The science of charity

At the end of the 19th century a new idea began to capture the imagination in the poorer parts of New York City. Institutions were set up to help the poor and disadvantaged, inspired by the work of English vicar Samuel Barnett and his wife Henrietta, whose East London project Toynbee Hall encouraged the nation’s future leaders to volunteer with the needy and destitute.

The New York versions were called Charity Organization Societies (COSes). They were staffed by a number of well-wishers, redoubtable types many of them, perhaps the best known of whom were Josephine Lowell and S. Humphrey Gurteen.

Lowell believed that ‘idleness’ was a major cause of poverty. She advocated giving those who requested relief a ‘labor test’, such as breaking stones or chopping wood, before they received assistance. During her life, she developed several principles to guide her work.

‘Charity must tend to develop the moral nature of those it helps’ was one such rule of thumb.

Gurteen had a kindred vision and developed Charity Organization Societies to bring together various groups already providing to the poor to work to that end. There was a central office where ‘friendly visitors’ or ‘agents’ would meet to compare notes to determine who was worthy of relief. This would result in a sort of ‘doomsday book’ of those receiving assistance.

Gurteen honestly believed that COSes would end outdoor relief, stop pauperism and reduce poverty for good. Flash forward several decades and views on this vision veer between it being eccentric, morally repugnant and vaguely ridiculous. Its protagonists conjure up comical visions of the Victorian schoolteacher with scale and callipers, checking the circumference of a potential applicants’ thigh in order to see if they are sufficiently emaciated to warrant the poorhouse’s money.

The deserving and undeserving poor idea has gone the same way, relegated to the ranks of eccentricity in social science circles; to the ranks of cant most often used to justify policy decisions based on prejudice.

Nevertheless, the ideas of Lowell and Gurteen came to be known as the scientific charity movement. Its advocates articulated their goals with admirable clarity. They would improve society by subjecting the poor to discipline and religious education.