Jurisdictional Boundary Disputes Between Social Workers and Religious Social Service Providers: A Case Study of the Family Service Association of America Committee On Religion and Social Work, 1920-1940

Purpose: Charitable choice policies and faith-based initiatives shaped how we think of religion and social services in the last decade. Privatization lead to an increase in religious and faith-based social service providers, necessitating a closer look at the relationship between social work and religion and begging the question, how can religious and secular social service providers best work together in the provision of social welfare? As the Obama administration recently announced a new White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships as a resource for both secular and faith-based nonprofits, it is important to understand the historical context of current attempts to collaborate across religious and secular divides.

This study takes an historical look at how social workers partnered with religious entities during the period of professionalization, specifically 1920-1940. A substantial amount has been written about social work and religion during the Progressive Era, but less is known about the formative years between WWI and WWII. As a field, social work was transitioning from a time when religion was a motivating force, to a time when it became primarily a secular and scientific endeavor. This paper asks what we can learn from these liminal years about how social workers engaged with issues of religion through the secularization and professionalization process, and how this can inform the field today.

Method: In 1921 the Family Service Association of America (FSAA), a group leading the efforts in social work professionalization, initiated a committee to address the relationship between social workers and religious service providers. This study utilizes historical analysis to present a case study of the FSAA Committee on Religion and Social Work. Content and thematic analysis was completed on documents obtained from the Social Welfare Archives. These documents include records from the FSAA collection, publications from the National Conference on Charities and Correction, and articles from The Survey and The Family.

Results: Using Abbott's (1988) theory of professionalization, this study focuses on interprofessional relationships and conflict. Results indicate that professional jurisdictional boundary negotiations between social workers and religious social service providers were informed by assumptions each group held about the other. These assumptions reflected tensions between scientific rationalism and religious emotionalism and influenced efforts to cooperate in the face of increased demand for services post-WWI. Jurisdictional boundary negotiations resulted in divisions of labor that may have influenced the trajectory of the professionalization of social work in relationship to religion.

Conclusion: This paper explores ways that the professionalization of social work changed how social workers thought about religion and what remnants of this change still impact the field today, specifically in a political context with increasing religious and faith-based social service providers. Using primary sources, this paper illuminates historical religious influences on social work in ways that add to current understandings of the role of religion in social work practice and education, and the relationship between religious and secular social service providers. This case study is illustrative of a dynamic important to consider when examining the larger relationship between religion and social work.