of Social Work.” The Social Worker 1, 6 (March): 1–2. ––––––––– . 1934a. “Is Unemployment Relief Enough?” The Canadian Forum 14, 160 (January): 131–33. ––––––––– . 1934b. “Memorandum on the Stabilization of Employment.” Social Welfare 16, 12 (September): 57–59. ––––––––– . 1943. Social Security and Reconstruction in Canada. Toronto: Ryerson. ––––––––– . 1945. Public Health and Welfare Reorganization: The Post War Problem in the Canadian Provinces. Toronto: Ryerson. Christie, Nancy. 2000. Engendering the State: Family, Work, and Welfare in Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. ––––––––– . 2005. “Religion and Social Welfare (Canada).” In John M. Herrick and Paul H. Stewart (eds.), Encyclopedia of Social Welfare History, 303–6. Thousand Oaks: Sage. ––––––––– , and Michael Gavreau. 1996. A Full-Orbed Christianity: The Protestant Churches and Social Welfare in Canada, 1900–1940. Montreal/Kingston: McGillQueen’s University Press.

REFERENCES

313

Clairmont, Donald H. 1992. “Africville: An Historical Overview.” In Africville Genealogy Society (ed.), The Spirit of Africville, 36–51. Halifax: Formac Publishing Company. ––––––––– , and Dennis W. Magill. 1971. Africville Relocation Report. Halifax: Dalhousie University. ––––––––– , and Dennis W. Magill. 1999. The Life and Death of Canadian Black Community. Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press. Clarke, C.B. 1928. “First Annual Meeting of the Association.” Social Welfare 10, 8: 189. ––––––––– . 1951. “How the CASW Began.” The Social Worker 19, 4 (April): 1–2. Collier, Ken. 2009. Letter to the editor. The Advocate (September 25): 1–2. Unpublished, personal communication with author. Collins, Kevin. 1976. “Three Decades of Social Security in Canada.” Canadian Welfare 51, 7 (January–February): 5–9. Colton, Matthew. 2002. “Special Issue Editorial.” British Journal of Social Work, 32: 659–67. Cormie, John A. 1938. “Forgotten Canadians.” Social Welfare 18, 3 (March): 74–76. Coulter, Rebecca. 1995. “‘Not to Punish but to Reform’: Juvenile Delinquency and the Children’s Protection Act in Alberta, 1909–1929.” In Raymond Blake and Jeff Keshen (eds.), Social Welfare Policy in Canada: Historical Readings, 137–52. Toronto: Copp Clark. Cross, Susan. 1985. “Professionalism: The Occupational Hazard of Social Work (1920–1960).” The Social Worker 53, 1 (Spring): 29–33. Daly, Catherine. 1995. “An Historical Perspective on Women’s Role in Social Work in Canada.” In Patricia Taylor and Catherine Daly (eds.), Gender Dilemmas in Social Work, 5–17. Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press. Davidson, George Davidson. 1956. “A New Need –– Civil Defence.” The Social Worker 24, 5 (June): 1–5. Davis, Allen F. 1967. Spearheads for Reform: The Social Settlements and the Progressive Movement 1890–1914. New York: Oxford University Press. Dawson, Carl. 1924. “Canadian National Conference of Social and Health Work.” Social Welfare 6, 4 (July): 189–90. ––––––––– . 1928. “Canadian Conference of Social Work.” Social Welfare 10, 5 (February): 4–6. Deutsch, Albert. 1942. “Get Together, Labour, and Social Work.” Social Work Today (April): 13–16. Drover, Glenn. 1985. “Universality and Tax Reform. The Social Worker 53, 2 (Summer): 65–69. Drover, Glenn, and Eric Schragge. 1977. “General Systems Theory and Social Work Education: A Critique.” Canadian Social Work Education 3, 2 (August): 28–39. Dubois, W.E.B. 1968. The Autobiography of W.E.B. Dubois. New York: International Publishers. Dunlop, Blair. 2006. “President’s Report.” Association of Social Workers in Northern Canada 1, 3 (February): 1–3, http://www.socialworknorth.com/history.htm. Dyck, Rand. [1979] 1995. “The Canada Assistance Plan: The Ultimate in Cooperative Federalism.” In Raymond Blake and Jeff Keshen (eds.), Social Welfare Policy in Canada: Historical Readings, 326–39. Toronto: Copp Clark.

314

REFERENCES

Edwards, Richard L., Wes Shera, P. Nelson Reid, and Reginald York. 2006. “Social Work Practice and Education in the US and Canada.” Social Work Education 25, 1 (February): 28–38. Endicott, Stephen. 1980. James G. Endicott: Rebel out of China. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Etzioni, Amitai. 1969. The Semi-Professions and Their Organization. New York: Free Press. Fingard, Judith. 1975. “The Relief of the Unemployed Poor in Saint John, Halifax, and St. John’s, 1815–1860.” Acadiensis 5, 1 (Autumn): 32–53. Finkel, Alvin. 1979. Business and Social Reform in the Thirties. Toronto: James Lorimer and Company. ––––––––– . 1995a. “Even the Little Children Cooperated: Family Strategies, Childcare Discourse, and Social Welfare Debates 1945–1975.” Labour/Le Travail 36 (Fall): 91–118. ––––––––– . 1995b. “Trade Unions and the Welfare State in Canada, 1945–90.” In Cy Gonick, Paul Phillips, and Jesse Vorst (eds.), Labour Gains, Labour Pains: 50 Years of PC 1003, 59–77. Halifax: Fernwood Publishing. ––––––––– . 2006. Social Policy and Practice in Canada: A History. Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press. Finkel, Alvin, and Margaret Conrod. 2002. History of the Canadian Peoples: 1867 to the Present, vol. 2, 3rd ed. Toronto: Pearson Education. Fisher, Jacob. 1934a. “The Practitioner Movement in American Social Work.” The Social Worker 2, 10 (August–September): 1–2. ––––––––– . 1934b. “Social Work and Liberalism.” Social Work Today (May): 9–12. ––––––––– . 1937. “It Just Doesn’t Belong!” Social Work Today 4, 8 (May): 3–4. ––––––––– . 1980. The Response of Social Work to the Depression. Boston: G.K. Hall. Flexner, Abraham. 1915. “Is Social Work a Profession?” In Alexander Johnson (ed.), Proceedings of the National Conference of Charities and Correction, 577–90. Chicago: Hildmann Printing Co. Foley, Julie. 1999. “Professional Associations in Canada.” In Francis J. Turner (ed.), Social Work Practice: A Canadian Perspective, 477–91. Scarborough: PrenticeHall Allyn and Bacon. Forrest, Anne. 1995. “Securing the Male Breadwinner: A Feminist Interpretation of PC 1003.” In Cy Gonick, Paul Phillips, and Jesse Vorst (eds.), Labour Gains, Labour Pains: 50 Years of PC 1003, 139–62. Halifax: Fernwood Publishing. Frankfurter, Felix. 1915. “Social Work and Professional Training.” Proceedings of the National Conference of Charities and Correction, Baltimore, 591–96. Chicago: Hildmann Printing Co. Freedberg, Sharon. 1993. “The Feminist Ethic and the Professionalization of Social Work.” Social Work 38, 5 (September): 534–40. Galper, Jeffrey. 1980. Social Work Practice: A Radical Perspective. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. Gaumer, Gary L. 1984. “Regulating Health Processionals: A Review of the Empirical Literature.” Health and Society 62, 3: 380–416. Gelber, Sylva. 1973. “Social Work and the Status of Women.” The Social Worker/Le Travailleur Social 41, 3: 193–97.

REFERENCES

315

George, Vic, and Paul Wilding. 1985. Ideology and Social Welfare. London/Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Globe and Mail. 1938. “Health of Jobless Youth Declared in Jeopardy” (July 6): 1. ––––––––– . 1965. “Ryerson Welfare Course Students Find Opposition among Professionals” (April 15), 9. ––––––––– . 1966a. “Four to Study Ethics in Warrendale Issue” (November 5), 1. ––––––––– . 1966b. “Warrendale’s Former Staff Not Fit to Treat Patients, Tory MPP Says” (November 5), 5. ––––––––– . 1997. Obituary for Bessie Touzel. Globe and Mail (April 26), E13. ––––––––– . 2005. “PM Reaches Out to Ukrainians” (August 25), A4. Globerman, Judith. 1992. “Regulating Social Work: Illuminating Motives.” Canadian Social Work Review 9, 2 (Summer): 229–43. Glowacki, Peggy, and Julia Hendry. 2004. Hull-House: Images of America: Charleston: Arcadia. Goldner, Jack. 1966. “Towards Their Incorporation? Why?” ECHOS (February). Goldstein, Howard. 1973. Social Work Practice: A Unitary Approach. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press. Gorrie, Kathleen. 1939. “Social Services in War-Time.” The Social Worker 8, 1 (October): 7–9. Gould, Margaret. 1934. “For Whom Do Social Workers Work?” The Social Worker 3, 2 (November): 1–3. ––––––––– . 1935. “Women –– Whither Bound?” Social Welfare (September): 146–56. ––––––––– . 1938. “We Do and We Don’t in Canada.” Social Work Today (June): 9–10. ––––––––– . 1945. “Family Allowances in Canada: Facts versus Fiction.” Toronto: Ryerson Press. Gowanlock, Gweneth J. 1990. “Social Work Regulation in Canada: One Historical Perspective.” The Social Worker/Le Travailleur Social 58, 1 (Spring): 6–8. Graham, John. 1992. “‘The Haven’: A Toronto Charity’s Transition from a Religious to a Professional Ethos, 1878–1930.” Histoire Sociale/Social History 25: 238–306. ––––––––– . 1996. “A History of the University of Toronto School of Social Work.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Toronto. Greenwood, Ernest. 1957. “Attributes of a Profession.” Social Work 2 (July): 44–55. Gripton, James. 1974. “Sexism in Social Work: Male Takeover of a Female Profession.” The Social Worker/Le Travailleur Social 42, (Summer): 78–88. Grubb, Elizabeth. 1941. “They Came to Us.” The Social Worker 9 (April): 3–6. Guest, Dennis. 1970. “Three Social Policy Issues for the 70’s.” Canadian Welfare 46, 4 (July–August): 12–15. ––––––––– . 1999. The Emergence of Social Security in Canada, 3rd ed. Vancouver: UBC Press. Hale, Louise. 1981. “Appendix: Votes for Women: Profiles of Prominent British Columbia Suffragists and Social Reformers.” In Barbara Latham and Kathy Kess (eds.), In Her Own Right: Selected Essays on Women’s History in B.C., pp. 287–302. Victoria: Camosun College. Hamilton, Glen. 1970. “Registration for Social Workers –– Yes or No.” Canadian Welfare 46 (May–June): 14–15. Hancock, Lawrence T. 1992. The Story of the Maritime School of Social Work 1941–1969. Halifax: Maritime School of Social Work.

316

REFERENCES

Harding, Scott. 2004. “The Sound of Silence: Social Work, the Academy, and Iraq.” Journal of Sociology and Social Work 31, 2 (June): 179–97. Harrison, Ellen. 1951. “Day Care Centres.” The Social Worker 20, 1 (November): 11–13. Hart, George E. 1953. “The Halifax Poor Man’s Friend Society, 1820–27: An Early Social Experiment.” Canadian Historical Review 34: 109–23. Harvey, Ruth. 1956. “Greetings from the Presidents.” The Social Worker 25, 1 (October): 1–2. Hearn, Jeff. 1982. “Notes on Patriarchy, Professionalization, and the Semi-Professions.” Sociology 16, 2 (May): 184–202. Heise, B.W. 1938. “The First Decade: President’s Address to Biennial Meeting.” The Social Worker 6, 9 (August–September): 1–5. Held, Freda, Mary Jennison, and Lillian Henderson. 1959. A Brief History of the Ontario Welfare Council. Toronto: Ontario Welfare Council. Henderson, Nora Frances. 1936. “Essential Human Needs.” Social Welfare 17, 9 (June): 69–72. Hendry, Charles E. 1966. “The Uncomfortable Few.” The Social Worker/Le Travailleur Social 34, 1 (February): 7–11. Hoar, Victor. 1969. The Mackenzie-Papineau Battalion. Toronto: Copp-Clark Publishing Company. Hollis, Ernest V., and Alice L. Taylor. 1951. Social Work Education in the United States. New York: Columbia University Press. Hopper, R.W. 1926. “Official Announcement in Respect to the Organization of the Canadian Association of Social Workers.” Social Welfare 9, 1 (October): 284–86. Horn, Michiel. 1976. “Leonard Marsh and the Coming of a Welfare State in Canada.” Histoire Sociale 9, 7: 197–204. Hurl, Lorna. 1983. Building a Profession: The Origin and Development of the Department of Social Service in the University of Toronto, 1914–1928. Working Paper on Social Welfare in Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto. International Social Work. 2004. International Definition of the Social Work Profession, Ethics in Social Work, Statement of Principles, Global Standards, and Training of the Social Work Profession. International Association of Schools of Social Work and the International Federation of Social Work. Irving, Allan. 1981. “Canadian Fabians: The Work and Thought of Harry Cassidy and Leonard Marsh, 1930–45.” Canadian Journal of Social Work Education 7, 1 (June): 7–28. ––––––––– . 1982. “A Canadian Fabian: The Life and Work of Harry Cassidy.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Toronto. ––––––––– , Harriet Parsons, and Donald Bellamy. 1995. Neighbours: Three Settlements in Downtown Toronto. Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press. Jackson, Dorothea M. 1934. “Tolerance vs. Action.” The Social Worker 2, 7 (May): 2. Jaffary, Stuart. 1942. “British Social Workers in Wartime.” The Compass (June): 7–11. James, Cathy. 2001. “Reforming Reform: Toronto’s Settlement House Movement, 1900–20.” The Canadian Historical Review 82, 1 (March): 55–90. Jamieson, Stuart. 1968. Times of Trouble: Labour Unrest and Industrial Conflict in Canada. Study no. 22. Ottawa: Privy Council Task, Force on Labour Relations.

REFERENCES

317

J.E.L. 1953. “The CASW –– A Bond of Union.” The Social Worker 22, 2 (December): 1–2. Jennison, Mary. 1940. “Montreal Meets Young War Guests.” The Social Worker 9, 1 (October): 9–11. ––––––––– . 1970. “Study of the Canadian Settlement Movement.” Unpublished manuscript. Jennissen, Therese. 1995. “Implications for Women: The Canada Health and Social Transfer.” In Raymond Blake, Penny F. Bryden, and J. Frank Strain (eds.), The Welfare State in Canada: Past, Present, and Future, 219–29. Concord: Irwin Publishing. ––––––––– . 1996a. “The Federal Social Security Review: Process and Related Events (December 1993–June 1995): A Chronology.” Jane Pulkingham and Gordon Ternowetsky (eds.), Remaking Canadian Social Policy: Social Security in the Late 1990s, 238–55. Halifax: Fernwood. ––––––––– . 1996b. “Women and the Social Security Review.” In Jane Pulkingham and Gordon Ternowetsky (eds.), Remaking Canadian Social Policy: Social Security in the Late 1990s, 30–32. Halifax: Fernwood. ––––––––– , and Colleen Lundy. 2005. “Social Work Profession (Canada): History.” In John H. Herrick and Paul H. Stuart (eds.), Encyclopedia of Social Welfare History in North America, 381–84. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Jessel, Ethel. 1943. “Staff Associations.” The Social Worker 11, 4 (May): 20–23. Johnson, Monroe. 1947. “I Am Not a Communist, Centre Director Says as Board Fires Her.” Toronto Daily Star (July 23): 1, 23. Johnson, Terence J. 1972. Professions and Power. London: Macmillan Press. Johnston, Faith. 2006. A Great Restlessness: The Life and Politics of Dorise Neilsen. Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Press. Jones, Andrew, and Leonard Rutman. 1981. Inside the Children’s Aid: J.J. Kelso and Child Welfare in Ontario. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Joyce, Paul, Paul Corrigan, and Mike Hayes. 1988. Striking out: Trade Unionism in Social Work. Houndmills/London: Macmillan Education. Karger, Howard Jacob. 1988. Social Workers and Labor Unions. New York: Greenwood Press. Kealey, Gregory. 1997. “State Repression of Labour and the Left in Canada, 1914–1920: The Impact of the First World War.” In Jeffery Keshen (ed.), Age of Contention, 288–304. Toronto: Harcourt Brace and Company. Kellogg, Paul. 1917a. “A Canadian City in War Time: II. Families of Soldiers Oversees.” The Survey (March 24): 709–15. ––––––––– . 1917b. “A Canadian City in War Time, I. The Patriotic Fund and the Women of Montreal.” The Survey (March 1), 677–84. Kenyon, Eva. 1987. “Opinion.” OAPSW Newsmagazine 14, 3 (October). Kierstead, W.C. 1925. “Mother’s Allowances in Canadian Provinces.” Social Welfare 7, 9 (June): 175–80. Kimberley, Dennis, and William Rowe. 1991. “Mount Cashel: What Went Wrong?” The Social Worker 59, 2 (Summer): 85–90. Kitz, Janet F. 1989. Shattered City: The Halifax Explosion and the Road to Recovery. Halifax: Nimbus Publishing. Krewski, B.E. 1979. “The Alberta Department of Social Services and Community Health: A History.” Unpublished paper, March 23, Edmonton.

318

REFERENCES

Lake, Georgie. 1949. “Welfare Head Sees Need for More Men Workers.” Vancouver Sun (April 27), A4. Lappe, Eugene. 1935. “Ontario Retrenches.” Social Work Today 3, 1 (October): 9–10. Larson, Magali Sarafatti. 1977. The Rise of Professionalism: A Sociological Analysis. Berkeley: University of California Press. Lasch, Christopher (ed.). 1965. The Social Thought of Jane Addams. Indianapolis/ New York/Kansas City: Bobbs-Merrill Company. Latimer, Elspeth. 1972. “An Analysis of the Social Action Behaviour of the CASW from Its Organizational Beginning to the Modern Period.” Thesis, Faculty of Social Work, University of Toronto. ––––––––– . 1974. “Social Action in a Professional Social Work Association.” The Social Worker 42, 1 (Spring): 4–8. Lea, Nora. 1941. “During the War and After.” The Social Worker 9, 3 (March): 3. Lebel, Leon S.J. 1928. The Problem of the Large Family in Canada: Its Solution Family Allowances Montreal: 1–63. Lecomte, Roland. 1990. “Connecting Private Troubles and Public Issues in Social Work Education.” In Brian Wharf (Ed.), Social Work and Social Change in Canada, 31–51. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart. Lee, Porter. 1915. “Committee Report: The Professional Basis of Social Work.” Proceedings of the National Conference of Charities and Correction, 596–606, Baltimore. Chicago: Hildmann Printing Co. ––––––––– . 1928. “Is Social Work Inspiration Declining?” Social Welfare 11, 1 (October): 19–22. ––––––––– . 1929. “Social Work as Cause and Function.” Proceedings of 56th National Conference on Social Welfare, 3–20, San Francisco. Leonard, Peter. 1975. “Towards a Paradigm for Radical Practice.” In Roy Bailey and Mike Brake (eds.), Radical Social Work, 46–61. New York: Pantheon Books. ––––––––– . 1984. Personality and Ideology: Towards a Materialist Understanding of the Individual. London: Macmillan. ––––––––– . 1988. “Editor’s Foreword.” In Paul Joyce, Paul Corrigan, and Mike Hayes (eds.), Striking out Trade Unionism in Social Work, viii–xi. London: Macmillan Education. Levine, Gilbert. 1975. “Collective Bargaining for Social Workers in Voluntary Agencies.” Ontario Association of Professonal Social Work Journal (March): 5–6. ––––––––– . 1980. “Social Workers and Trade Unions.” Paper presented at a conference on “Perspectives on the Workplace,” sponsored by the University of Manitoba School of Social Work, Winnipeg, March 12–14. Levine, Helen. 1982. “The Personal Is Political: Feminism and the Helping Professions.” In Angela Miles and Geraldine Finn (eds.), Feminism in Canada, pp. 175–210. Montreal: Black Rose Books. Levy, Joseph. 1941. “The Role of the Trade Union in Social Work.” Social Work Today (January): 7–8. Lewey, Laurel. 2006. “Nothing to Fear But Fear: Social Work in Cold War Canada, 1945–1960.” Ph.D. thesis, University of Calgary. Lightman, Ernie. 2003. Social Policy in Canada. Don Mills: Oxford University Press. Lindeman, Eduard. 1947. “Social Case Work Matures in a Confused World.” The Compass (January): 3–9.

REFERENCES

319

Lipton, Charles. 1978. The Trade Union Movement of Canada, 1827–1959. Toronto: NC Press. Logan, Harold. 1948. Trade Unions in Canada: Their Development and Functioning. Toronto: Macmillan Company. London Edinburgh Weekend Group. 1980. In and against the State. London: Pluto Press. Longress, J. 1986. “Marxian Theory and Social Work Practice.” Catalyst: A Socialist Journal of the Social Services 5, 4: 13–34. Lowell, Phyllis. 1935. “The Montreal Conference.” Social Work Today (July): 5–9. Lundblad, Karen. 1995. “Jane Addams and Social Reform: A Role Model for the 1990s.” Social Work 40, 5 (September): 661–69. Lundy, Colleen. 1987. “The Role of Social Work in the Peace Movement.” The Social Worker/Le Travailleur 55, 2 (Summer): 61–65. ––––––––– . 2004. Social Work and Social Justice: A Structural Approach to Practice. Peterborough/New York: Orchard Park/Broadview. ––––––––– , and Larry Gauthier. 1989. “Social Work Practice and the Master–Servant Relationship.” Le Travailleur Social/The Social Worker 57, 4 (Winter): 90–94. ––––––––– , and Therese Jennissen. 2009. “Social Development and Human Rights during Economic Transition: Women in Russia and Cuba.” In Gayle Gilchrist James, Richard Ramsey, and Glenn Drover (eds.), International Social Work: Canadian Perspectives, 127–49. Toronto: Thompson Educational Publishing. ––––––––– , and Katherine van Wormer. 2007. “Social and Economic Justice, Human Rights, and Peace.” International Social Work 50, 6: 727–39. MacKenzie, Mary. 1999. “Historical Overview and Current Issues in Social Work Regulation.” In Francis J. Turner (ed.), Social Work Practice: A Canadian Perspective, 492–504. Scarborough: Prentice-Hall Allyn and Bacon. MacKinnon, Fred R. 1973. “Power and the Human Equation.” Canadian Welfare 49, 2: 5–7. ––––––––– . 2004. Reflections: 55 Years in Public Service in Nova Scotia. Blackpoint: Fernwood Publishing. Mackintosh, Margaret. 1946. “The Canadian Labour Movement: An Historical Analysis.” Canadian Welfare 22, 6 (December): 1–11. MacLean, Stahton. 1969. “The Student and the Association.” Nova Scotia Association of Social Work Newsletter iv: 1. MacLennan, Anne. 1987. “Charity and Change: Montreal English Protestant Charity Faces the Crisis of the Depression.” Urban History Review/Revue d’histoire urbaine 16, 1 (June): 1–16. The Mail Star. 1963. “Expert to Seek Solution for Africville Issue.” The Mail Star (September 13), 1. Main, William. 1953. “The Profession of Social Work and Capital Punishment –– Semi-Public Hangings.” The Social Worker 21, 3 (February): 25–27. Maines, Joy. 1935. “A Challenge to the Membership.” The Social Worker 3, 6 (March): 4. ––––––––– . 1949. “Goals in Professional Standards.” The Social Worker 18, 1 (October): 11–16. ––––––––– . 1959. “Through the Years.” The Social Worker 27, 4 (October): 3–47. ––––––––– . 1967. “The First Forty Years.” The Social Worker/Le Travailleur Social 35, 3 (September): 225–30.

320

REFERENCES

Mangold, Helen. 1940. “The Social Work Trade Unionist.” Social Work Today (December): 8–9. Marchant, Helen, and Betsy Wearing. 1986. Gender Reclaimed: Women in Social Work. Sydney: Hale and Iremonger. Marcus, Grace. 1935. “The Status of Social Case Work Today.” In Proceedings of the National Conference of Social Work, 125–40, Sixty-second annual session, Montreal, June 9–15. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Marie, Sister Thompas, CSM. 1961. “The Social Significance of the Cape Breton Mine Closures.” The Social Worker 29, 2 (April): 44–48. Marsh, Leonard. 1938. Health and Unemployment: Some Studies of Their Relationships. Published for McGill University by Oxford University Press. ––––––––– . [1943] 1975. Report on Social Security for Canada, 1943, with a New Introduction by the Author and a Preface by Michael Bliss. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. ––––––––– . 1950. Rebuilding a Neighborhood; a report on a demonstration slumclearance and urban rehabilitation project. Vancouver: UBC. Maton, Bob. 1988. “Social Work Regulation in the Canadian Provinces: Prospects and Problems.” Canadian Social Review 5 (Winter): 78–90. McArton, Dorothy. 1941. “Canada’s Unemployment Insurance Act.” The Social Worker 9, 3 (March): 4–8. McCorquodale, Shannon. 1999. “The Role of Regulators in Practice.” In Francis J. Turner (ed.), Social Work Practice: A Canadian Perspective, 462–76. Scarborough: Prentice-Hall Allyn and Bacon. McCrorie, Aaron. 1995. “PC 1003: Labour, Capital, and the State.” In Cy Gonick, Paul Phillips, and Jesse Vorst (eds.), Labour Gains, Labour Pains: 50 Years of PC 1003, 15–38. Halifax: Fernwood Publishing. McCullagh, John, Gail Aitken, and Donald Bellamy. 2000. A Legacy of Caring: A History of the Children’s Aid Society of Toronto. Toronto: Dundurn Press. The McGill News. 1921a. “The University Settlement.” The McGill News 1, 1 (December): 12–13. ––––––––– . 1921b. “The University Settlement.” The McGill News 11, 3 (June): 21–22. McGrath, W.T. 1960. “Letter to the Editor.” The Social Worker 28, 1 (January): 76. McGregor, Agnes C. 1940. “The Department of Social Science, 1914–1940.” In C.W.M. Hart (ed.), Training for Social Work in the Department of Social Science, University of Toronto 1914–1940, pp. 9–32. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. McLaren, John. 2002. “The State, Child Snatching, and the Law: The Seizure and Indoctrination of Sons of Freedom Children in British Columbia, 1950–60.” In John McLaren, Robert Menzies, and Dorothy E. Chunn (eds.), Regulating Lives: Historical Essays on the State, Society, the Individual, and the Law, 259–93. Vancouver: UBC Press. McNaught, Kenneth. 1971. A Prophet in Politics: A Biography of J.S. Woodsworth. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. McRae, Lorna. 1989. “Do You Know What Is Happening: Professionalization of Social Work and Project Legislation.” An Independent Enquiry Project, School of Social Work, Carleton University. Meinert, J.T., J.T. Pardeck, and L. Krueger. 2000. Social Work Seeking Relevancy in the Twenty-First Century. Binghamton: Haworth Press.

REFERENCES

321

Michaels, Walter Ben. 2006. The Trouble with Diversity: How We Learned to Love Identity and Ignore Equality. New York: Henry Holt and Company. Mildon, Marsha. 1990. A Wealth of Voices: A History of the Edmonton Social Planning Council, 1940–1990. Edmonton: Edmonton Social Planning Council. Mills, Robert E. 1924. “Canadian or American –– Which? Is a National Boundary Needed in Social Work?” The Survey Mid Monthly 52, 6 (June 15): 331–33. “A Model of Mandatory Regulation.” 2000. Manitoba Social Worker 32, 1 (Spring): 5–7. Moffat, Ken. 2001. A Poetics of Social Work: Personal Agency and Social Transformation in Canada, 1920–1939.Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Montreal Star. 1950a. “Training Lack Causes Worry: Services Threatened, Dr. Moore Warns Welfare Board.” Montreal Star (November 28). ––––––––– . 1950b. “Social Work Schools Want Grant Tripled: Fear Shortage of Welfare Workers.” Montreal Star (November 28). Moore, John J.O. n.d. “Education for a Caring Profession: The McGill University of Social Work 1950–1960: A Personal Encounter.” Unpublished manuscript. Moran, Bridget. 1992. A Little Rebellion. Vancouver: Arsenal Pulp Press. Moreau, Maurice. 1979. “A Structural Approach to Social Work Practice.” Canadian Journal of Social Work Education 5, 1: 78–94. ––––––––– . 1989. Empowerment through a Structural Approach to Social Work. Ottawa: Carleton University Graphic Services. Morton, Desmond. 1993. When Your Number’s Up: The Canadian Soldier in the First World War. Toronto: Random House. Moscovitch, Allan. 1988. “The Canada Assistance Plan: A Twenty-Year Assessment, 1966–1986.” In Katherine Graham (ed.), How Ottawa Spends, pp. 269–301. Ottawa: Carleton University Press. ––––––––– . 1997. “The Canada Health and Social Transfer.” In Raymond Blake, Penny F. Bryden, and J. Frank Strain (eds.), The Welfare State in Canada: Past, Present, and Future, 105–19. Concord: Irwin Publishing. ––––––––– . 2003. Seventy-Five Years of the Social Planning Council. Ottawa: Social Planning Council. ––––––––– , and Jim Albert (eds.). 1987. The Benevolent State: The Growth of Welfare in Canada. Toronto: Garamond Press. Mullaly, Robert. 1993. Structural Social Work: Ideology, Theory, and Practice. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart. Munns, Violet. 1955. “Unemployment –– Its Impact on Family Life.” The Social Worker 23, 4 (April): 3–5. Nairn, Margaret K. 1928. “Meandering on the Outskirts of the Conference.” Social Welfare 10, 8 (May): 178–79. NAPO (National Anti-poverty Organization). http://English.NAPO-ONAP.ca. Nova Scotia Association of Social Workers Newsletter. 1967. “Africville to Be Demolished.” Nova Scotia Association of Social Workers Newsletter (October). ––––––––– . 1967. “March of Concern.” Nova Scotia Association of Social Workers Newsletter (December). O’Brien, William. 1969. “The Black Man in Nova Scotia: Teach-In at St. F.X. University.” Nova Scotia Association of Social Workers Newsletter (March). O’Byrne, Father Pat. 1984. “Interview with Father Pat O’Byrne.” Oral History of Social Work Project. Karen Hill, project director. Ottawa: CASW.

322

REFERENCES

O’Connor, James. 1973. The Fiscal Crisis of the State. New York: St. Martin’s Press. Oliver, J.R. 1968. “The Way It Is: Through the Eyes of a Black Man.” Nova Scotia Association of Social Workers Newsletter (October). Ontario Association of Social Workers. 1987. OAPSW Newsmagazine (October). ––––––––– . 2006. OASW Quality of Work Life Survey, Final Report. Toronto: Ontario Association of Social Workers. ––––––––– . 1987. “A Draft Social Work Act.” OAPSW Newsmagazine 14, 1 (April). Ontario Ministry of Community and Social Services. 1989. “Regulation of Social Workers and Other Social Service Practitioners: A Consultation Paper.” Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario. Osborne, John. 1985. “The Evolution of the Canada Assistance Plan.” www.canadian socialresearch.net/capjack.htm. Ottawa Citizen. 1990. Editorial. “Social Workers: Taking the Wrong Approach.” Ottawa Citizen (March 28), A8. Pardeck, John T., and Francis K.O. Yuen. 2006. Social Work for the Twenty-First Century: Challenges and Opportunities. Westport: Praeger. Parker, Ethel. 1934. “By Way of Explanation, If Not Justification.” The Social Worker 2, 2 (February): 2–3. Pawels, Jacques. 2002. The Myth of the Good War: America in the Second World War. Toronto: James Lorimer & Co. Peaceways. 1953. 1, 1 (February). Perretz, Edgar A. 1962. “A Critical Review of Undergraduate Education for Social Work.” The Social Worker/Le Travailleur 4 (October): 5–14. Piehl, William. 1941. “The Picket Line Did It.” Social Work Today (March): 15–16. Pierson, Ruth Roach. 1986. “They’re Still Women after All”: The Second World War and Canadian Womanhood. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart. Pincus, Allan, and Anne Minahan. 1973. Social Work Practice: Model and Method. Itasca: F.E. Peacock Publishers. Polanyi, Karl. 1965. The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Times. Boston: Beacon Press. Pollitt, Gwen. 1976. “Editorial.” The Advocate 1, 1: 2. Popel, Rev. Geo. T. 1920. “Bolshevism among Slavs in Canada.” Social Welfare 2, 8 (May): 220–21. Prentice, Susan. 1995. “Workers, Mothers, Reds: Toronto’s Postwar Daycare Fight.” In Raymond Blake and Jeff Keshen (eds.), Social Welfare Policy in Canada: Historical Readings, 258. Toronto: Copp Clark. Prince, Samuel Henry. 1920. Catastrophe and Social Change. New York: Columbia University. Ralph, Diana, André Régimbald, and Nérée St-Amand (eds.). 1997. Open for Business, Closed to People. Halifax: Fernwood. Ramsey, Richard. 1997. Reconnecting with Our History: Alberta Pioneers in Social Work. VHS documentary, 60 min. Calgary: University of Calgary. Raphael, Dennis. 2007. Poverty and Policy in Canada: Implications for Health and Quality of Life. Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press. Reichwein, Baldwin. 2003a. “Founders Waste No Time.” The Advocate 28, 1 (Spring): 12. ––––––––– . 2003b. “Social Workers Influenced Treatment of Alberta’s Neglected Children –– Even in 1915.” The Advocate 28, 4 (Winter): 16.

REFERENCES

323

––––––––– . 2004a. “Lest We Forget: They Served In and Out of Uniform.” The Advocate 29, 4 (Winter): 18. ––––––––– . 2004b. “The 1920s and Those Roaring Social Workers.” The Advocate 29, 1 (Spring): 10. ––––––––– . 2004c. “The Presentness of Our Past.” The Advocate 29, 3 (Fall): 19. ––––––––– . 2005a. “1955–1980: Highs and Lows Mark Alberta’s Rapid-Growth Era.” The Advocate 30, 3 (Fall): 1–19. ––––––––– . 2005b. “Alberta’s First Quarter-Century: Snapshots from the History of Helping Others.” The Advocate 30, 1 (Spring): 22. ––––––––– . 2005c. “In Spite of Hunger and War: 1930–1955.” The Advocate 50, 2 (Summer): 20–22. ––––––––– . 2007. “The Minutes Tell Our History: ACSW Roots –– It All Began over Coffee and Cookies.” The Advocate 27, 4 (Winter): 11. Reid, Tom. 1998. “Robert S. Kenny: A Biographical Sketch.” In Sean Purdy (ed.), Radicals and Revolutionaries: The History of Canadian Communism from the Robert S. Kenny Collection, vii–xi. Toronto: University of Toronto. Reisch, Michael, and Janice Andrews. 2002. The Road Not Taken: A History of Radical Social Work in the United States. New York/London: Brunner-Routledge. Reynolds, Bertha C. [1935] 1994. “Social Case Work: What Is Its Place in the World Today”? Reprinted in Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Human Services (September): 453–59. ––––––––– . 1935. “The Status of Social Case Work Today.” In Proceedings of the National Conference of Social Work, Sixty-second annual session, 1–145, Montreal, June 9–15. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ––––––––– . 1938. “Rethinking Social Casework.” Social Work Today (May): 5–7. ––––––––– . 1940. “The Professional Worker.” Social Work Today (November): 9–11. Rice, James J., and Michael Prince. 2000. Changing Politics of Canadian Social Policy. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Richmond, Mary. 1899. Friendly Visiting among the Poor. New York: Macmillan. ––––––––– . 1908. The Good Neighbor. Philadelphia: Russell Sage Foundation. ––––––––– . 1915. The Social Case Worker in a Changing World. Proceedings of the National Conference of Charities and Correction, Baltimore. Chicago: Hildmann Printing Co. ––––––––– . 1917. Social Diagnosis. Philadelphia: Russell Sage Foundation. ––––––––– . 1922. What Is Social Casework? New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Roberts, Barbara. 1989. “Women’s Peace Activism in Canada.” In Linda Kealey and Joan Sangster (eds.), Beyond the Vote: Canadian Women and Politics. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 276–308. Robinson Bill. 2009. Canadian Military Spending 2009. Ottawa: Centre for Policy Alternatives. Robinson, Margaret. 1941. “Canadian Social Services and the War.” Social Work Today (March): 7–9. Robinson, Virginia. 1930. A Changing Psychology in Casework. Chapel Hill: University of Carolina Press. Roderick, Graeme 1990. “Glossary of Terms.” The Social Worker/Le Travailleur Social 58, 1 (Spring): 20.

324

REFERENCES

Rooke, P.T., and R.L. Schnell. 1981. “Child Welfare in English Canada, 1920–1948.” Social Service Review (September): 484–505. ––––––––– . 1983. Discarding the Asylum: From Child Rescue to the Welfare State in English Canada (1800–1950). Lanham/New York/London: University Press of America. ––––––––– . 1987. No Bleeding Heart: Charlotte Whitton: A Feminist on the Right. Vancouver: UBC Press. Roper, Elmer E. 1920. “Labour in the West.” Social Welfare 2, 11 (August 1): 307–8. Rose, Albert. 1953. “Some Major Issues in Developing a Program of Health Services for Canadians.” The Social Worker 21, 5 (July–August): 1–10. ––––––––– . 1958. “Regents Park: A Study in Slum Clearance.” Unpublished manuscript. ––––––––– . 1971. “Report of a Visit to Halifax with Particular Respect to Africville, December 6, 1963.” In D.H. Clairmont and Dennis Magill (eds.), Africville Relocation Report, A59–A67. Halifax: Institute of Public Affairs, Dalhousie University. ––––––––– . 1980. Canadian Housing Policies, 1935–1980. Toronto: Butterworths. Rossenberg, Jessica, and Samuel Rosenberg. 2006. “Do Unions Matter? An Examination of the Historical and Contemporary Role of Labor Unions in the Social Work Profession.” Social Work 15, 4 (October): 295–302. Roy, Agnes. 1954. “Code of Ethics.” The Social Worker 23, 1 (October): 4–7. Royce, Marion. 1943. “Community Welfare and the Labour Movement.” The Social Worker 2, 4 (March): 15–17. Ryant, Joseph. 1969. “The Revolutionary Potential of Social Work.” The Social Worker/Le Travailleur Social 37, 3: 151–56. ––––––––– . 1972. “Strategies for Change.” The Social Worker/Le Travailleur Social 40, 2: 169–76. Sangster, Joan. 1989. Dreams of Equality. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart. Schwartz, William. 1969. “Public Troubles and Public Issues.” In The Social Welfare Forum, 22–43. New York: Columbia University Press. Seeley, John R. 1959. “Can Social Work Be Social Action?” Canadian Welfare (March 15): 62–68. Selmi, Patrick, and Richard Hunter. 2001. “Beyond the Rank and File Movement: Mary Van Kleeck and Social Work Radicalism in the Great Depression, 1931–1942.” Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare 28, 2 (June): 75–100. Shapiro, Ben Zion. 1975. “Encountering the Politicized Client.” The Social Worker/Le Travailleur Social 43, 4 (Winter): 171–75. Shera, Wes, Graham Meredith, Marion Bogo, Lynn McDonald, and Joseph H. Michalski. 1997. The Future of Social Work Practice and Education in Canada: Preparing for the Next Millennium, 1–25. Toronto: Centre for Applied Social Research, Faculty of Social Work, University of Toronto. Shewell, Hugh. 2004. “Enough to Keep Them Alive”: Indian Welfare in Canada, 1873–1965. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Shore, Marlene. 1987. The Science of Social Redemption: McGill, the Chicago School, and the Origins for Social Research in Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Siegel, Mary. 1937. “The Negro and the Conference.” Social Work Today (June): 19–21. Silcox, Claris Edwin. 1939. “Canadian Post-Mortem on Refugees.” Social Welfare (Spring): 79–84.

REFERENCES

325

Social Welfare. 1919a. “Labour Day Sunday.” Social Welfare 1, 11, (August 1): 255–57. ––––––––– . 1919b. “Report of the Industrial Commission, Canada.” Social Welfare 1, 11 (August 1): 261–63. ––––––––– . 1920a. “A New Ally of Labour.” Social Welfare 2, 6 (March): 162. ––––––––– . 1920b. “Correspondence.” Social Welfare 2, 9 (June 1): 246–47. ––––––––– . 1922. “Family Welfare in Montreal.” Social Welfare 4, 10 (July 1): 219. ––––––––– . 1928. “Charter Members, Canadian Association of Social Workers, December 31, 1927.” Social Welfare 10, 4 (January): 91–93. ––––––––– . 1929. “Is the Social Worker Abreast of the Times?” Social Welfare 11, 4 (January): 24, 93. ––––––––– . 1936. “Canadian Christians and German Refugees: A Manifesto.” Social Welfare 18, 9 (March): 25–27. ––––––––– . 1938. “The Padlock Law and the Social Service Council of Canada.” Social Welfare 20, 9 (June): 98–100. Social Work Today. 1934. “Social Work Conferences: 1934 Style 1. Kansas City.” Social Work Today 1, 3 (July–August): 3–5. ––––––––– . 1935a. “Red Squad on Coast.” Social Work Today (April): 26. ––––––––– . 1935b. “NCC.” Social Work Today (May): 9. ––––––––– . 1935c. National Coordinating Committee. “A Letter to the Social Workers of America.” Social Work Today (July): 4. ––––––––– . 1940a. “Cooperatives.” Social Work Today (January): 17. ––––––––– . 1940b. “Industrial Unionism in a Settlement. Social Work Today (April): 27. ––––––––– . 1940c. “Trade Union Program at Grand Rapids Conference.” Social Work Today (May): 41. The Social Worker. 1932. “The Biennial Meeting.” The Social Worker 1, 1 (October): 1–2. ––––––––– . 1933a. “The Practitioner’s Movement in the AASW: What Does It Mean for Canada?” The Social Worker 1, 10 (October): 3–4. ––––––––– . 1933b. “Still Another Opinion.” The Social Worker 1, 5 (February): 3–4. ––––––––– . 1934. “Servants or Leaders?” The Social Worker 2, 5 (March): 1. ––––––––– . 1935a. “Provincial Public Welfare Canada 1934–35.” The Social Worker 3, 5 (February): 1–8. ––––––––– . 1935b. “A Radical Speaks.” The Social Worker 3, 4 (January): 5. ––––––––– . 1936a. “What Happened in Ottawa.” The Social Worker 5, 2 (November): 1–3. ––––––––– . 1936b. “The Canadian Association of Social Workers Had No Intention of Letting Professional Walls Go down in a Blare of Trumpets.” The Social Worker 4, 9 (July): 2–3. ––––––––– . 1938a. “Brief to Royal Commission, B.C. Mainland Branch.” The Social Worker 6, 7 (April–May): 6–15. ––––––––– . 1938b. “Briefs to Royal Commission on Dominion-Provincial Relations, Ontario and Quebec Branches.” The Social Worker 6, 8 (June–July): 3–32. ––––––––– . 1939a. “The Realities of Relief: A Report Submitted by the Unemployment Study Group of the Montreal Branch of the Canadian Association of Social Workers, March 1938.” The Social Worker 7, 3 (May): 5–8. ––––––––– . 1939b. “Border Conference.” The Social Worker 7, 3 (May): 16. ––––––––– . 1939c. “Delegate Conference Toronto, June 16 and 17, 1939.” The Social Worker 7, 3 (May): 20–22.

326

REFERENCES

––––––––– . 1939d. “The CASW Faces Problems of War-time.” The Social Worker 8, 1 (October): 1–8. ––––––––– . 1940. “Editorial.” The Social Worker 9, 2 (December): 2. ––––––––– . 1943a. “Appointment of Social Workers to Army Recruiting Centres.” The Social Worker 12, 1 (September): 16–17. ––––––––– . 1943b. “Agency Affiliation of CASW Members in 1928 and 1943.” The Social Worker 12, 3 (September): 20. ––––––––– . 1943c. “Social Workers –– Another Wartime Scarcity.” The Social Worker 12, 2 (November): 3–5. ––––––––– . 1944. “Family Allowances, Montreal Branch.” The Social Worker 13, 2 (November): 1–6. ––––––––– . 1945. “Summary of Dominion Proposals for Social Security.” The Social Worker 14, 2 (December): 20–22. ––––––––– . 1948a. “Personnel Problem –– Hamilton, Ontario.” The Social Worker 16, 3 (February): 16–17. ––––––––– . 1948b. “Letter to Editor.” The Social Worker 17, 1 (October): 33–35. ––––––––– . 1950. “CASW Representatives Appear before Senate and House of Commons Committee on Old Age Security.” The Social Worker 18, 5 (June): 7–16. ––––––––– . 1952. “Biennial Report of Ethics Committee.” The Social Worker 20, 5 (July): 18–23. ––––––––– . 1955. “Highlights of Toronto Meeting on Unemployment.” The Social Worker 23, 4 (April): 2–3. ––––––––– . 1956a. “Transient Services in Saskatchewan.” The Social Worker 24, 3 (February): 28–30. ––––––––– . 1956b. “The Role of Schools of Social Work in Civil Defence.” The Social Worker 24, 4 (April–May): 39. ––––––––– . 1958. “Confidentiality Report Prepared by Ethics Committee, Toronto Branch.” The Social Worker 26, 4 (June): 6–24. ––––––––– . 1969. “Editorial.” The Social Worker 37, 3: 150. Spicer, Michael J. 1986. Saskatchewan Social Work, 1945–1975: Oral History Project. Regina: Saskatchewan Association of Social Workers. Splane, Richard. 1965. Social Welfare in Ontario, 1791–1893: A Study of Public Welfare Administration. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. ––––––––– . 1996. 75 Years of Community Service to Canada: Canadian Council on Social Development, 1920–1995. Ottawa: CCSD. ––––––––– . 2003. George Davidson: Social Policy and Public Policy Exemplar. Ottawa: CCSD. Standing, Guy. 2009. Work after Globalization: Building Occupational Citizenship. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Staples, Stephen, and Bill Robinson. 2007. “More Than the Cold War: Canada’s Spending 2007–08.” Foreign Policy Series 2, 3 (October): 1–10. Stotzer, Rebecca L., and John E. Tropman. 2006. “Professionalizing Social Work at the National Level: Women Social Work Leaders, 1910–1982.” Affilia: Journal of Women and Social Work 21, 1: 9–27. Struthers, James. 1979. “Two Depressions: Bennett, Trudeau, and the Unemployed.” Journal of Canadian Studies 14, 1: 70–80.

REFERENCES

327

––––––––– . 1983. “No Fault of Their Own”: Unemployment and the Canadian Welfare State, 1914–1941. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. ––––––––– . 1987. “A Profession in Crisis: Charlotte Whitton and Canadian Social Work in English Canada in the 1930s.” In Allan Moscovitch and James Alberta (eds.), The “Benevolent” State: The Growth of Welfare in Canada, 111–25. Toronto: Garamond Press. ––––––––– . 1995. The Limits of Affluence. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Sullivan, Maura. 1993. “Social Work’s Legacy of Peace: Echoes from the Early 20th Century.” Social Work 38, 5 (September): 513–26. Sussman, Miriam. 1985. “Relief or Colonization: A Study of Colonization Attempts by the Young Men’s Hebrew Benevolent Society of Montreal (1863–1900).” Independent Enquiry Project, M.S.W., Carleton University. Svanhuit, Josie. 1945. “Taking Stock of Social Workers.” The Social Worker 14, 1 (October): 8–9. Sweet, Lois. 1985. “Protecting Us from the Helpers.” Toronto Star (June 18), A4. Taft, Jessie. 1935. Family Casework and Counseling: A Functional Approach. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Taylor, Alice. 1944. “Social Security and the Social Worker.” The Social Worker 13, 1 (August): 15–21. Taylor, Robert. 1950. “More Than Cash Needed by Aged –– Social Workers.” Toronto Daily Star (May 12). Teeple, Gary. 1995. Globalization and the Decline of Social Reform. Toronto: Garamond Press. The Telegraph Journal. 1977. “N.B.’s Last Pauper Auction.” The Telegraph Journal (February 7). Thomson, Lillian. 1961. “Editorial: We Have Idled and Argued Long Enough.” The Social Worker 29, 3 (June): 2–3. Thomson, Marjorie S. (1936). “One for All.” The Social Worker 4, 8 (May): 3–4. Thurst, Daniel. 1966. “Social Action as a Professional Responsibility.” Social Work (July): 12–21. Thyer, Bruce A., and Marilyn A. Biggerstaff. 1989. Professional Social Work Credentialing and Legal Regulation. Springfield: Charles C. Thomas Publisher. Tillotson, Shirley. 1997a. “Class and Community in Canadian Welfare Work, 1933–1960.” Journal of Canadian Studies 32, 1 (Spring): 63–89. ––––––––– . 1997b. “‘When Our Membership Awakens’: Welfare Work and Canadian Union Activism, 1950–1965.” Labour/Le Travail 40 (Fall): 137–69. Toren, Nina. 1969. “Semi-Professionalism and Social Work: A Theoretical Perspective.” In Amitai Etzioni (ed.), The Semi-Professions and Their Organization, 141–95. New York: Free Press. ––––––––– . 1972. Social Work: The Case of a Semi-Profession. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications. Toronto Daily Star. 1934. “Little Not Competent Says Parker.” Toronto Daily Star (September 14). ––––––––– . 1947a. “Dale Centre Management Gives Statement.” Toronto Daily Star (July 25), 2. ––––––––– . 1947b. “Says Big Business Ousted Dale Worker.” Toronto Daily Star (July 24), 2.

328

REFERENCES

––––––––– . 1967. “Warrendale Report ‘Political,’ John Brown Demands Apology.” Toronto Daily Star (March 27). Toronto Evening Telegram. 1940. “Social Workers Are Paid Salaries up to $6,000 Toronto Survey Shows.” Toronto Evening Telegram (May 10). Touzel, Bessie. 1944. “Two Points of View.” The Social Worker 2, 4 (March): 3–6. Trolander, Judith Ann. 1975. Settlement Houses and the Great Depression. Detroit: Wayne State University Press. Turner, Francis J. 1975. “CASW in Transition.” The Social Worker/Le Travailleur Social 43, 1 (Spring): 2–6. Turner, Frank. 1966. “Editor’s Notes: Warrendale.” The Social Worker/Le Travailleur Social 34, 4. Turner, Linda. 2005. “Social Work Practice in Canada’s Officially Bilingual Province: Challenges and Opportunities.” Canadian Social Work Review 22, 2: 131–54. Tutak, Alison. 2010. “The Profession of Social Work and the Work of Social Assistance: Partners or Parting of Ways?” M.S.W. thesis, Carleton University. Ursel, Jane. 1992. Private Lives, Public Policy: 100 Years of State Intervention in the Family. Toronto: Women’s Press. Urwick, E.J. 1936. “The Building of the Community.” Social Welfare (September): 103–7. van Kleeck, Mary. 1935. “Social Work in Economic Crisis.” In Proceedings of the National Conference of Social Work, 64–77, Sixty-second annual session, Montreal, June 9–15. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ––––––––– . 1940. Social Work Today (March): 5–8. From Sophia Smith Collection, van Kleeck fonds, Box 19. ––––––––– . 1941. “World Democracy Needs the Soviet Union.” From Sophia Smith Collection, van Kleeck fonds, Box 19. ––––––––– , Bertha Reynolds, Ralph Hetzel, and Frank C. Bancroft (eds.). 1941. Social Work, Peace, and People’s Well-Being. Special edition of Social Work Today, pamphlet no. 7. ––––––––– , and Graham Romeyn Taylor. 1922. “The Professional Organization of Social Work.” Annals of the American Academy (May): 158–68. Vlastos, Gregory. 1935. “Objectives and Responsibilities of Individual Citizenship in a Changing Order.” In Proceedings of the National Conference of Social Work, 106–22, Sixty-second annual session, Montreal, June 9–15. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Wagner, David. 1990. The Quest for a Radical Profession: Social Service Careers and Political Ideology. New York: University Press of America. ––––––––– . 2005. The Poorhouse: America’s Forgotten Institution. New York: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers. ––––––––– . 2009. “Radical Social Work as Conceit”. Journal of Progressive Human Services 20 (2): 104–6. ––––––––– , and Marcia B. Cohen. 1978. “Social Workers, Class, and Professionalism.” Catalyst: A Socialist Journal of the Social Services 1, 1: 25–55. Wallace, Elisabeth. 1940. “Social Work in War-time –– and Volunteers.” The Social Worker 9, 2 (December): 3–4.

REFERENCES

329

––––––––– . 1943. “Social Workers in the Canadian Army.” The Compass (September): 24–25. ––––––––– . [1950] 1995. “The Origin of the Welfare State in Canada 1867–1900.” In Raymond Blake and Jeff Keshen (eds.), Social Welfare Policy in Canada, 12–22. Toronto: Copp Clark. Walsh, Marian. 1990. “Regulation of Social Work Practice in Canada: Issues, Achievements, Costs, and Challenges.” The Social Work/Le Travailleur Social 58, 1: 14–16. Wark, Nell H. 1934. “Servants or Leaders.” The Social Worker 2, 5 (March): 2–3. Webber, Marlene. 1977. “Doing Casework While Rome Burns or Social Workers, Social Welfare, and the Crisis of Capitalism.” The Social Worker/Le Travailleur Social 45, 4 (Winter): 173–77. Weiss, David. 1984. “The Jewish Social Services in Quebec an Historical Survey: 1863–1984.” Intervention 69 (July): 11–16. Wenocor, Stanley, and Michael Reisch. 1983. “The Social Work Profession and the Ideology of Professionalism.” Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare 10, 4: 684–732. ––––––––– , and Michael Reisch. 1989. From Charity to Enterprise: The Development of American Social Work in a Market Economy. Chicago: University of Illinois Press. Westhues, Anne. 2001. “Reflections on the Sector Study: Process and Issues of Concern.” Prepared for the Social Work Forum, October 12–13, Montreal. Whalen, James M. 1972. “Social Welfare in New Brunswick, 1784–1900.” Acadiensis 2, 1: 54–64. Whalen, J.M., and W.A. Oppen. 1976. “Poor for Sale.” The Atlantic Advocate (September): 50–51. Wharf, Brian. 1966. “The Future Role of the Graduate Social Worker.” Canadian Welfare (July–August): 132–39. Whitaker, Reg. 1986. “Official Repression of Communism during World War II.” Labour/Le Travail 17 (Spring): 135–66. ––––––––– , and Steve Hewitt. 2003. Canada and the Cold War. Toronto: James Lorimer and Company. ––––––––– , and Gary Marcus. 1994. Cold War Canada: The Making of a National Insecurity State, 1945–1957. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Whitton, Charlotte. 1941. War and Social Services in Canada. Chicago: American Public Welfare Association. ––––––––– . 1943. The Dawn of Ampler Life. Toronto: Macmillan Company of Canada. ––––––––– . 1945. Baby Bonuses: Dollars or Sense? Toronto: Ryerson. Wigdor, Hazel. 1943. “Social Work and Trade Unions.” The Social Worker 12, 2 (November): 18–23. ––––––––– . 1986. May Day and the Marx Sisters. Toronto: Progress Books. Wilding, Paul. 1982. Professional Power and Social Welfare. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Wills, Gale. 1995. A Marriage of Convenience: Business and Social Work in Toronto 1918–1957. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. The Windsor Star. 1966. “Training Social Workers Not Easy.” The Windsor Star (November 30).

330

REFERENCES

Witz, Anne. 1992. Professions and Patriarchy. New York: Routledge. Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, Ottawa Branch. 1993. The Women’s Budget. Ottawa: Ottawa Branch, WILPF. Woodsworth, David. 1972. “Professionalism and Quebec’s Bill 250.” Canadian Welfare 48, 3 (May–June): 14–16. ––––––––– . 2000. “An Interview with David Woodsworth, Emeritus Professor of Social Work, McGill University.” Canadian Social Work 2, 2 (Fall): 146–49. Wright, Glenn. 2005. “War and Social Welfare.” In John M. Herrick and Paul H. Stewart (eds.), Encyclopedia of Social Welfare History, 420–23. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Yalnizyan, Armine. 1993. Defining Social Security, Defining Ourselves: Why We Need to Change Our Thinking before It’s Too Late. Ottawa: Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives/Social Planning Council of Metropolitan Toronto.

CHAPTER ONE

Index AAGW. See American Association of Group Workers (AAGW) AAMSW. See American Association of Medical Social Workers (AAMSW) AAPSW. See American Association of Psychiatric Social Workers (AAPSW) AASOC. See American Association of Societies for Organizing Charity (AASOC) AASSW. See American Association of Schools of Social Work (AASSW) AASW. See Alberta Association of Social Workers (AASW); American Association of Social Workers (AASW) Aboriginal peoples: access to provincial education and health and welfare, 119; access to social services available to other citizens, 138; affairs, 138, 245; affairs, improving, 245; assimilation, 97; children, 138; communities, 49; cultures, assimilation to destroy, 138; heritage, 295; self-governance of, 280; population, 49, 97, 119, 138, 139, 223, 248, 290; progressive program to improve conditions of, 97; “racial weakness,” 49 abortion: debate, 249–50; legislation, 251 Abramovitz, Mimi, 301

Acadia University, 223 ACSW. See Alberta College of Social Workers (ACSW) Act to Protect the Province against Communistic Propaganda [Quebec], 59 Addams, Jane, 7, 25, 56, 115 adoption of children, 97–99 Advisory Committee on Demobilization and Re-establishment, 85–86 Advisory Committee on Health Insurance (Heagerty Committee), 89–90 Advisory Committee on Postwar Reconstruction, 86, 91 advisory committees, 80, 95–96 AFL. See American Federation of Labor (AFL) Africville, Halifax, 255–56 AFSCME. See American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Agreement on Internal Trade (AIT), 235–36, 299 Aide, David, 35 AIT. See Agreement on Internal Trade (AIT) AJCS. See Allied Jewish Community Services (AJCS) Alberta Association of Social Workers (AASW), 196, 269, 307

332

INDEX

Alberta College of Social Workers (ACSW), 294, 299 Alcock, Stuart, 242 Alinsky, Saul, 52 Allied Jewish Community Services (AJCS), 5 alms houses, 3 American Association of Group Workers (AAGW), 184–85 American Association of Medical Social Workers (AAMSW), 184 American Association of Psychiatric Social Workers (AAPSW), 184 American Association of Schools of Social Work (AASSW), 24, 203–4, 206 American Association of Social Workers (AASW), 27–28, 30, 52, 54, 59–60, 233 American Association of Societies for Organizing Charity (AASOC), 18n8 American Federation of Labor (AFL), 153 American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees (AFSCME), 154 Ames, Herbert, 1 anti-communism. See also Jennison, Mary; RCMP “Red List”: attack by daycare opponents, 114; attacks by the state, the media, and anti-peace forces, 117; blacklisting, 111; witch hunts, 120–28. See also Red-baiting Armitage, Andrew, 215, 218 Associated Charities in Winnipeg, 10 Associated Charities of Toronto, 10 Association of Social Work Boards (ASWB), 242 Association of Social Workers in Northern Canada (ASWNC), 234–35 Association of Training Schools for Professional Social Work (ATSPSW), 24, 203 Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada (AUCC), 184, 213, 216, 218–19, 252

ASWB. See Association of Social Work Boards (ASWB) ASWNC. See Association of Social Workers in Northern Canada (ASWNC) Atlantic Charter, 79 atomic warfare, 101 ATSPSW. See Association of Training Schools for Professional Social Work (ATSPSW) AUCC. See Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada (AUCC) Axworthy, Lloyd, 279 AxworthySocial Security Review, 280 Baby Bonuses: Dollars or Sense? (Whitton), 94 Bachelor of Social Work (B.S.W.), 184, 192, 214–15, 222, 236, 276 Ban the Bomb campaign, 116–17, 127 Barnes, John, 250–51 Baron de Hirsch Institute, 5, 166 Barrett, Dave, 256 Bar Society’s Legal aid Clinic in Halifax, 249 B.C. See also British Columbia BCASW. See British Columbia Association of Social Workers (BCASW) B.C. branches (CASW), 81–82, 97, 120, 134, 143, 170, 172–73, 186, 188–89, 233–34 B.C. relief work camps (1935), 46 B.C. Committee of the CASW, 189 B.C. Employees’ Association, 171–73 B.C. social workers, 169–71, 187 Bella, Leslie, 238, 253 Bennett, W.A.C., 140, 257 Bennett Conservative government, 84 Beveridge Report (1942), 88 Bill 250, Professions Code (Code des professions), 237 Bill Respecting the Practice of Social Work (Manitoba), 236 Birmingham, Michael, 232 Black activists, 261 Black social workers, 58–59, 311

INDEX

Black United Front, 261 Blois, Ernest, 13, 29–30 BOA. See Board of Accreditation (BOA) Board of Accreditation (BOA), 276 board–staff committees, 155–56 Bourgeoys, Sister Marguerite, 4 Bowers, Rev. Swithum, 207–8 Boyd, Sophie N., 54 “Brief on Poverty,” 248–50 “Brief on Taxation,” 249 “Brief on the Young Offenders Act,” 250–51 “Brief to the Commission of Inquiry into the Non-Medical Use of Drugs” (Le Dain Commission), 249; briefs 1980–90, 280 British Columbia. See B.C. British Columbia Association of Social Workers (BCASW), 189–90, 196, 236, 257, 308 British Columbia Relief Camp Workers’ Union, 46 British Columbia’s Social Credit government, 246, 256–58 British guest children, 67 British North America Act (BNA Act), 39, 89 Brown, John, 258–59 B.S.W. See Bachelor of Social Work (B.S.W.) Bueill, J.B., 27–28 Burns, K. Phyllis, 115, 207–9 CAESS. See Canadian Association for Education in the Social Services (CAESS) Calmain, Ken, 249 Canada Assistance Plan (CAP), 248, 254, 278, 280 Canada Committee. See Committee on Canada in the War and Post War Period Canada Committee of the Montreal branch, 72 Canada Health and Social Transfer (CHST), 279

333

Canadian Association for Education in the Social Services (CAESS), 212, 218, 220, 252 Canadian Association of Child Protection Officers, 32 Canadian Association of Schools of Social Work (CASSW), 219–20, 275–76, 282–83, 294, 308 Canadian Association of Social Work Education (CASWE), 220, 223, 293, 299–300, 302 Canadian Association of Social Workers (CASW): membership of CASW: American rank-and-file relationship, 55; association, role of the, 33; benefits, low rate of, 42; biennial meeting, 60, 73, 102, 135–36, 158, 188, 233; branches, network of sixteen, 74; CASWE collaboration, 223, 299; Code of Ethics, 133–36, 274, 277; Cold War and peace activities, 128; commitment to pensions for seniors, promotion of Indian affairs, and support for the unemployed, 137; conference in 1939, 52; constitution, membership, and recruitment focus, 35; Constitution of, 30, 61; developments in, 59–61; Edinburgh Café (Montreal), meeting at, 33; emergency planning, 100; federal budget of 1995, response to, 281; fee structures of, 300; formation of, 27–29; forum on effects of war on world peace, 118; government initiatives, response to, 246–49; growth and consolidation in, 72–74; inter-branch stability, 74; internal struggles, 34; international affiliation, 299; legal right to title and domain of social work practice, 233; major crises in Canada, 198; Mont Gabriel resolution on education, 208; national office, 181, 195, 262; NCCSSW collaboration, 207, 211; new directions for, 193–97; OASW and ACSW, withdrawal of,

334

INDEX

294; organizational review of, 294; Ottawa protests, 47; peace issues, 120; policy issues, public debates on, 74; political and economic questions, 50; presidents 1926–2001, 305–6; provincial associations, 188–90, 196; provincial associations, federation of, 268; provincial autonomy, 186–88, 268, 300; provincial groups, agreements with eight, 195; reorganization, internal, 268; responses to government, critiques of, 250–62; role and function, restructuring of, 184–86, 198; sector study in 2001, 223, 282; social policy development, 80–81; social policy directives, 283; staff relations subcommittee, 156; war, stance on, 102; war efforts, 66–69. See also various CASW branches Canadian Association of Social Workers (CASW) branches: Atlantic region, 185; B.C. Association of Social Workers, 189–90; B.C. branches, 170, 172–73, 186, 188–89; B.C. Committee of the CASW, 189; B.C. Lower Mainland branch, 134; B.C. mainland branch, 81–82, 97, 120, 134, 143, 171–73, 189, 233–34; branches 1927–58, 303; eastern Ontario branch, 45, 89, 97, 157–58; Fraser Valley branch, 173; Manitoba branch, 97, 122, 134, 192, 233; Montreal chapter, 33, 233, 250; Montreal English chapter, 249; Montreal French branch, 191; Newfoundland branch, 159–60, 195; northern Alberta branch, 145; Nova Scotia (mainland) branch, 168–69; Ontario branches, 81, 96–97, 156; Ontario division engaged in social action, 192; Quebec City branch, 191; Saskatchewan branch, 233; South Saskatchewan branch, 170; Toronto branch, 33, 45, 50, 52–53, 119, 136–37, 140–42, 169, 192; Van-

couver Island branch, 173; western Canada region, 185; western Ontario branch, 233, 251 Canadian Association of Social Workers in Health Administration, 293 Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT), 275–76, 308 Canadian Chamber of Commerce, 138 Canadian Committee of Deans and Directors of Schools of Social Work (CCDDSSW), 282 Canadian Committee on Social Work Education (CCSWE), 208–9, 220 Canadian Conference on Social Work, 115 Canadian Council of Social Work Regulators (CCSWR), 300 Canadian Council on Child and Family Welfare, 27 Canadian Council on Child Welfare (CCCW), 3, 6, 32, 36 Canadian Council on Education and Personnel for the Social Services (CCEPSS), 209–11, 213, 220 Canadian Expeditionary force, 12 Canadian Journal of Social Work Education, 219 Canadian Labour Congress (CLC), 138, 158 Canadian Legion, 46 Canadian National Committee for Mental Hygiene, 32 Canadian National Conference of Social Work, 27 Canadian Network of National Associations of Regulators, 242 Canadian Peace Congress, 115–18, 126–27 Canadian Security Intelligence Services (CSIS), 127 Canadian Social Hygiene Council, 32 Canadian Welfare, 163 Canadian Welfare Council (CWC): about, 27, 70, 74, 80, 88, 140, 164, 183, 207, 213; assistance for the unemployed, 140; Burns, K. Phyllis,

INDEX

115; Canadian Council on Child and Family Welfare, 27; CASW and, 74, 80, 89, 96–97, 160, 183, 212; CCEPSS and, 210; child welfare, 98; Commission on Education and Personnel, 183, 210–13; Conference on Social Work Personnel, 164; Davidson, George, 114; health and welfare, mobilizing social agencies around, 100; Marsh Report, 87–88; memorandum for National Selective Service on supply and demand of social workers, 160; National Conference of Canadian Universities and Colleges, 207; NCCSSW and, 211; Personnel Committee of, 168; Personnel Committee of the, 168; Public Welfare Board, 47; relief payments, number of Canadians receiving, 70; Royal Commission on Dominion–Provincial Relations, 82; submission to federal government for federal assistance in social work education, 164 Canadian welfare state, 84, 103–4 CAP. See Canada Assistance Plan (CAP) capital punishment, 137, 142–43 Carleton University Social Work Student–Faculty Assembly, 219 CAS. See Children’s Aid Society (CAS) Cassidy, David, 277 Cassidy, Harry, 50, 88, 205 CASSW. See Canadian Association of Schools of Social Work (CASSW) Castonguay-Nepveu Commission. See Commission of Inquiry on Health and Social Welfare CASW. See Canadian Association of Social Workers (CASW) CASWE. See Canadian Association of Social Work Education (CASWE) Catholic Family Centre in London, 216 CAUT. See Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) CCCW. See Canadian Council on Child Welfare (CCCW)

335

CCDDSSW. See Canadian Committee of Deans and Directors of Schools of Social Work (CCDDSSW) CCEPSS. See Canadian Council on Education and Personnel for the Social Services (CCEPSS) CCF. See Cooperative Commonwealth Federation (CCF) CCSWE. See Canadian Committee on Social Work Education (CCSWE) CCSWR. See Canadian Council of Social Work Regulators (CCSWR) Central Volunteer Bureau, 120 Chapitre de Québec de l’association Canadienne des Travailleurs Sociaux, 72 charity: Jewish tradition of, 4; movement, 158; organization movement, 6, 9; organization societies, 6; organized, 15, 22; private, 42, 80; societies, 10; tradition, 17; work, 2, 162, 287; work based on Christian morality, 2; workers, 6, 10 Charity Organization Department at the Russell Sage Foundation, 23 Charity Organization of London (UK), 8–9 Charity Organization Societies (COS), 2, 6, 9–10, 15, 24–26, 41, 57 child-care centres, state-funded, 113 child protection, 2, 53 Child Protection Act (1893), 2 Child Protection Act (1906), 2 Child Protection Act of Saskatchewan (1908), 2 child-protection workers, 293 children at risk, 98 children’s aid, 48 Children’s Aid Society (CAS): children, responsibilities for, 67–68; of Colchester County, 2; of Halifax, 2; in Toronto, 2; in Truro, 2; of Vancouver, 3 children’s allowance, 86–87, 93 Children’s Protection Act (Alberta 1909), 3

336

INDEX

Children’s Protection Act, (B.C. 1901), 3 child welfare: about, 2–3, 5, 68, 98–99, 144, 293; advocates, 7; agencies, 27; in Alberta and New Brunswick, 98; in British Columbia, 256–57; CASW and, 98–99; Charlotte Whitton and, 98; movement, 2; programs, 94; Warrendale Inquiry, 258–60 Child Welfare Act (Alberta), 98 Child Welfare Branch of the Department of Public Welfare (Alberta), 99 Child Welfare Commission (Alberta), 98 Child Welfare Conference in Ottawa, 29 Child Welfare Council of Canada, 27, 53, 115 Child Welfare Council of Toronto, 94 Child Welfare in Halifax, 29 child welfare services: in Alberta, 98–99; in British Columbia, 257; in New Brunswick, 98 Choquette, Evariste, 209 Christian Brothers in St. John’s, 237 Christie, Nancy, 88 CHST. See Canada Health and Social Transfer (CHST) CIO. See Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO) civil defence: about, 11, 80, 99–104, 147; authorities in Ottawa, 100; CASW and, 100–103; planning groups, local, 100; services, 80, 104; welfare issues, 101–2; welfare services, 100, 103; welfare services letter to CASW members, 103 Civil Defence Division within the Department of National Health and Welfare, 99–100, 102 Civil Defence Welfare Services, 100 civil liberties, 56 Civil Liberties Union, 122 Civil Service Commission, 162 Clarke, G.B., 28, 50 class struggle, 55 clawbacks and cutbacks, 267, 288 CLC. See Canadian Labour Congress (CLC)

Code of Ethics (CASW), 133–36, 274, 277 Code of Personnel Practices (CASW), 171 Cohn, Mr., 190 Cold War: in 1950s, 99, 147; day care and the “anti-communist frenzy,” 115; idealism, retreat from, 222; ideology, 101, 111; left-wing critique of, by social workers, 118; Mary Jennison case, 124–28; from mid-1940s to 1991, 111; nuclear disaster, threat of, 198; onset of, 80; Peace Congress and nuclear war, 114–15; peace movement as subversive, 115; political activity, decline of, 137; repression of Canadians during, 112; social workers, vulnerability of, 128; staff of the JF&CS, 158; state repression during, 111; unions considered radical and communist-dominated, 173 Coldwell, M.J., 117 collective bargaining: agents, 154; principle of, 15; rights, denial of, 14 Collier, Ken, 299 Collins, Zelda, 33 Colton, Matthew, 301 Columbia School of Social Work, 24 Commission of Inquiry on Health and Social Welfare (Castonguay-Nepveu Commission), 237 Commission on Education and Personnel of the Canadian Welfare Council, 183, 211–13, 217 Committee for Allied Victory, 68 Committee for the United Body of Social Workers in B.C., 188–89 Committee of Compilation By-laws, 33 Committee on Canada in the War and Post War Period, 67–68 Committee on Education for Social Work, 71 Committee on Housing and Community Planning (Curtis Committee), 91–93 Committee on Licensing in British Columbia, 188

INDEX

Committee on Personnel in Social Work (CWC), 182 Committee on Poverty (CASW), 248 Committee on Public Welfare Services, Montreal, 93 Committee on Social Security and Reconstruction (Ontario), 96 Committee on Social Security for the Social Worker, 155 Committee on Training Schools (CASW), 221 Communist Party of Canada (CPC), 46, 54, 112, 116, 121, 125, 158, 272 communists, 112, 114–15, 117, 121, 123, 125–28, 157–58, 173 Community Chest and Welfare Council of Greater Toronto, 165 community chests, 66, 121, 152, 154, 169 Community Chests and Councils, 27 Companies Act (Manitoba), 192 Concordia University, 214 Conference of Charities and Corrections, 24 Conference on Personnel in Social Work, 164–66, 168 Congress of Canadian Women, 122 Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO), 153–54, 158 Conservative political strategy and ideology, 241, 268, 272, 278, 300 contract system, 4 Cooperative Commonwealth Federation (CCF), 46, 54, 79, 114–15, 117, 125, 158 Corporation of Professional Social Workers of the Province of Quebec, 191, 196–97 COS. See Charity Organization Society (COS) Council of Staff Associations, 156 Council on Social Work Education (CSWE), 24, 204, 206–7, 209, 211, 217 Councils of Social Agencies, 26, 52, 66 Coyle, Grace, 57

337

CPC. See Communist Party of Canada (CPC) Cramm, Mr., 159 CSIS. See Canadian Security Intelligence Services (CSIS) CSWE. See Council on Social Work Education (CSWE) Currie, Sir Arthur, 26, 221 Curtis, C.A., 91 Curtis Committee. See Committee on Housing and Community Planning (Curtis Committee) CWC. See Canadian Welfare Council (CWC) Dale, Professor J.A., 8, 28 Dale Community Centre in Hamilton, 120–22, 126 Dalhousie University, 223, 261, 308 Davidson, George, 86, 89, 101, 114 Davis, Mary Morrison, 69 The Dawn of Ampler Life (Whitton), 88 Dawson, C.A., 28, 221 daycare movement, 112–13 Day Nurseries and Day Care Parents Association, 114–15 Day Nurseries Committee of the Welfare Council of Toronto, 113 death penalty, 142–43 Decker, Derek, 159–60 Defence of Canada Regulations, 112, 121 degree programs in schools of social work, 215 Department of National Defence, 99, 165 Department of National Health and Welfare, 68, 99–102, 162, 164, 169, 182, 205, 207, 210, 212–13, 218 Department of Public Welfare, 99, 160 Department of Social Studies and Training, 25–26 Dependents’ Allowance Board, 68, 71, 165 Dependents’ Board of Trustees, 165 Dependents’ Trustee Fund, 71 Direct Relief Department, 70

338

INDEX

disability, 87, 96, 141 diseases, 1, 35, 48, 169 “A Do-It-Yourself Approach to Social Work Interpretation,” 163 domestic workers, 84 Dominion advisory committee on social security, 94 “Dominion Board of Employment Stabilization,” 44 Dominion Coal Company in Cape Breton, 260 Dominion Companies Act, 186 Dominion–Provincial Conference (1941), 84 Dominion–Provincial Conference on Reconstruction (1945), 91, 95–97, 139 Dominion Textile, 14 Dorset Mission (1870), 8 Douglas, T.C., 117 Doukhobors, 137, 143–44 Draft Social Work Act for Ontario, 239 Dubois, W.E.B., 7 Dumaresq, Edna, 13–14 DuMoulin, Anne, 245, 305 Dunn, Gladys, 102 “The Economic Basis of World Peace” (Kleeck), 16 economic transformation, global, 292 eight-hour-day resolution, 15 elderly, 138, 141, 245, 290 Elizabethan Poor Law, 3 emergency planning, 100, 102 Employment and Salary Survey (CASW), 251 Endicott, James, 115–17, 127 Endicott, Stephen, 117 EPF. See Established Programs Financing (EPF) equal education opportunities, lack of, 14 equalization payments, 83–84 Established Programs Financing (EPF), 278

Ethics Committee of the Toronto branch, 136–37 Ethics Committee on Confidentiality, 136 Falk, J. Howard T., 11, 26–27, 29 fallout shelters, 102 family allowances: benefit, 278–80; Gould, Margaret, 94–95; legislation, 93; system, national, 35–36, 86–87, 93–94 Family Allowances Act, 1944, 93–95, 162 “Family Allowances in Canada: Facts versus Fiction” (Gould), 94 Family Service Association, 26 Family Service Association of Toronto, 8 Family Services Association of America (FSAA), 18n8, 40 Family Welfare Association of America (FWAA), 15 Family Welfare Association of Montreal, 11 farm labourers, 84 fascism, 56–58, 118, 125 fatherless families, 66 Fecht, Joachim, 239 Federal Task Force on Housing and Urban Development, 254 Federation for Community Services, 8, 120 Federation of Catholic Charities, 8 Federation of Jewish Philanthropies (1917), 8 Federation of Women’s Institutes, 32 Financial Federation of the Montreal Council of Social Agencies, 11, 41 First Nations University of Canada, 223 Fisher, Jacob, 55–56, 58, 211 Flexner, Abraham, 22–23 flu epidemic of 1918–19, 100 food banks, 290 foreign aliens, 15 Frankfurter, Felix, 23 Fred Victor Mission, 8 Free School, 5

INDEX

French Catholic Association of Social Workers in Montreal, 73 French Catholic Professional Association, 190 French-Catholic social workers, 191 Freudian psychology, 23, 34, 230 Friendly Visiting among the Poor (Richmond), 9 FSAA. See Family Services Association of America (FSAA) Fulford, Gladys, 70 Furness, Anne, 172, 189 FWAA. See Family Welfare Association of America (FWAA) Galbraith, Douglas, 49 gays and lesbians, 112, 125 Gelber, Sylva, 249, 251–53 globalization, 278, 287, 289–90, 295 Godbout, Adélard, 83 Godfrey, Stuart, 160 The Good Neighbor (Richmond), 9 Goods and Services Tax (GST), 280 Goold, Eurith, 89 Gorrie, Kathleen, 54, 118 Gould, Margaret, 52–54, 94, 127–28 Govan, Elizabeth, 144, 170, 189, 305 Govenlock, Rev. Shaun, 140, 207–8 grants-in-aid, federal government, 96 Gray, Bob, 69 Great Depression, 21, 36, 39–40, 48, 53, 59, 65 Green Book Proposals, 95 Greenwood, Ernest, 230–31 Griffin, Lieutenant-Colonel, 164 Gripton, James, 249, 253 “Group Work and Social Change” (Coyle), 57 GST. See Goods and Services Tax (GST) Guidelines for Ethical Practice, 173 Halifax Explosion, 13 Halifax Relief Committee (HRC), 13 Halifax Welfare Bureau, 13–14

339

Hall Commission on Health Services, 247. See Royal Commission on Health Services Hamilton Community Chest, 123 Hamilton Housewives’ Association (HHA), 126 H-bomb attack, 101 Heagerty, J.J., 89 Heagerty Committee, 89–90, 96. See also Advisory Committee on Health Insurance (Heagerty Committee) “Health and Unemployment” survey, 41 Health and Welfare Canada (HWC), 68, 99 health and welfare services, 247 Health Disciplines Act, 238 Hebrew Philanthropic Society (HPS), 4 Held, Frieda, 89 Hellyer Task Force on Housing, 254 Henderson, Rose, 53–54 Hendry, Charles E., 100, 207, 209 heterosexism, 271 HHA. See Hamilton Housewives’ Association (HHA) Hollis, Ernest V., 204, 220 Hollis-Taylor Report, 204, 207 homelessness, 66, 240; in winter, 13 homes for boys and girls, 3 Hopper, R.W., 29, 31 Hospital Social Workers Association, 32 Hougham, George, 252–53 House of Commons Committee on Industrial and International Relations, 35 House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), 112. See also McCarthy era housing: concerns, 245; conditions, 1, 48–49, 254; low-rental, 91, 93, 96; urban renewal and, 254–56 HPS. See Hebrew Philanthropic Society (HPS) HRC. See Halifax Relief Committee (HRC)

340

INDEX

HRDC. See Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC) HUAC. See House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) Hughes Commission, 237 Hull House in Chicago, 7 Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC), 279, 282 human rights: about, 14–15, 245, 261, 283; declarations and conventions, international, 298; legislation, 112, 288; oriented practice, 301; social and economic justice and, 232, 297–98; social justice and, 301; social security and, 146; violations, 243, 290 HWC. See Health and Welfare Canada (HWC) IASSW. See International Association of Schools of Social Work (IASSW) IFSW. See International Federation of Social Workers (IFSW) immigrants: European, recent, 1; federal/provincial shared costs of assisting, 141; Jewish, 4; new, 15; for railway construction, 15; resettlement of, 68; social security system, gaps in, 141; treatment of recent, 137 immigration: policies, 97; practices, selective, 111 Imperial Order Daughters of the Empire (IODE), 98–99 In Critical Demand: Social Work in Canada, 282 Indian Act, 97, 138–39 Indian affairs, 137, 139, 161, 248 industrial capitalism, 1–2, 287–88 industrialization, 1, 17, 288 Interim Committee on Social Work Education in Ottawa, 208 Interim Report of the Structure Study Committee, 193 International Association of Schools of Social Work (IASSW), 211, 298–99 International Association of Training Schools, 25

International Federation of Social Workers (IFSW), 298 International Union for Child Welfare, 258 internment camps, 15 IODE. See Imperial Order Daughters of the Empire (IODE) Irvine, William, 117 “Is the Constitution of the CASW Suitable and Operable?” 61 Jackson, Dorothea M., 52 Jaffary, Stuart, 68, 86 James, Cyril, 86 Jamieson, Laura, 53–54, 113, 115 Jennison, Mary, 53–55, 59, 112, 115–28 Jewish Child Welfare Association in Toronto, 157 Jewish Family and Child Services (JF&CS), 157–58 Jewish Family Services (Toronto), 54 Jewish Family Welfare Association, 157 Jewish social agency (Montreal), 4 Jewish tradition of charity, 4 JF&CS. See Jewish Family and Child Services (JF&CS) job classification and salary programs, 167 Johnson, Reverend, 117 joint Senate–House of Commons Committee on old age security, 137–38 joint Senate–House of Commons Committee to revise the Indian Act, 138 Jones, Burley “Rocky,” 261 Juvenile Court, 26, 30 juvenile delinquency, 2, 16, 43, 48, 94, 98, 114 juvenile offenders, 2 Keenleyside, H.L., 161–62 Kelso, J.J., 2, 7 Kendelsperger, Dr., 219 Kenny, Robert, 128 Kenyon, Eva, 238–39

INDEX

Kibblewhite, Ted, 69 King, Dorothy, 221 King, W.L. Mackenzie, 7, 19n23, 46, 61, 79, 83–84, 88, 95–96 King’s County Almshouse, 4 Kirkpatrick, A.A.M., 209 Kleeck, Mary van, 16–17, 55, 57–58, 118 labour movement, 88, 118, 128, 152, 155, 158, 288, 299 Labour Progressive Party (LPP), 116, 126 La Corporation des travailleurs sociaux professionels de la province de Québec, 191 Laidlaw Foundation, 219 Laval, 72, 164, 215 Laycock, J.E., 156 Leacock, Joseph, 89 League for Social Reconstruction, 52–53, 295 Lebel, Father Léon, 35 Le Dain Commission. See “Brief to the Commission of Inquiry into the Non-Medical Use of Drugs” Lee, Porter, 34, 229 left-wing: critique of World War II, 118; groups, 53; movements, 270; political convictions, 120; press, 127; social workers, 54–55, 118, 120, 125, 127–29, 272; UOPWA, 157–58. See radical Leigh, Amy, 256 Levers, Eryl Court, 118–19 Levine, Gilbert, 118 Lewis, David, 117 A Little Rebellion (Moran), 257 LPP. See Labour Progressive Party (LPP) (LNH TQ) Lucock, Mrs. Rae, 117 MacDonald, Donald, 117 MacDonald, Ernest, 216 MacInnis, Angus, 117 Mackenzie-Papineau Battalion (Mac-Paps), 125 MacKinnon, F.R., 210

341

Maclean, M.C., 28 Mac-Paps (Mackenzie-Papineau Battalion), 125 MacPhail, Agnes, 115 Maines, Joy: alienation of western Canada, 187; Canadian Council on Education and Personnel for the Social Services (CCEPSS), 209; CASW’s unwillingness to promote collective bargaining for social workers, 154; child welfare in Alberta, 98; Dale Community Centre and Miss Jennison, 124; executive secretary 1945–64, 197; Heagerty Committee, 89; joint Senate and House of Commons Committee on old age security, 137–38; male social workers directed to government departments, 161; National Committee on Employment and Personnel Practice standards, 168; NCCSSW meeting in Toronto 1951, 207; president of CASW 1944–45, 197, 305; social workers wanted to dissociate from unions, 157; social work in civil defence, role of, 100; social work organizations in B.C., numerous, 189; strike preparation by B.C. Employees’ Association, 171–72; Stuart Godfrey’s firing for unprofessional behaviour, 160 Manitoba Association of Social Workers (MASW), 192, 196, 236, 260–61, 268, 308 Manitoba Institute of Registered Social Workers (MIRSW), 236 Mann, Helen, 209–10 “Manpower Needs in the Field of Social Welfare,” 184 Marcus, Grace, 57 Maritime School of Social Work, 72, 164, 215, 223, 308 Marsh, Leonard, 86, 221, 254 Marsh Report, 85–91, 93, 164. See also Report on Social Security for Canada (Marsh Report), 1943 Martin, Paul, 139

342

INDEX

Marxism, 270 Marxist, 7; analysis, 114, 271, 295; theory, 295, 297; tradition, 297 Master of Social Work (M.S.W.), 184, 192, 204, 214–15, 222 MASW. See Manitoba Association of Social Workers (MASW) maternity benefits, 86, 96 Mathieu, Marguerite, 220, 253 McCarthy era, 112 McFarland, Bill, 69 McGill University, 41, 86, 203, 215, 221 McLeod, Mary, 33 MCSA. See Montreal Council of Social Agencies (MCSA) membership of CASW: base and resources, 39; criteria for, 194; increase in, 242; by province, 1961, 194; Publications Committee and, 60; qualifications for, 212; voluntary, 233 Memorial University of Newfoundland (MUN), 214 mental hygiene movement, 56 Michaels, Walter, 296–97 minimum wage, 82, 87, 93; legislation, 93; regulations, 51 Ministry of Health (Ontario), 238 Mintz, Clara, 69 MIRSW. See Manitoba Institute of Registered Social Workers (MIRSW) Monroe, Isabel, 69 Montreal Charity Organization Society, 10 Montreal Council of Social Agencies (MCSA), 11, 41, 45, 92, 96 Montreal Day Nursery, 10 Montreal Diet Dispensary, 10 Montreal Family Welfare Association, 15–16 Montreal Maternity Hospital, 10 Montreal Peace Council, 127 Montreal Relief Committee, 12 Montreal Unemployment Relief Commission, 42 Moore, John, 100, 211, 222–23

Moore, T.A., 5 Moral and Social Reform Council of Canada, 5 Moran, Bridget, 246, 256–58 Morgan, John, 100, 137 Morris, Peter, 69 mothers’ allowances, 6, 35, 69, 87; commissions, 68 Mount Allison University, 223 Mount Cashel Orphanage, 237–38 “Mount Cashel: What Went Wrong?” 238 M.S.W. See Master of Social Work (M.S.W.) MUN. See Memorial University of Newfoundland municipal outdoor relief, 42 Mutual Recognition Agreement on Labour Mobility for Social Workers in Canada, 235 NAACP. See National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People (NAACP) NAFTA. See North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) NASOC. See National Association of Societies for Organizing Charity (NASOC) NASSW. See National Association of Schools of Social Work (NASSW) NASW. See National Associations of Social Workers (NASW); Newfoundland Association of Social Workers (NASW) National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People (NAACP), 7 National Association of Schools of Social Work (NASSW), 204 National Association of Societies for Organizing Charity (NASOC), 9–10 National Associations of Social Workers (NASW), 185 National Committee of Canadian Schools of Social Work (NCCSSW), 205–8, 211, 213, 217–18, 220

INDEX

National Committee on Employment and Personnel Practice (CASW), 168 National Committee on Ethics, 134–37 National Committee on Licensing, 234 National Committee on Mental Hygiene, 27, 68 National Committee on Personnel Practices, 159 National Committee on Unemployment, 44 National Conference of Canadian Universities and Colleges (NCCUC), 207, 211 National Conference of Charities and Correction (1915), 22 National Conference of Charities and Corrections (1909), 7 National Conference of Social Work, 9, 24, 27–28, 52, 55–57, 59, 207, 253; in Kansas City, 55; in Washington, 28 National Conference on Social Work Education, 207 National Coordinating Committee (CASW), 56, 153 National Council of Social Services in London, England, 68 National Council of Women (1914), 5 National Council on Social Work Education (NCSWE), 204 National Employment Service, 139 National Federation of Settlements, 7 National Health and Welfare, 207 national health insurance, 89–90 national social insurance plan, 90 national social security system, 87, 95 National Social Work Conference in 1942, 113 National Welfare Grant Directorate, 220 National Welfare Planning Committee, 67 NBASW. See New Brunswick Association of Social Workers (NBASW) NCCSSW. See National Committee of Canadian Schools of Social Work (NCCSSW) NCCUC. See National Conference of

343

Canadian Universities and Colleges (NCCUC) NCSWE. See National Council on Social Work Education (NCSWE) NDP. See New Democratic Party (NDP) NDP Federal Caucus Committee on the Status of Women, 252 Nearing, Scott, 25 “The Need for a Training School of Applied Philanthropy” (Richmond), 24 Neglected and Delinquent Children, 30–31 Neighbourhood Workers’ Association (NWA), 8, 43, 208 Neighbourhood Workers Association in Toronto, 208 neo-liberal policies, 287, 289–90 New Brunswick Association of Social Workers (NBASW), 196, 251 New Democratic Party (NDP), 79, 252, 256, 269 Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Social Workers (NLASW), xvii Newfoundland Association of Social Workers (NASW), 237, 277 New York Charity Organization Society, 24 New York School of Philanthropy, 22, 24 New York School of Social Work, 34, 229 Nielsen, Dorise, 113 Nixon, Harry, 70 NLASW. See Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Social Workers (NLASW) North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), 235, 299 Northwest Territories Board of Liquor Inquiry, 248 Nova Scotia Association of Social Workers (NSASW), 196, 249, 255–56, 260–61, 308; Legal Aid Committee, 249

344

INDEX

Nova Scotia Human Rights Conference, 261 NSASW. See Nova Scotia Association of Social Workers (NSASW) Nurses Association, 170 NWA. See Neighbourhood Workers’ Association (NWA) OAPSW. See Ontario Association of Professional Social Workers (OAPSW) OASW. See Ontario Association of Social Workers (OASW) OCCSW. See Ontario College of Certified Social Workers (OCCSW) old age: pension departments, 68; pensions, 5, 42, 69, 95, 138, 278; protection for women, 86; security, 137–38 Old Age Pension Act, federal (1927), 6 Oliver, J.R., 261 Oliver, William, 261 O’Neill, Frances, 12 Ontario Association of Professional Social Workers (OAPSW), 236, 238–39, 243, 249, 259 Ontario Association of Social Workers (OASW), 192, 196, 294, 308 Ontario Children’s Aid Societies, 182, 212 Ontario College of Certified Social Workers (OCCSW), 238 Ontario College of Social Work, 300 Ontario Health Disciplines Act, 238 Ontario Society for Crippled Children, 31 OPTSQ. See Ordre professionnel des travailleurs sociaux du Québec (OPTSQ) Ordre professionnel des travailleurs sociaux du Québec (OPTSQ), 237, 293 orphans, 2, 5, 13 Ostry, Ethel, 118 Ottawa Public Welfare Board, 47–48

“Padlock Law,” 59 Paget, A.P., 28 Palmer, Jean, 259 Parker, Ethel, 51 Parker, James, 53 Parker Inquiry, 54 Patriotic Fund, 12 pauperism, 9, 11, 95 pauper auction, 4 peace: activists, 112, 118; movement, 25, 112, 115–20, 125–26, 128, 295, 297, 301 Peaceways, 119 Peck, George H., 258 PEIASW. See Prince Edward Island Association of Social Workers (PEIASW) Pembroke, Jack, 165 PEP. See Programme Evaluation and Planning (Committee) (PEP) Personnel Committee of the Canadian Welfare Council, 168 Peterson, Sir William, 26 Philpott, Florence, 259 Pollock, John, 258 poorhouses, 3, 8, 290 Poor Law: Elizabethan, 3, 8, 40; of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, 3; tradition, 98 postwar: activity of social workers, 69–71; Canada, housing and community planning in, 91; Canada, housing policy in, 92; Canada, peace organization in, 115; daycare movement in Toronto, 112; Depression, 79; employment opportunities, 86; housing units, 91; liberal welfare state, 79; objective of high level income and full employment, 95; planning in Canada, 85; reconstruction, 79–80, 99, 115, 147; reconstruction, federal committees on, 96; reconstruction and demand for social services, 181; reconstruction plan, 89; social unrest and labour conflict, 14–16; welfare state, 151, 267

INDEX

poverty: contracting out poor to farmers and shopkeepers, 3–4; Herbert Ames’ 1897 study, 1; housing conditions, 1, 48–49, 254; Montreal Family Welfare Association, report of, 15–16; role of religion and, 4–6; Roman Catholic Church and, 4; secular responses to, 6 Prince Edward Island Association of Social Workers (PEIASW), 303 The Problem of the Large Family in Canada: Its Solution Family Allowances (Lebel), 35 “Problems of the Métis in Manitoba,” 97–98 professional: association, 230–31, 236, 242, 246, 259, 261–62; associations, 155, 170, 174, 184, 195, 214, 236, 242, 259; consolidation, 80; development, 133, 144, 155, 166; person’s relationship to CASW, 136; prestige and progressive politics and social change, 262; self-esteem, 163; status, 23, 33–36, 230, 245, 262, 291–92; trained social workers, 182, 212–13 Professional Association of Social Auxiliaries, 190 professionalization: impact of, 240–42; process, 230–32 Professions Code (Code des professions), 237 Programme Evaluation and Planning (Committee) (PEP), 185 Progressive Program (CASW), 73–74 progressive program to improve living conditions for Indians, 97 Project Legislation, 238 Protestant and non-sectarian reliefgiving organizations of Montreal, 11 Protestant social evangelism, 221 The Province, 213 provincial associations of social workers, 181, 183, 188–92, 195–96, 198 provincial autonomy, 186–97 Provincial Mental Health Services (B.C.), 171

345

public housing, 87, 254 public welfare, 40, 42; departments, 153; expenditures by governments, 81; minister of, 159–60; services, 82, 93; system, failure of, 140 Public Welfare Board, 47 Public Welfare Department, 47 Public Welfare Services of CASW Montreal branch, 93 Quebec: developments in, 190–92; discontent among CASW members in, 197 Quebec Association of Social Workers, 191 Quebec Committee for Allied Victories, 121, 125 Quebec Companies Act, 191 Quebec private charity, 42 Quebec Public Charities Act, 96 Quebec’s College of Professional Social Workers, 237, 293 Quebec’s social legislation, 187 racial discrimination, 56 racism, 58–59, 255, 261, 271, 296, 302 radical: social action force, 104; social change from within the social work profession, 128; social work activists, 129; social workers, 53–55, 241, 260, 270, 273, 291, 302 Rankin, Harry, 257 RCAP. See Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (RCAP) RCMP. See Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) RCMP “Red List,” 125–28 Red-baiting, 111, 115–16, 157–58. See also anti-communism Red Cross, 31, 68 Red Scare, 15. See also anti-communism REFUTS. See Regroupment des unités de formation univérsitaire en travail social du Québec Regent’s Park, 254 Registered Social Workers Act (B.C.), 236

346

INDEX

Regroupment des unités de formation univérsitaire en travail social du Québec (REFUTS), 282 regulatory legislation, 235–40 Reichert, Dr., 219 Reichwein, Baldwin, 69 Reid, Craig, 69 Reid, Helen R.Y., 221 Report on Social Security for Canada (Marsh Report), 1943, 85–87, 90. See also Marsh Report Report on the Industrial Commission, federal, 14 Reynolds, Bertha, 56–58, 118 Richmond, Mary, 9, 23–24, 133 Rising Cost of Living Committee, 71 Robarts, John, 259 Robinson, Margaret, 69–70 Roman Catholic Church, 4, 16, 40, 191, 221, 237 Rose, Albert, 100, 165–68, 252, 254–55 Rose, Fred, 126 Rosenthal, Henry, 128 Round Table on Recruitment (CASW), 72 Rowe, Nora, 122 Rowell-Sirois Commission. See Royal Commission on Dominion–Provincial Relations (Rowell-Sirois Commission) Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), 46, 54, 117, 120, 125–27 Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (RCAP), 280 Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, 249 Royal Commission on Dominion–Provincial Relations (Rowell-Sirois Commission), 81–84 Royal Commission on Health Services, 247–48. See Hall Commission on Health Services Royal Commission on the Status of Women, 251–53 Russell Sage Foundation (RSF), 9, 16, 23, 55

Russian Revolution, 15 Rutman, Professor Leonard, 219 Ryant, Joseph, 262 Ryerson Polytechnical Institute, 214, 216 St. Francis Xavier University, 223 St. Laurent, Louis, 140 Salzberg, Joe, 54 Sanderson, Eva, 117 Saskatchewan Association of Social Workers (SASW), 196, 326 SASW. See Saskatchewan Association of Social Workers (SASW) School of Social Service in Montreal, 208 School of Social Work, University of Toronto, 28 School of Social Work at the First Nation’s University of Canada, 223 School of Social Work in Manitoba, 164 schools of social work in Canada, 205, 215 Senate Committee on Immigration, 97 services for children, 93, 257 Service Standards Committee (CASW), 153, 161 Settlement House Movement (SHM), 2, 6–8, 23 “The Settlement’s Contribution to Community Life” (Addams), 25 settlement workers, 6–7 sexism, 252–53, 296, 302 Shand, Gwendolyn, 52 Shearer, J.G., 5, 14 SHM. See Settlement House Movement (SHM) Simpson, James, 5 Sir George Williams University, 214 Sloan, Chief Justice, 172 “Slum Clearance and Low-Cost Housing” study, 48 slum clearance project in Vancouver, 254 Smith, A.E., 14 social action: initiatives, 133, 185, 283; mandate of CASW, 144–47; organized resistance and, 50; strategies, 61

INDEX

Social Action Committee (CASW), 247, 261; of B.C. branch, 144–45 social activists, 4, 52, 59, 112, 124 social casework, 23, 55–59, 204 “Social Case Work: What Is It? What Is Its Place in the World?” (Reynolds), 58 Social Concerns Committee, 260, 262 Social Credit government, 99 social democratic movements, 53 social democratic party, 79, 288 Social Diagnosis (Richmond), 9, 23 “Social Effects of Unemployment on the Family,” 43 social gospellers, radical, 14 social group work, 204 social injustice, 261, 269, 289, 297–98, 302 social insurance, 15, 82, 86–88, 90, 93 social justice, 229, 241, 257, 260, 281, 283, 298–99, 301–2 Social Policy Committee (CASW), 247 social research, 96, 204 Social Science Study Club (Toronto), 24 social security: for Canadians, 85; system, gaps in, 141; system, national, 87, 94–95; for vulnerable populations, 141 Social Security and Reconstruction in Canada (Cassidy), 88 “Social Security for Canada,” 248 “Social Security or What?” (Kleeck), 55 Social Security Review process, 280 Social Service Council of Canada, 5, 15, 27, 32 Social Service Workers, 300 social welfare: community, 66, 92–93, 147, 250; federal government and, 281; legislation, 5; recipients of relief isolated and humiliated, 48; reform, 16; services, 11; worker programs, 181, 216; workers, 183, 187, 190, 212, 216–17, 233; workers, role for, 216; workers admitted to B.C. organization of CASW, 183 Social Welfare, 30, 229

347

Social Welfare Branch (B.C. government), 169 social work: allocation, priorities in, 72; American influence, 22–24; as born out of charity tradition, 17; in Canada, future of, 282; CASW policy injection in leadership positions, 50; contradiction in role of, 291–92; education, 216–20, 293, 300; education, barriers to, 165; education, formative years, 24–33; education, joint submission to federal government for federal assistance, 164; educators, 100; equality, social and economic justice, and social change, promoting, 295, 301; “female” profession and low salaries, 169; health care setting and loss of administrative role, 293; legal regulation of practice, 235; manpower crisis in, 182–84; in political activism, role of, 49; profession, 65–66; professional regulation for, 233; professional status, impact of pursuing, 33–36; programs at universities, 203; regulation in Ontario, 240; salaries low overall compared to other professions, 48; status of women in, 253; structural, 295, 297; “subcategories” of, 293; theory, 25, 294–95, 297; women in, discriminated against, 48; World War I, 12–14 Social Work, Peace, and the People’s Well-Being, 118 Social Work and Social Service Work Act (Ontario), 240 “Social Work and the Economic System” (Cassidy), 43 “Social Work and the Status of Women,” 251 “Social Work and the Unemployment Crisis” (Cassidy), 43 social work education: in Canada, 205–11; organizations, 220; programs, 217; US influence on, 203–4

348

INDEX

The Social Worker, 114, 123, 137, 195, 247, 291 social workers: in agencies related to the war, 65; in armed forces, 68–69; B.C., 169–71, 187; burnout, 282; client relationships, conflict over, 158; complex caseloads for, 292; discrepancies in education, salaries, benefits, and conditions of work, 151; educating and training of, 152; French, 72; French-Catholic, 191; high demand and short supply of, 160–63; hiring of qualified, in government, 82, 89; in hospitals, 293; labour shortage in, 168; left-leaning, 34, 53–55; left-wing, 54–55, 118, 120, 125, 127–29, 272; lost autonomy in many workplaces, 292; money to help finance recuperative vacations for European social workers, 68; for peace, 118–20; physicians and psychiatrists, working with, 71; political activists, 112; poor people, role in monitoring status of, 71; postwar activity, 69–71; “professional competence” of, 147; professionalizing, 21, 34; professionally trained, 182, 212–13; provincial associations of, 181, 183, 188–92, 195–96, 198; qualifications and professional development, 155; radical, 53–55, 241, 260, 270, 273, 291, 302; radical social change, 260–61; registration and licensing, 216; in relief agencies, firing of, 48; repression of, 112; retirement plan for, national, 167; right to join unions, 159, 173; salaries and working conditions, 166–71; salaries for professional, 170; shortage of, chronic, 182–84, 212; shortage of qualified, 66, 71–72, 160–63; strategies to recruit high school students to the profession, 165; strike preparation in B.C., 171–73; “subordinate

the employer’s interests to the interest of the client,” 277; training, inadequate, 163–66; unfair treatment of, in workplaces, 277; unionization of, 153; vacant positions, 163; vulnerability of, 159–60; war effort, contributions to, 66–69; wartime contributions of nine, 69; working conditions, 5, 48, 73, 152–53, 158, 168, 171–73, 282, 292 social workers’ clubs, 29 Social Workers’ Peace Association, 118–19 “Social Workers Taking the Wrong Approach,” 240 Social Work Forum (CASW), 282–83 “Social Work in the Economic Crisis” (Kleeck), 57 Social Work Today, 48, 54, 118, 154 Social Work Today Cooperatives, 54 Societies’ Act (B.C.), 190 Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA), 2 Society for the Protection of Women and Children, 2, 10 Sons of Freedom, 143 SPCA. See Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) Special Committee on Social Security, 89 Special Committee on the Relief Situation in Canada, 70 Special Committee on Unemployed Transients, 45 Special Committee on Unemployment, 41 Special Committee on War and Post War Services, 67 Special Senate Committee on Poverty, 248–49 staff associations, 151, 154–57, 166 staff associations vs. unions, 154, 170–71 standards: absence of uniformity of, 236; of academic freedom and due process, 275; of agency practice, 136; of behaviour, 31; of care for children, 98; document at CASW

INDEX

1948–50 biennial, 168; of employment, 154; of living, 56–57, 84; of membership, 194; of performance, 34, 291; of personnel practices in social service, 168; of practice, 133, 151, 158, 170, 193, 237, 290; of practice in the social work community, 67; of professional competence, 234; of professional conduct, 233; of professional works, 57; of proficiency, 99; of remuneration, 167; of service, 153, 170; of social services, 194; of social welfare, 217; of social work education and accreditation, 206; of social work practice, 152; of supervision, 168; of welfare, 96; of work, 46, 172, 174 Standing, Guy, 290 Standing Committee on Health, 280 Standing Committee on Recruiting and Training, 71 Standing Committee on Social Policy, 146 Stapleford, Frank Neil, 8 “The Status of Social Work Today” (Marcus), 57 Status of Women, 280 status of women, 251–53 Stewart, Malcolm, 239 Stockholm Appeal, 116–17 St. Patrick’s College (Ottawa), 205, 215 Structure Report Committee (CASW), 193 Struthers, James, 40 Sub-committee on Program and Priorities, 209 Survey of Social Welfare Positions in Canada, 207 Taylor, Alice L., 158, 204, 220, 233 Taylor, Lyra, 33, 51 TB. See tuberculosis Teachers’ Federation, 170–71 “Teach-In on the Black Man in Nova Scotia,” 261 Teeple, Gary, 288–89

349

Thomson, Lillian, 151, 207–8 TILMA. See Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement (TILMA) Toronto Conference on Social Welfare (1936), 50 Toronto Department of Social Services, 24–25 Toronto Progressive Women’s Association, 53 Toronto School of Social Work, 26 Toronto Social Welfare Conference, 1931, 43 Toronto Social Workers for Peace, 119 Toronto Welfare Bureau, 53 Toronto Welfare Council, 113 Touzel, Bessie, 47–48, 53–54, 86, 113, 128 Toynbee, Arnold, 7 Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement (TILMA), 299 Trades and Labour Congress (1914), 5 trade unions, 15, 58, 79, 118, 125, 156–57, 288 training programs, “emergency” shortterm, 164 transient workers, 140 The Trouble with Diversity (Michaels), 296 tuberculosis (TB), 49, 169 Tutak, Alison, 295–96 UBC. See University of British Columbia (UBC) UI. See Unemployment Insurance (UI) unemployed: about, 1, 39–40, 43–45, 54, 59; breadwinners, 140; drastic circumstances of the, 140; employables, 88, 139–41; husbands and fathers, 140; men, 42; men, single, 69–70; people, 121; persons, employable, 70; plight of the, 140; ranks of the, 125; sick and unable to work, 90; support for the, 137; transients, 45; women, 41; workers, 13, 41, 85; youth, 41

350

INDEX

Unemployed Councils, 46 unemployment: about, 1, 13–14, 17; assistance as a federal responsibility, 139; CASW response to, 44; charities, reliance on, 43; crises of 1954–55, 141; issues, 139–40; mass, 39; Montreal Unemployment Relief Commission, 42; plan to reduce, 44; Quebec private charity and, 42; relief and Ottawa protests, 47–48; relief policy, federal, 44; social workers respond to, 39–46; Special Committee on Unemployment, 41; structural nature of, 280; in Winnipeg mid-1930s, 42 Unemployment Bureau, 42 unemployment insurance, 5, 43, 68, 71, 85, 90, 280–81 Unemployment Insurance (UI), 5, 43, 50–51, 68, 71, 83 Unemployment Insurance Act, 1940, 84–85 Unemployment Insurance Commission, 87 unequal pay for equal work, 167 United Office and Professional Workers Association (UOPWA), 154 United Office and Professional Workers of America, 122, 157 United Red Feather Services, 11 Université de Sherbrooke, 214 University of British Columbia (UBC), 215, 276, 307 University of Manitoba, 72, 215, 222, 269 University of Montreal, 164, 215 University of New Brunswick, 214 University of Ottawa, 72 University of Toronto, 24–25, 27, 160, 203, 214–15, 222, 255; School of Social Work, 28, 43, 68, 100, 120, 128, 271 University of Toronto School, 25 University of Toronto’s Young Men’s Christian Association, 8 University Settlement, 8, 10

UOPWA. See United Office and Professional Workers Association (UOPWA) urbanization, 1, 17 urban renewal initiatives, 254–55 Urwick, E.J., 50 US Association of Training Schools for Professional Social Work (ATSPSW), 24, 203 US Council on Social Work Education, 209–10 US National Conference of Social Work, 9, 27 Vancouver Welfare Council, 154 veterans’ affairs, 68 Veterans’ Land Act, 161 Veterans Welfare Divisions, 71 Victoria Order of Nurses, 10, 31–32 Vince, Verna, 69 Vlastos, Gregory, 58 waged labour system, 1, 141 Wagner, David, 241 Wallace, Elisabeth, 89, 94 Walsh, Marion, 242 Wark, Nell H., 51 War Measures Act, 97, 112 Warrendale Inquiry, 246, 258–60 War Time Housing, 68 Wartime Labour Relations Regulation, 156 Wartime Prices and Trade Board, 68, 71 “The Way It Is: Through the Eyes of a Blackman” (Oliver), 261 Webber, Marlene, 129, 273–76 welfare: agencies, 114, 162, 169, 178n67, 182–83, 209, 213; boards, 154; departments, 68; institutions, plans for evacuation of, 103; people, professional, 102; programs, CASW condemned cuts to, 281; services, 141, 182–84, 211–14, 223 Welfare Federation of Montreal, 11

INDEX

Welfare Grants Program of the Department of National Health and Welfare, 210, 213 welfare state: Canadian, 84, 103; future directions of Canadian, 103; liberal, 79; postwar, 151, 267 welfare workers: about, 182–84, 194, 212–13, 217; social, 183, 187, 190, 212, 216–17, 233 Western Regional Conference of Social Work in Victoria, 168 Wharf, Brian, 248 What Is Social Case Work? (Richmond), 9 Wheeler, Michael, 249 “White Paper on Indian Policy,” 248 Whitton, Charlotte, 6, 36, 43–44, 88, 93–94, 98 Wigdor, Hazel, 114, 118, 127, 154, 157 Wilding, Paul, 241 Wilensky, Dora, 53–54, 157 WILPF. See Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF) Winnipeg and District Labour Council, 261 Winnipeg General Strike (1919), 14 Winnipeg Independent Labour Party, 35 Wisdom, Jane B., 221 women: as homemakers, 113; “should be removed from the workforce,” 114; status of, 251–53 women’s: abdication of motherhood responsibilities, 114; fundamental

351

right to employment, 113; groups, 114; inequality, 114; organizations, 125–26; peace organization, international, 115; programs, CASW condemned cuts to, 280; voluntary services, 68 Women’s Bureau in the Department of Labour, 251 Women’s Directory, 26 Women’s Division of the Department of Labour, 249 Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF), 54, 115, 129n5, 330 Women’s Temperance Union (1914), 5 Woodsworth, J.S., 10 Woodsworth, Kenneth, 122, 157 Woodworth, Jean, 118 working conditions, 5, 48, 73, 152, 158, 168, 171–73, 282, 292 World Peace Council, 116 World War I, 12–16, 65, 79 World War II, 79, 112 Would, Kathleen, 54 YMHBS. See Young Men’s Hebrew Benevolent Society (YMHBS) Young Men’s Hebrew Benevolent Society (YMHBS), 4–5 Young Women’s Hebrew Philanthropic Society, 4 Zay, Nicolas, 218