Nancy Ellen Rose - Workfare or Fair Work: Women, Welfare, and Government Work Programs

massive unemployment generated by severe periodic depressions and by the seasonal nature of agricultural and construction work, which greatly increased unemployment during the winter months.

The "Deserving Poor" and the "Undeserving Poor." While the ablebodied poor received only meager and stigmatized relief, or none at all, others were considered deserving. Although they were given very little and remained in poverty, they received more relief, and in a less humiliating manner, than those believed to be undeserving. Thus a great deal of effort went into differentiating between the able-bodied ''undeserving poor," who were considered "idle and vicious," and the "deserving poor," who were seen as subjects of "misfortune, sickness, and adversity." 24 The latter category included widows, the aged, those who were infirm or sick, and children. As an influential 1821 Massachusetts report on the poor made clear, no one would hesitate to help these "impotent poor." 25

Reflecting historical racial discrimination in social welfare policy, the "deserving poor" were almost exclusively white and native-born. Recent immigrants were usually considered undeserving, as were free blacks in the North. 26 Reflecting gender discrimination, the family ethic was manifested in the classification of women. Those who abided by the family ethic and became poor "through no fault of their own"-mostly white, native-born widows-were considered deserving. On the other hand, those who did not abide by societal norms-and were abandoned or never married-were classified as undeserving.

In reality, however, the lines between the "deserving poor" and the "undeserving poor" often became blurred. Particularly problematic was illness and temporary disability among the able-bodied. A person could be considered employable and undeserving one week, and disabled and therefore unemployable and deserving the next week. Furthermore, during periods of economic expansion, when the demand for labor increased, people who had previously been considered unemployable easily became employable. This was most clearly evidenced during World War II, when large numbers of married women with children and the disabled were brought into factories to produce war materiel and consumer goods.

"Less Eligiblity." One way of keeping the able-bodied poor from receiving relief ways to implement policies that made relief less desirable than wage labor. This was most clearly articulated in England's 1834 Poor Law as the principle of "less eligibility": "The first and most essential of all conditions... is, that [the relief recipient's] situation on the whole shall not be made really or apparently so eligible [that is,

desirable] as the situation of the independent laborer of the lowest class." 27

This principle was carried out, in part, by setting relief payments below the amount that could be earned through wage labor. Clearly, this made sense from the perspective of employers-who would want to work for wages if they could do better on relief?

"Ideology of the Dole." The principle of "less eligibility" was also reflected in policies designed to degrade relief recipients. Captured in the phrase ''ideology of the dole," this involved making the poor feel so ashamed to receive relief that being on the dole became something to avoid if at all possible. Although the "deserving poor" were supposed to be distinguished from the "undeserving poor," and consequently receive better treatment, they often became targets as well. Thus, as Frances Fox Piven and Richard A. Cloward point out, the poor have been periodically subjected to "public rituals of degradation as 'paupers.'" 28 In the colonial era, relief recipients were sometimes required to wear a badge with the letter P on it, clearly identifying them as paupers. 29 In some colonies they were denied civil rights, such as the right to marry, and could be jailed, sold at auction, or indentured.30 Continuing beyond colonial times was the practice of denying paupers the right to vote or hold office. Reflecting the ongoing punitive nature of relief, this practice persisted through the 1930s in forteen states. 31

Policies designed to humiliate the poor have also included requiring them to wait in public places in order to receive relief. Soup kitchens and bread lines have historically forced the poor to stand in the street waiting for often meager servings of food. Food stamps make their users quite visible as well. Indeed, the rationale for in-kind relief reflects both public degradation and a distrust of poor people's ability to make wise choices about cash expenditures.

The Means Test. Establishing eligibility for relief, a process known as the means-test, has rarely been easy. It requires applicants, both "deserving" and "undeserving" poor, to prove that they lack sufficient income and assets. Before the 1930s applicants also had to show that their relatives could not provide for them, as the family was always the first line of defense against poverty.

Means tests have changed over time. Pauper's oaths were required in some areas from colonial times through the 1930s. As Charity Organization Societies developed in the 1870s, "friendly visitors" went to the homes of the poor to determine their worthiness for relief. By the turn of the century the scientific charity movement had evolved into social casework and the early professionalization of social work. Means tests have