Political Sciences

Readings
From the Social Welfare: A History of American Response to Need text:
 Read Chapter 8, "Conservative Resurgence and Social Change," pages 251-
284.
From the Social Work Speaks text:
 Read "Civil Liberties and Social Justice," pages 45–50.
 Read "Social Services," pages 298–301.

The "Worthy" and "Unworthy" Poor
The recurrent push under President Reagan for distinguishing between the
worthy and the unworthy and for the voluntary and private sector to take on more
responsibility for social welfare seems to reflect a turn back to the 1800s and the
Charity Organization Societies.

1. Do you agree or disagree with this ideology? What similarities and
differences do you see between the Reagan era policies and the
Charity Organization Societies? Do you agree or disagree with their
claims of worthiness, based on NASW's Policy Statement on
Economic Justice? Explain why.
2. Respond to two at least two of your peers by commenting on their
analysis. MUST CITE

Peer1- In regards to the recurrent push under President Reagan discussed for
distinguishing between the worthy and the unworthy, I would have to disagree
with that ideology. I do not believe that it is fair or right to make a distinction
between whether or not someone is worthy or unworthy of assistance. As social
workers it is not our place to judge for why a person is poor. Reagan believed
that you were worthy if you were an orphan, windowed, elderly, and unworthy if
you were single, and not putting in the effort to look for work. What I see as
worthy might be different from the next person. I just do not agree with this
ideology. According to the NASW’s policy on Social Justice, it states that a value
of the social work profession is to seek to ensure that everyone has equal access
to resources and equal protection of laws, regardless of race, sexual orientation,
disability, or socioeconomic status (NASW, 2020). This statement alone urges
me to disagree even more with the claims of worthiness. As it states all
individuals should have equal access to services despite socioeconomic status. I
believe that by putting a person in a category of worthy or unworthy, goes against
the values outlined in the NASW.

The Charity Organization Societies are similar to the Reagan era policies in that
they focused on voluntary efforts instead of government efforts and to the states.
One of the goals of the Reagan presidential agenda was to return to the former
model of social services with charities delivering to the worthy poor by well-
meaning volunteers (Stern and Axinn, 2020).The differences between the two
were that the Reagan era focused on making tax cuts and reducing expenditures
in different programs, while charity organizations focused on decreasing poverty
in America.
References
NASW. Code of  Ethics. (2020). Retrieved From:
https://www.socialworkers.org/about/ethics/code-of-ethics/code-of-ethics-english
Stern, M.J., & Axinn, J. (2018) Social welfare: A history of the American
Response to need (9 th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson.
Peer 2- Policies enacted by the President of the United States, and federally backed by
Congress have tremendous influence to our population, particularly the marginalized and
underserved. Opportunity is available to better their lives and outcomes, as well as further
increase the gap of inequity. President Reagan backed several policies that furthered that
unfortunate gap. In a report released in November of 1969 by the Commission on Income
Maintenance Programs, a picture is clearly painted of the consequences of having a capitalist
society and an economy built in a way the United States’ is, producing this gap; “Our economic
and social structure virtually guarantees poverty for millions of Americans.
Unemployment and underemployment are basic facts of American life. The risks of
poverty are common to millions more who depend on earnings for their income” (Axinn,
2017, pp. 261). Recognizing and understanding this inevitable gap, it would be assumed, or
maybe implied, that the federal government would do all it could to reduce it. As shown in table
8.1 (Axinn, 2017, pp. 258), the amount of income held by the lowest and highest quintile grew
from 36.4% difference in 1980, to 42.5% income separation. That’s remarkable. The old adage
the rich get richer, has the opposite consequence of the poor get poorer.

President Reagan sought to release much of