Locating Ecosocial Work In the Archive: Hull House and the Joseph T. Bowen Country Club

Background and Purpose: A small and growing body of literature examines ecosocial work methods. At micro-mezzo levels, these approaches include nature-based interventions (NBIs), including programs, activities, or strategies that engage individuals, families, and groups with nature to improve health and well-being. At mezzo-macro levels, they emphasize community engagement, environmental justice, and sustainable development. Research shows that early settlement house workers considered the environment in their concerns with environmental determinants of health in rapidly industrializing cities, suggesting attention to early forms of ecosocial work methods. Less in known, however, about how they engaged similar methods at settlement house affiliated summer camps across the U.S. during the 20th century. Using a cultural-historical approach, this paper presents examines how Hull House workers implemented early forms of ecosocial work at the Joseph T. Bowen Country Club (B.C.C.) from 1912 to 1963.

Methods: Ecosocial work literature was reviewed to identify methods of practice. These methods were clustered into three categories, including natural environment learning, experiential and restorative outdoor activities, and social cohesion and family support. Clustering was guided by close reads of the literature and identifying similar traits among practice methods. These categories served as a priori codes for a content analysis of diverse archival materials, including camp newsletters, brochures, daily logs, program curricula, and personal letters, which documented the establishment, daily operations, and the lived experiences of B.C.C. workers and attendees. Archival documents were accessed via onsite visits to the Hull House Association Records and the Hull House Collection at the University of Illinois, Chicago, Special Collections and University Archives.

Results: While B.C.C. workers may not have used the language of contemporary ecosocial work methods, findings from the content analysis suggest an awareness of the benefits of the natural environment for camp attendees, which included urban youth and their families, and the inclusion of activities that focused on attendees’ engagement with the natural environment. Flower study, vegetable gardening, and berry picking closely aligned with contemporary ecosocial work natural environment learning methods, such as nature-based learning, horticultural programs, and environmental education. Hiking activities and youth-led camp work projects aligned closely with contemporary ecosocial work experiential and restorative outdoor methods, such as wilderness therapy, outdoor adventure experiences, and environmental rehabilitation programs. By integrating shared chores and maternal and family-centered support into the camp’s daily life, settlement workers utilized methods that align with today’s group-based NBIs to bolster the common good.

Conclusion and Implications: Findings highlight the use of activities at the Hull House affiliated B.C.C. that closely align with contemporary ecosocial work methods, decades prior to the development of a social work literature in this area of practice. Rather than being a recent development in the field, ecosocial work methods and a larger environmental justice perspective were used in the early years of the social work profession. Incorporating these findings in future ecosocial work and environmental justice research will provide a historical precedent for their contemporary use.