The Racial Origins of Foster Home Care: Black Family Responsibility in the Early Welfare State, New York City, 1930s–1960s

IF 1.6 3区 社会学 Q2 ETHNIC STUDIES Du Bois Review-Social Science Research on Race Pub Date : 2023-01-03 DOI:10.1017/s1742058x22000248
M. Simmons
{"title":"The Racial Origins of Foster Home Care: Black Family Responsibility in the Early Welfare State, New York City, 1930s–1960s","authors":"M. Simmons","doi":"10.1017/s1742058x22000248","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Black family values and behavior have long been at the center of policy solutions to intergenerational poverty. But in the early twentieth century, the Black family took on paradoxical significance as a solution to child poverty and neglect through the foster family. This was part of a broad realignment in child protection that upheld the “Home” as the best place for children—yet the concept came to mean something different for White and Black youth. Using New York City as a case by which to study broad transformations in child protection ideology and local child welfare response, I find that in the 1930s substitute care underwent a dramatic transformation with many White children cared for in their own homes or in therapeutic institutions, while previously excluded Black youth gained disproportionate access through race-matched foster families. Though a seemingly progressive approach, I argue that the prioritization of the foster home over the biological home illuminates how the family was envisioned as a solution to poverty in the context of racial inequality. Child welfare workers imagined that patterns of placement in race-matched foster families could be manipulated to overcome segregation and exclusion from the emerging welfare state. But as more non-White children entered substitute care, the conditions of poverty and distress in segregated communities necessitated a return to congregate care for “hard-to-place” minority youth as Black families seemingly failed to take care of their own. This case is important because it highlights the way in which official foster care systems emerged not as an extension of Black kinship care strategies, but as an experimental solution to dependency and neglect that mobilized the Black family to resolve the many consequences of state abandonment.","PeriodicalId":47158,"journal":{"name":"Du Bois Review-Social Science Research on Race","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Du Bois Review-Social Science Research on Race","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s1742058x22000248","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHNIC STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Black family values and behavior have long been at the center of policy solutions to intergenerational poverty. But in the early twentieth century, the Black family took on paradoxical significance as a solution to child poverty and neglect through the foster family. This was part of a broad realignment in child protection that upheld the “Home” as the best place for children—yet the concept came to mean something different for White and Black youth. Using New York City as a case by which to study broad transformations in child protection ideology and local child welfare response, I find that in the 1930s substitute care underwent a dramatic transformation with many White children cared for in their own homes or in therapeutic institutions, while previously excluded Black youth gained disproportionate access through race-matched foster families. Though a seemingly progressive approach, I argue that the prioritization of the foster home over the biological home illuminates how the family was envisioned as a solution to poverty in the context of racial inequality. Child welfare workers imagined that patterns of placement in race-matched foster families could be manipulated to overcome segregation and exclusion from the emerging welfare state. But as more non-White children entered substitute care, the conditions of poverty and distress in segregated communities necessitated a return to congregate care for “hard-to-place” minority youth as Black families seemingly failed to take care of their own. This case is important because it highlights the way in which official foster care systems emerged not as an extension of Black kinship care strategies, but as an experimental solution to dependency and neglect that mobilized the Black family to resolve the many consequences of state abandonment.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
寄养家庭的种族起源:早期福利国家的黑人家庭责任,纽约市,20世纪30年代至60年代
长期以来,黑人家庭的价值观和行为一直是解决代际贫困问题的政策核心。但在20世纪初,作为解决儿童贫困和被忽视问题的寄养家庭,黑人家庭具有自相矛盾的意义。这是儿童保护的广泛调整的一部分,这种调整坚持“家”是孩子们最好的地方——然而,这个概念对白人和黑人青年的意义有所不同。以纽约市为例,研究儿童保护意识形态和当地儿童福利反应的广泛转变,我发现,在20世纪30年代,替代照料经历了戏剧性的转变,许多白人儿童在自己的家中或治疗机构得到照顾,而以前被排斥的黑人青年通过种族匹配的寄养家庭获得了不成比例的机会。虽然这是一种看似进步的方法,但我认为,将寄养家庭置于亲生家庭之上的做法,说明了在种族不平等的背景下,家庭是如何被设想为解决贫困的一种方式的。儿童福利工作者想象,可以操纵种族匹配的寄养家庭的安置模式,以克服新兴福利国家的隔离和排斥。但是,随着越来越多的非白人儿童进入代管机构,种族隔离社区的贫困和痛苦状况迫使黑人家庭似乎无法照顾好自己的孩子,他们不得不回归到对“难以安置”的少数族裔青少年的集中照料。这个案例很重要,因为它突出了官方寄养系统的出现方式,它不是作为黑人亲属照顾策略的延伸,而是作为一种实验性的解决依赖和忽视的方法,动员黑人家庭解决国家遗弃的许多后果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
7.70%
发文量
16
期刊最新文献
Four More Years! or So What?: The Mental Health Significance of Barack Obama’s 2012 Presidential Re-Election among Black Adults Miscegenation Madness: Interracial Intimacy and the Politics of ‘Purity’ in Twentieth-Century South Africa Principle-Policy and Principle-Personal Gaps in Americans’ Diversity Attitudes Foreshadowing Du Bois: James McCune Smith and the Shaping of Nineteenth Century Black Social Scientists Royalty, Racism, and Risk: An Analysis of Du Bois’s Thesis on Black Masculinity Among Young Black People with Diverse Sexual Identities
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1