Lakhasly

The pre-industrial phase of the development of social work includes the period from the formation of Canada up to the 1890s.Evanglia, the first settlement house in Toronto, was founded in 1902 by Libby Carson and Mary Bell with the support of the Toronto YWCA.The Poor Law of 1601 and its reform in 1832 carefully distinguished two types of indoor relief: one for the elderly and sick who could receive relief in almshouses or poorhouses, and one for the able-bodied poor who were made to work for relief in workhouses, the purpose of which was to make public assistance cruel and demeaning.As its founder Canon Barnett explained, the settlement idea was simple: "to bridge the gap that industrialism had created between rich and poor, to reduce the mutual suspicion and ignorance of one class for the other, and to do something more than give charity.... They would make their settlement an outpost of education and culture" (Davis 1967, 6).Many were explicitly associated with religious organiza-tions, and it was religiously motivated individuals working through these organizations who became the early social workers.The explanation by James Leiby of the development of charitable activity in the United States provides some insight into similar development in English Canada as well: The early institutional responses to urban poverty came from people who had religious interests and motives.Carson had founded several other settlement houses, including Christadora House in New York in .1897

The pre-industrial phase of the development of social work includes the period from the formation of Canada up to the 1890s. Private charities developed during this time, offering material relief and lessons in moral ethics. Many were explicitly associated with religious organiza-tions, and it was religiously motivated individuals working through these organizations who became the early social workers. This period saw the rise of the charity movement, epitomized by the Charity Organization Society (COS; see below). The roots of casework and the notion of helping people adjust to their environment can be traced to the COS.
The response to urban poverty in Canada during this phase was the result of two types of religious motivation. The explanation by James Leiby of the development of charitable activity in the United States provides some insight into similar development in English Canada as well:
The early institutional responses to urban poverty came from people who had religious interests and motives. There were two broad types. One was native, Protestant, and missionary. It expressed a concern of pious and rather well established people for those whom they perceived as strangers and outsiders (and of course unchurched). The other type developed among the immigrant groups as forms of mutual aid and solidarity in a threatening environment (Leiby 1978, 75).
• Early Charity Organization: The Roots of Social Work In the nineteenth century, public assistance in English Canada was guided largely by the example of England. The early English legislation, the Poor Law, required local parishes to provide relief to the deserving poor (those who were elderly, ill or disabled). Parishes were administrative districts organized by the Church of England. Each had a local council that was responsible for assistance to the poor, known as poor relief.
The Poor Law of 1601 and its reform in 1832 carefully distinguished two types of indoor relief: one for the elderly and sick who could receive relief in almshouses or poorhouses, and one for the able-bodied poor who were made to work for relief in workhouses, the purpose of which was to make public assistance cruel and demeaning.
Early in the nineteenth century, "relief," where it was available, was provided primarily by private philanthropic societies founded in the territories that would become Canada. Organizations such as the Society for Improving the Condition of the Poor of St. John's (1808), the Society for Promoting Education and Industry among the Indians and Destitute Settlers in Canada (1827), the Kingston Benevolent Society (1821), the Halifax Poor Man's Friend Society and the Montreal Ladies Benevolent Society (1832) were preoccupied with the termination of begging and the value of labour. Relief, rarely given in cash, was usually in return for work. These same organizations, however, resisted the introduction of scientific methods of charity that were advocated from the 1830s
onwards (Rooke and Schnell 1983, 46-56).
Following a request for assistance, a charity visitor would be designated to visit and interview the applicant in his or her home. Their role was to promote industry, thrift and virtue among the poor. The visitors

were volunteers, generally elite men and women from the upper classes and people from the ranks of the emerging professional and business classes. Their first task was to classify the applicant as either deserving poor or undeserving poor. People designated as deserving poor were seen as being of good moral character and only temporarily out of luck due to no fault of their own. The deserving did not ask directly for help and were clean and tidy. The undeserving poor were deemed to be lazy and/or morally degenerate. Once an applicant was judged to be deserving, he or she had to appear before a committee of trustees who made the final decision to grant aid. The board granted aid in only about half of the cases determined to be circumstances of destitution. While the work required experience and skill, the early boards resisted proposals to hire full-time visitors.
The early relief provided by these volunteers in numerous charities and church parishes was soon deemed disorganized and inefficient, as there was very little regulation or co-ordination. In Toronto alone there were forty-three different charity organizations by 1894. Over time, the agencies developed their own training programs for volunteers, which, when a shift to a more scientific approach surfaced, formed the basis for the University of Toronto Socials Services Program in 1914.
Proponents of better organization of charitable assistance in England organized the London-based Charity Organization Society in 1869 to co-ordinate the efforts of the various charities. The voluntary charity work conducted under the auspices of the COS was possibly the most widespread attempt to help the poor. COS brought some order to the chaos created by the overlapping activity of 640 charitable institutions.
Workers in this organization were expected to co-operate with other charities and with the agents of the Poor Law so as to give aid to the deserving poor. The popularity of this voluntary organization partly stemmed from the relief it accorded to local taxpayers. Money could be saved if private charities used unpaid volunteers and members of religious orders (Blyth 1972, 21).
The Protestant Charity Organization Society arrived in Montreal in 1901, following a similar and earlier effort to organize in Toronto. It was primarily directed by businessmen and upper-class women who believed that poverty was the fault of the individual. The COS, which differentiated between the deserving and undeserving poor, believed that indiscriminate material relief would cause pauperism; relief could lure a person from thrift and hard work into a life of dependency and reliance on handouts. The COS tried to control relief provision and, therefore, the poor. They believed that the existence of so many charities was more likely to create poverty than eliminate it. They also believed that neighbourhood-organized charities would promote a sense of community among the poor.
The Charity Organization Society believed that the charity visitors in the homes of the poor could serve as models of the value of hard work and thrift. However, the visitors encountered many difficulties and soon sought out specific training and "scientific methods" to cope with their problems. As these visitors became more familiar with standardized

techniques, they formed the base of what came to be called social "case-work" (Copp 1974, 108-120).
The COS goals were as follows:

1. Restore people to a life of self-sufficiency, moral rectitude and Christian values. Visitors were often rigidly moralistic; the COS was notori ous for its rigid moralistic stand. Relief was a matter of Christian uplifting.


2. Restore the bonds of obligation and understanding between the classes.
   This was similar to the relationship between feudal lord and serf out of which could come a social and moral contract.


3. Organize and control charity work, aiming for efficiency and communal re-lations.
   • The Settlement House Movement
   That aspect of social work concerned with community work has its roots in the Canadian settlement house movement. The first social settlement house was established in the east end of London in 1884. It was named Toynbee Hall, after an Oxford University student who had settled in London's east end and had died a year previous. The purpose of the settlement house was to bring the youth of the educated middle class and the charitable gentry to live among the urban natives-a kind of mission to the poor. The term derived from the notion of "settling in," whereby a worker would live in the homes of the poor. As its founder Canon Barnett explained, the settlement idea was simple: "to bridge the gap that industrialism had created between rich and poor, to reduce the mutual suspicion and ignorance of one class for the other, and to do something more than give charity.... They would make their settlement an outpost of education and culture" (Davis 1967, 6).
   The settlement house workers were more inclined to engage in social reform activities than those of the COS. They tended to advocate for better working conditions, housing, health and education. Many early workers came to the settlement house movement with radical political ideas, but this radicalism faded out after World War I. It is worth noting that during this period women began to be involved more actively in work on social and political issues outside the home (Allen 1971).
   While the settlement house movement developed in this period, its influence on the development of social work continued for years to come. Jane Addams was the most prominent of Americans who transported the idea of social settlements to the United States, founding Hull House in Chicago in 1889. The young Mackenzie King, later to become prime minister of Canada, worked at Hull House in the 1890s to learn about the charitable work of Addams and others (Addams 1961, viii;
   Ferns and Ostry 1976, 37).
   The idea of the settlement house spread throughout the United States and Canada early in the twentieth century. Evanglia, the first settlement house in Toronto, was founded in 1902 by Libby Carson and Mary Bell with the support of the Toronto YWCA. Carson had founded several other settlement houses, including Christadora House in New York in
   .1897