The dilemma in saving children from child labor: reform and casework at odds with families' needs (1900-1938).

Early in this century, reformers lobbied for regulation of child labor and compulsory school attendance. This article draws on their publications, agency case records, professional literature, and historical studies to examine the role of social workers in implementing the new reforms and the reactions of parents and children in low-income households who were affected by the legislative changes. The precarious nature of family self-sufficiency and social workers' ambivalence toward child labor led to conflict between professionals and client families. Missing at the time was professional acknowledgment of economic security for families as a fundamental necessity for children's welfare.Child saving was the broadly defined mission of many early twentieth century reformers.(1) Within their agendas, the prohibition of child labor became a prominent goal at a time when few protections existed against industry's enthusiasm for exploiting youngsters as cheap and pliable workers. The National Child Labor Committee (NCLC) organized in 1904 as the standard bearer for reform activity; social welfare leaders such as Jane Addams, Homer Folks, and Grace Abbott, as well as many lesser-known professionals, identified with its efforts [Abbott 1938a; Trattner 1970].Hundreds of NCLC publications based on field investigations and the study of legal statutes raised the consciousness of women's organizations and religious and college groups, which lobbied for labor regulation.(2) In response, the federal and state governments documented working conditions for youngsters [U.S. Bureau of Labor 1913]. As the campaign against child labor developed, reformers' arguments remained constant: children were expected to help with tasks around the home or farm, but they had the right to a creative childhood and a productive adulthood. Work in "unhealthy or hazardous conditions" at "unsuitable ages" and "unreasonable hours," that "interfered with physical development and education," not only destroyed childhood, but jeopardized youthful workers' preparation for better-paying jobs as adults [Trattner 1970: 9-10]. The resulting failure of individuals to become economically self-sufficient could undermine the whole of American democracy [Abbott 1938a; Addams 1905; Adler 1908; Devine 1909].Prominent reformers articulated these concerns, but it was anonymous caseworkers in private agencies who regularly saw firsthand the working child as part of a household. When child labor regulations were passed, some of these nascent professionals were in positions to oversee adherence to the new laws. Although children were assumed to be the beneficiaries of policy changes, many youthful laborers lived in families with grave economic needs. In these situations, the reform of child labor laws led to alarm and resentment rather than relief or celebration.The successful introduction of child labor laws has been written about as a hard-won endeavor by committed social welfare leaders [Costin 1983; Trattner 1968; Trattner 1970]. This study, however, assumes that the full history of policy reform in child welfare also must include the activities of those who implement the policy and the reactions of families whose daily lives are to change because of it. The three parties in the story told here--NCLC reformers, agency social workers, and families in low-income households--did not share the same perspective.NCLC literature advocated for children and the well-being of the nation, but gave slight acknowledgment to the needs and well-being of families as a whole. Pinched by economic need, many parents urged child employment, and youngsters undertook it to their physical detriment. Social workers and private agencies could be influential in creating or limiting job opportunities and were inconsistent in their assessment of the validity of work for youngsters. In responding to existing economic realities, both social workers and parents took practical actions that in the long term failed to support youngsters' well-being. …