| Course | MSW 506 Policy I: Social Welfare and Social Policy |
|---|---|
| Week | 2 |
| Paper type | Social welfare history analysis |
| Length | About 550 words, 5 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Chamberlain University |
| Program | Master of Social Work (MSW) |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for MSW 506 Week 2
Social Welfare History Analysis: How the 1935 Social Security Act's Exclusion of Farm and Household Workers Built a Two-Tier System, Why It Happened Then and What It Left for SSI to Repair in 1972
Student Name
Chamberlain University
MSW 506: Policy I: Social Welfare and Social Policy
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Social Welfare History Analysis: How the 1935 Social Security Act's Exclusion of Farm and Household Workers Built a Two-Tier System, Why It Happened Then and What It Left for SSI to Repair in 1972
The Argument
The Social Security Act of 1935 made a structural decision that still shapes my clients' lives: it tied the strongest protection, old-age insurance, to covered employment, and it left people outside that employment to state-run assistance that tested need. The exclusion of agricultural and domestic workers decided who landed in which tier.
What Was Decided
Old-age insurance was federal, earned through payroll contributions and paid without a means test. Old-Age Assistance and Aid to the Blind were grants to states, which set eligibility and benefit levels and tested income and property. Farm laborers and household workers were left out of the insurance tier at the start.
Table 1
Three Decisions That Shaped the Two Tiers
| Year | Decision | What it built in |
|---|---|---|
| 1935 | Insurance tied to covered work; farm and household work excluded | People outside covered work rely on state means-tested aid |
| 1950 | Coverage extended to many farm and domestic workers | Insurance widened, but the assistance tier stayed state run |
| 1972 | SSI enacted, replacing state adult assistance from 1974 | A federal floor for the aged, blind and disabled, with a national asset test |
Note. Note. The timeline supports the argument; the analysis is in the paragraphs.
Why It Happened Then
Two explanations compete. DeWitt (2010), writing in the Social Security Bulletin, argues that the exclusion was chiefly administrative: collecting payroll taxes from farm and household employers was seen as impractical in 1935. Katznelson (2005) argues that Southern members of Congress, who held key committee posts, made sure that most Black workers, concentrated in those jobs, stayed outside federal programs and under local control. I do not think the two accounts cancel each other. An exclusion can be defended on administrative grounds and still be accepted because of who it leaves out.
What It Built Into the System
The decision created a lasting split between benefits that are earned and benefits that must be proven. When Congress federalized adult assistance as SSI, it kept the logic of the lower tier: income and resources are tested every month. A.M., whom I met at my placement, worked in construction but became disabled before building enough insured work history, so A.M. lives in the tier that checks a bank balance.
What It Explains Now
The two tiers explain why a retiree on Social Security can hold any amount of savings while an SSI recipient can hold $2,000. That gap is not an accident of drafting; it follows from the 1935 design.
The same split shapes how clients are treated at the counter. A retiree drawing Social Security reports nothing about a bank balance; an SSI recipient must report changes and expect redeterminations. One tier is administered as an earned right, the other as a test that must be passed again and again.
References
DeWitt, L. (2010). The decision to exclude agricultural and domestic workers from the 1935 Social Security Act. Social Security Bulletin, 70(4). https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v70n4/v70n4p49.html
Katznelson, I. (2005). When affirmative action was white: An untold history of racial inequality in twentieth-century America. W. W. Norton.
What the MSW 506 Week 2 assignment asks for
The second week usually covers the Progressive Era and the Social Security Act, sometimes with a timeline attached. Analyze a period rather than narrate it: put an argument at the top saying why something happened then and what it built into the system afterward. Focus on structural decisions rather than dates, such as which groups were covered, whether benefits were tied to work and who was excluded by a category that looked neutral. Where explanations compete, weigh them. If a timeline is required, let it support the argument rather than replace it. Consequences should reach the present, ideally a client or program you know. Cite the sources behind each explanation.
How the MSW 506 Week 2 example is put together
The argument section states that the 1935 Act tied old-age insurance to covered work and left others to state assistance that tested need, with the farm and household exclusion deciding who fell where. A section sets out the two tiers. A table lists 1935, the 1950 extension of coverage and the 1972 creation of SSI, with what each built in. The causes section sets DeWitt (2010), who finds the exclusion mostly administrative, against Katznelson (2005), who ties it to Southern committee chairs keeping Black workers outside federal programs, and concludes the two can both hold. The consequence sections show SSI kept the lower tier's monthly test and explain the gap between a retiree's savings and A.M.'s $2,000 limit.
Where the points sit in the MSW 506 Week 2 rubric
History papers in this course are graded first on whether they argue. A chronological account of the New Deal, however complete, earns limited credit. An argument about a structural decision, stated at the top, carries the largest share. Weighing competing explanations is credited because it shows the period was analyzed rather than judged. The timeline, where required, is assessed on whether it supports the argument. Faculty look for consequences that reach current practice, since that is why the history is taught. Accurate use of sources, cited in APA form, completes the core of the grade.
Common MSW 506 Week 2 mistakes, and how to avoid them
History analyses commonly list events in order and stop, which is narration rather than analysis. Another frequent gap is adopting one explanation for a decision without acknowledging that historians disagree. Some papers also attach a timeline with no paragraph explaining why its rows matter. If your section focuses on a different period or decision, such as mothers' pensions or Aid to Dependent Children, send the topic and any timeline requirement; we would state an argument, weigh the explanations, build a short timeline that supports it and carry the consequences into present programs. If your section expects a particular length, the analysis would be sized to it. If your section asks for a timeline, keep it to the rows the argument needs and explain each one in the paragraphs.
Get a MSW-506 Week 2 example written to your instructions
Send the Week 2 instructions along with the period or legislation your section named, and a custom example is written to that assignment and returned inside 24 to 48 hours. The first one is free. Which argument you want the history to carry stays entirely your decision to make.
More MSW 506 papers and MSW samples
- MSW 506 Week 1: Poor Law Feature Today Post
- MSW 506 Week 3: Policy Analysis Paper
- MSW 506 Week 4: Policy Brief
- MSW 506 Week 5: Legislative Analysis
- MSW 506 Week 6: Advocacy Letter
- MSW 506 Week 7: Policy Advocacy Plan
- MSW 506 Week 8: Policy Reform Proposal
- MSW 505 Week 2: Engagement Skills Analysis
- MSW 504 Week 2: Theory Application Paper
MSW 506 Week 2 questions, answered
What turns narration into analysis?
A claim somebody could dispute, and evidence arranged to support it. Narration says a reform passed in a given year and covered certain workers; analysis says the coverage decision was structural rather than incidental, and shows what followed. The quickest test is whether any sentence in the paper could be argued with, and if none could, the paper is a report.
How current do the consequences have to be?
Current enough that a social worker would recognize them. Tracing a decision to something still visible in eligibility rules, in who is covered by a program, or in which benefits sit with the states makes the argument land. Sections vary on how much present-day material they want, so check whether the assignment asks for one consequence or several.
Is a timeline required?
Only where your section asks for one, and where it does, it is usually graded separately. The common error is producing an accurate timeline that the paper never mentions. Refer to entries by name in the text so the two documents work together, and keep the timeline to events the argument actually uses rather than to everything in the period.
Where can I find a free MSW 506 Week 2 sample paper?
A complete MSW 506 Week 2 history analysis of the 1935 Social Security Act and its exclusion of farm and household workers is on this page.
Which explanations does the MSW 506 Week 2 sample weigh?
An administrative account of the exclusion, from DeWitt, and an account based on Southern congressional power and race, from Katznelson.