Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The structure of public child welfare services in the United States Dunham, Lois Lucille 1964

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1964_A5 D85.pdf [ 2.96MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0104899.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0104899-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0104899-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0104899-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0104899-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0104899-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0104899-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0104899-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0104899.ris

Full Text

THE STRUCTURE OF PUBLIC CHILD WELFARE SERVICES IN THE UNITED STATES LOIS LUCILLE DUNHAM Thesis submitted i n p a r t i a l fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF SOCIAL WORK in the School of Soc i a l Work Accepted as conforming to the standard required for the degree of Master of Social Work School of Social Work 1964 THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA In presenting t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements f o r an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r reference and study. I f u r t h e r agree-that permission f o r extensive copying of t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s understood that copying or p u b l i c a t i o n of t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my w r i t t e n permission. Department of The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver 8, Canada. - i i -TABLE OP CONTENTS Page Influence of P o l i t i c a l Philosophy and Constitutional Arrangements on the Organization and Content of Public Child Welfare Services i n the U.S.A 1 The Scope of Child Welfare Services 13 Federal P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n Child Welfare Services .. . . .16 State Administration of Child Welfare Services . . . . 23 Local Patterns of Child Welfare Services 38 Implication of the 1962 Public Assistance Amendments of the Social Security Act f o r the Development of Child Welfare Services i n the ADFC Program 46 TABLES IN THE TEXT Table 1. Federal Grants-in-aid to States for Child Welfare Services: Amounts Authorized, Appropriated, and Expended by States, F i s c a l Years, 1936 to 1962 22 Table 2. D i s t r i b u t i o n of Children Served by Public and Voluntary Child Welfare Programs. March 31, 1962 34 Table 3. Children's Served by Public and Voluntary Child Welfare Programs, March 31, 1962 . . . 36 - i i i -ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS To our patient a l b e i t somewhat incredulous faculty advisor, Professor Michael Wheeler DEDICATED TO Miss Kay Josey and Mr. H.L.G. Kel l y Sine Qua Non - i v -THE STRUCTURE OP PUBLIC CHILD WELFARE SERVICES IN THE UNITED STATES INFLUENCE OF POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY AND CONSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS ON THE ORGANIZATION AND CONTENT OF PUBLIC CHILD WELFARE SERVICES IN THE U.S.A. Public administration i s an integral part of i t s p o l i t i c a l environment. It i s useful to think of the culture of capitalism as centered around two main ideas: the i n t e r -related concepts of "individualism" and "the free market". These also provide a clue to some s o c i a l problems that do not stem from i n d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n but are a product of, or are i n t e n s i f i e d by, the culture of American capitalism. Wilensky and Lebeaux"*" point out that although these ideas grip us less fi r m l y than they did i n the l a t e 19th century, they s t i l l shape the s i z e and organization of our welfare e f f o r t . Of basic importance to American capitalism i s i t s great emphasis on the r a t i o n a l , a c q u i s i t i v e , s e l f - i n t e r e s t e d i n d i v i d u a l . Individual i n i t i a t i v e - an a c q u i s i t i v e s p i r i t , highly developed, widely diffused - i s the mark of a society where labor i s a commodity, sold on a more or less competitive market. American capitalism i s distinguished by the fact that a l l labor i s formally free to compete for better jobs, better. 1 Wilensky and Lebeaux, Industrial Society and Social  Welfare. Russell Sage Foundation, New York, 1958, p. 33. - 2 -pay, f o r the best p o s s i b l e p l a c e i n the economic world. I n d i v i d u a l i s m i s both a theory of human behavior and a d o c t r i n e i n j u s t i f i c a t i o n of l a i s s e z - f a i r e . As a p o l i t i c a l d o c t r i n e which has always h e l d an u n a s s a i l a b l e p o s i t i o n w i t h the American people, i n d i v i d u a l i s m s t a t e s that the good of a l l w i l l best be served i f each i n d i v i d u a l pursues h i s s e l f -i n t e r e s t w i t h minimal i n t e r f e r e n c e from government or any other sources of power or a u t h o r i t y . For business t h i s d o c t r i n e sometimes has a. more concrete and r e s t r i c t e d meaning: i n d i v i d u a l i s m becomes freedom f o r a c q u i s i t i v e e n t e r p r i s e , un-hampered by government r e s t r i c t i o n , unchallenged by l a b o r o r g a n i z a t i o n s and l e t the d e v i l take the hindmost. I f there i s any formula summing up these b e l i e f s i t i s the one repeated i n the American home and s c h o o l : Everyone has equal o p p o r t u n i t y to get ahead; everyone has the moral duty to t r y to get ahead (make the most of h i m s e l f ) ; i f a man f a i l s i t i s h i s own f a u l t and he should f e e l g u i l t y . American experience w i t h B r i t i s h c o l o n i a l a d m i n i s t r a -t i o n was such t h a t the people reversed the model of the power-f u l c h i e f executive when they themselves came i n t o c o n t r o l a f t e r 1776. In o r g a n i z i n g t h e i r new S t a t e governments they vested preponderant power i n the l e g i s l a t i v e assembly. Aside from the hard-won exception of the presidency, i t took the n a t i o n approximately a century to overcome i t s f e a r s and s u s p i c i o n s of c e n t r a l i z e d a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a u t h o r i t y , even under popular and l e g i s l a t i v e c o n t r o l . A d m i n i s t r a t i v e - 3 -integration under a strengthened executive has been the key-to much of the recent progress made i n State Government. The pioneers had and needed a f i e r c e s p i r i t of s e l f -r eliance. As a result the ideal of limited government be-came deeply ingrained i n American p o l i t i c a l thought. This has resulted i n the twentieth century adaptation of Jefferson's preference f o r that government which governed l e a s t . Another influence has been a simple f a i t h i n direct relationships between the c i t i z e n and his public servants, coupled with a stubborn r e f u s a l to combine i n e f f i c i e n t small governmental units into larger and more resourceful ones. U n t i l near the close of the 19th century, v i r t u a l l y every important administrative o f f i c e - whether i n town, c i t y , school d i s t r i c t , county, or state - was on an elective basis. Many s t i l l are, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n the counties. Terms of o f f i c e are r e l a t i v e l y short, seldom running over two years. As for appointive positions, the presumption prevailed from the early days that there should be frequent rotation i n o f f i c e and that every newly elected o f f i c i a l had the right to dismiss incumbents inherited from his predecessor and f i l l t h e i r posts with appointees of his own choosing. Hamilton and Jeffersonian Tradition These two opposing titans of Washington's f i r s t cabinet have been a h i s t o r i c influence upon modern American administration. - 4 -Hamilton, b r i l l i a n t , l o g i c a l , conservative, believed that commercial strength constituted the only sure founda-t i o n for national welfare and favored bold use of federal authority to advance that end. Hamilton had no fear of power i n government provided that those who wielded i t could be held responsible f o r t h e i r acts. This philosophy though often challenged, has been one of the s i g n i f i c a n t factors i n American government and i s stronger today than ever before. Jefferson disagreed with Hamilton. He saw the country developing into an agrarian democracy. He saw l i t t l e need for national administration other than that required f o r the conduct of foreign r e l a t i o n s . Beneath th i s b e l i e f lay a more fundamental conviction. Jefferson held the opinion that power tends to corrupt the man i n whom i t i s vested, making imperative i t s l i m i t a t i o n to the barest minimum. His philosophy s t i l l deeply affects many who are earnestly con-cerned over "centralized control". The philosophy of government non intervention was not at great variance with the facts of American economic l i f e i n the early days of settlement. Widespread ownership of land, actual and potential, provided at l e a s t some j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r l a i s s e z - f a i r e theories. It required a long and slow development through decades stained with innumerable instances of helpless poverty and s o c i a l i n j u s t i c e , to raise p o l i t i c a l thinking above the concept of freedom from regulation of any kind to the higher standard of freedom under regulation designed to safeguard the general welfare. Our democratic philosophy of individual freedom protected property more than human right u n t i l well into the 20th century. From t h i s history of governmental regulation during the late 19th century i t i s evident that public administration was i n a sense the unwanted child of a nation bent on material gain. Gross rapacity and prodigal waste f i r s t had to demonstrate the f o l l y of assuming that competition worked l i k e an i n v i s i b l e law to insure the protection and promotion of the common good. Only then did the representative bodies again begin to emphasize the positive note i n the American philosophy of government - the idea that government exists to safeguard the general welfare. Only then did they begin to enact the statutes and create the agencies which became the stepping stones for contemporary public administration including those i n public welfare services. Morstein Marx points out "though favoring i n theory a r e s t r i c t e d scope of government, Americans have shown no less consistency i n basing t h e i r action on p r a c t i c a l con-siderations whenever these have pointed strongly i n the opposite direction."**" This i s the l i n e of argument implied i n Cleveland's famous sentence, "It i s a condition and not a theory which confronts us." In the l a s t analysis "government has to do 1 Marx, Morstein, Elements of Public Administration, Prentice H a l l Inc., Englewood C l i f f s , N.J., 1959, p. 13 - 6 -what i t has to do." One device s t i l l widely used i n state and l o c a l government i s that of placing many of f i c e s on an elective basis so that the electorate i s compelled or allowed to choose not only i t s p o l i t i c a l representatives but a consider-abel body of administrative o f f i c i a l s as well. Because of the idecology of l o c a l government the pr i n c i p l e of states' rights has been jealously guarded and upheld. This has caused considerable lag i n centralized administration of some of our most desperately needed Public Welfare Services i n the United States and has l e f t , by default of clear national policy, a large gap to be f i l l e d by the voluntary agencies. The P o l i t i c a l Setting f o r Child Welfare Administration and  Services There are differences i n the framework of p o l i t i c s and administration of a country within which any program of c h i l d welfare must operate. For example a continuity of program and personnel i s provided i n B r i t a i n by the t r a d i t i o n of the n o n p o l i t i c a l administration of public services. The B r i t i s h have insulation against d i r e c t manifestations of p o l i t i c a l power such as are i m p l i c i t i n the U.S. i n the s t i l l prevalent s p o i l s system, the common favoritism i n awarding contracts, and special consideration i n a l l o c a t i o n of govern-mental p r i v i l e g e s . This i s especially unfortunate i n the - 7 -administration of c h i l d welfare services where specialized knowledge and continuity of program are p a r t i c u l a r l y desirable. B r i t i s h departments of National government operating within a unitary system of government, exercise more control over substantive programs i n l o c a l government than do most of our federal departments or agencies over the States. In turn, American states frequently exercise l i t t l e or only nominal control over state-aided programs under l o c a l government. An i d e n t i c a l framework of p o l i t i c a l and administrative organization for the major units of l o c a l government i n B r i t a i n contrasts with the wide differences i n organization from one state to another or from one l o c a l government unit to another i n the U.S. The U.S. has a m a t e r i a l i s t i c system of p o l i t i c a l values which attaches less importance to s o c i a l service than to i n d u s t r i a l production and commercial a c t i v i t y . In the American value system we discover a basic antagonism to governmental a c t i v i t y and especially to extension of s o c i a l services. This may be one of our reasons for t r y i n g to perpetuate many of our voluntary agencies although the r e a l differences between public and private agencies are becoming increasingly d i f f i c u l t to i d e n t i f y . John Galbraith i n The Affluent Society has reminded us of one of the consequences of our mistrust of public expenditure on communal services. He points up the willingness of Americans to tolerate squalor, neglect of s o c i a l services, - a -and even scanty police protection because of th e i r obsession with the notion that governmental services are a great waste of the wealth produced by industry. He describes American attitudes: The children, though without schools, subject i n the playgrounds to the a^e c t i o n a t e interest of adults with odd tastes, and disposed to increasingly imaginative forms of delinquency, were admirably equipped with t e l e v i s i o n ^ sets.1 For the f i s c a l year 1956-57, Congress appropriated a t o t a l of $8,361,000 to be divided among the states and t e r r i t o r i e s as grants-in-aid of c h i l d welfare services. For the same year Congress appropriated $49,972,000 f o r a g r i -c u l t u r a l research, f o r plant and animal disease programs $26,294,000. In 1957 Congress refused to appropriate any funds for federal aid to education i n any form, either for school buildings or to subsidize the educational programs of the states. In other words children just barely got on the agenda. In Ohio, one of the richest and most highly i n d u s t r i a l -ized states i n the Union, not one cent i s appropriated by the state l e g i s l a t u r e to l o c a l governments for ch i l d welfare services, although a l l d i r e c t services to children must be carried by l o c a l units of government. In 1954, Ohio f a i l e d 1 G-albraith, J.K., The Affluent Society. Houghton M i f f l i n Co., Boston, 1958. to use any of the current federal grant-in-aid to the state f o r c h i l d welfare services. There Exists a Heterogeneity of Administrative Framework f o r  Child Welfare Administration i n the United States At f i r s t glance i t would seem that organization f o r c h i l d welfare services i n the U.S. i s l a r g e l y a matter of whim. There are great variations i n organization and range of r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s among the states. The functions which may be embraced by a state department of public welfare, apart from public assistance and c h i l d welfare, range a l l the way from crippled children's services to unemployment compensation and employment service i n one state - Kentucky -where the department i s called "Economic Security". Although some states require a l l counties to establish welfare departments or maintain a c h i l d welfare service program, and a few of these states allocate money to counties to subsidize part of such services, stipulations about inspec-t i o n of services are frequently forgotten and seldom accompany such grants. In other words, i n most states, l o c a l govern-ments may wallow i n as poor and backward administration of c h i l d welfare as they choose. Gladys Kammerer1 t e l l s us that only h a l f the counties i n the United States i n 1958 had the services of a professional 1 Kammerer, Gladys M., B r i t i s h and American Child Welfare  Services; A Comparative Study i n Administration, Wayne State University Press, Detroit, 1962, p. 115. - 10 -c h i l d w e l f a r e worker, and that thousands of c h i l d r e n i n need of care were unprotected by law or f i s c a l o b l i g a t i o n to secure that c a r e . The U n i t e d S t a t e s does have a f a i r l y w e l l - d e f i n e d d e l e g a t i o n of a u t h o r i t y over t e c h n i c a l matters to the p r o f e s -s i o n a l a d m i n i s t r a t o r at s t a t e l e v e l s , but l e s s c l e a r - c u t d e f i n i t i o n s o f j u r i s d i c t i o n i n l o c a l c h i l d welfare a d m i n i s t r a -t i o n . Other p o l i t i c a l f e a t u r e s i n c l u d e a r e s i s t a n c e of many l o c a l o f f i c e h o l d e r s o u t s i d e U.S. urban centers t o employment of p r o f e s s i o n a l l y q u a l i f i e d s o c i a l workers i n c h i l d welfare work and l a g g i n g development of p u b l i c r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r e i t h e r short-term or long-term t r a i n i n g programs i n c h i l d w e l f a r e work. The System of S p o i l s S u r v i v e s i n C h i l d Welfare A d m i n i s t r a t i o n  i n Many St a t e s and L o c a l U-overnment Agencies That the s p o i l s system i s s t i l l a l i v e and t h r i v i n g i n many s t a t e s i s a t r u i s m of American p o l i t i c s and a d m i n i s t r a -t i o n . R e l u c t a n t l y many s t a t e s had to accede at l e a s t i n p r i n c i p l e , i f not i n p r a c t i c e , t o the f e d e r a l requirement of merit system coverage over s t a t e c h i l d welfare p o s i t i o n s . T h i s was r e q u i r e d f o r other s o c i a l s e c u r i t y programs through the 1939 amendments t o the S o c i a l S e c u r i t y Act, but c h i l d w e l f a r e s e r v i c e s were omitted from t h i s requirement. In p r a c t i c e , t h i s i s an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e requirement l a i d down by the f e d e r a l government, and i t i s the only c o n t r o l over s t a t e - 11 -administration of c h i l d welfare services which the federal government possesses. Lack of Status for Public Child Welfare Positions i n the U.S. The low prestige value attached to state and l o c a l government employment i n most states applies, of course, to c h i l d welfare work as well as to other types of positions. Many s o c i a l workers have reported t h e i r preference for work i n the better private welfare agencies, c i t i n g as p r i n c i p a l reasons more freedom from red tape and r e s t r i c t i v e p o l i c i e s i n t h e i r work and no meddling with individual cases by board members. There i s nothing corresponding to spoils i n the private agencies and c e r t a i n l y no p o l i t i c a l campaign assess-ment on s a l a r i e s . Many public c h i l d welfare directors admit the loss of good professional s t a f f to the private agencies and c i t e d i f f i c u l t i e s i n recruitment i n competition with the private agencies. It i s safe to^say that American public c h i l d welfare administration suffers from serious disadvantages because of the h o s t i l e environment i n which much of i t must be carried on. Certain attitudes may be noted. In a booming i n d u s t r i -a l i z e d society which worships gadgetry and sees i t s standard of l i v i n g as the highest good to be achieved, i t seems almost s i n f u l to be poor. A stigma s t i l l attaches to a c l i e n t of a welfare agency. These attitudes are i n sharp contrast to - 12 -those prevalent i n B r i t a i n for the support and extension of modern s o c i a l services to mitigate i l l s beyond ind i v i d u a l control. It i s d i f f i c u l t to attract the best trained profes-sional s t a f f into American public c h i l d welfare agencies i n view of the pre v a i l i n g climate of American opinion regarding public s o c i a l services. Purposive, i n t e l l i g e n t planning by public c h i l d welfare to meet the problems created by increas-ingly rapid i n d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n and urbanization i s d i f f i c u l t when funds are a r b i t r a r i l y l i m i t e d . This i n turn makes the r o l e of the voluntary agencies more confused and throws a heavier f i n a n c i a l s t r a i n upon them than they can meet. The B r i t i s h can say with truth that every c h i l d i n need of care anywhere i n the United Kingdom w i l l receive services of reasonably good quality. They have quietly wrought a revolution i n the l a s t eight years. No American can say t h i s about the United States as a whole. Both countries share a common commitment among profes-sional authorities to the kinds of treatment service needed. The values are v i r t u a l l y i d e n t i c a l . Only the conventional wisdoms are not. THE SCOPE OF CHILD WELFARE SERVICES Child Welfare Services have been defined as those s o c i a l services that supplement, or substitute f o r , parental care and supervision f o r the purposes of: protecting and promoting the welfare of children and youth; preventing neglect, abuse and exploitation; helping overcome problems that result i n dependency, neglect or delinquency; and, when needed, providing adequate care for children and youth away from th e i r own homes, such care to be given i n foster family homes, adoptive homes, child-caring i n s t i t u t i o n s or other f a c i l i t i e s . 1 S o c i a l services t y p i c a l l y provided within the c h i l d welfare f i e l d have been c l a s s i f i e d i n a recent publication as follows: Casework services i n behalf of children i n t h e i r own homes. Protective services, provided on the i n i t i a t i v e of community agencies - to protect children from conditions seriously detrimental to t h e i r welfare. Services to unmarried parents. Services designed to supplement the care which the c h i l d receives from parents or to compensate f o r certain inadequacies i n such care, such as: Homemaker services 1 Report of the Advisory Council on Child Welfare Services, 86th Congress, 2nd Session, Document No. 92, p. 3» - 14 -Day care services Services designed to substitute f o r parental care, either p a r t i a l l y or wholly, according to the child's i n d i v i d u a l needs and problems, such as: Poster family care services Group care services: emergency, shelter and detention care children's i n s t i t u t i o n s r e s i d e n t i a l treatment services for emotionally disturbed children t r a i n i n g schools and other group f a c i l i t i e s f o r delinquent children i n s t i t u t i o n s for physically handicapped children i n s t i t u t i o n s for mentally retarded children Adoption services. ^-An understanding of the essential tasks and goals of a c h i l d welfare agency helps to d i f f e r e n t i a t e i t from other modern welfare functions. Child welfare agencies may be distinguished from the public assistance grant system of monetary allowances to dependent families with children. Public Assistance allowances are known as ADPC, or aid to dependent children. Distinguishing a ch i l d welfare program from an ADPC program i s based not merely upon a separation of the two i n the Social Security Act i n the U.S.A. but also upon a discrete set of purposes f o r the two programs. The commission for intergovernmental relations recognized the divergent purposes of these two programs and described ADFC payments as p r i n c i p a l l y devised for f i n a n c i a l support where-as the c h i l d welfare programs are designed to perform 1 Child Welfare as a F i e l d of Social Work Practice, Child Welfare league of America, 1959, p..7. services. It remains to be seen how much the 1962 amendments w i l l change t h i s t r a d i t i o n a l d i s t i n c t i o n . A further d i s t i n c t i o n must be pointed out between a c h i l d welfare program geared to s o c i a l work services and a maternal and c h i l d health program embracing medical services. Both types of grants-in-aid i n this country are administered by the Children's Bureau but t h e i r execution i s i n two entire-l y d i f f e r e n t sets of agencies i n the states because of the differences i n nature of professional s k i l l s and services. 1 Kammerer, B r i t i s h and American Child Welfare services, p. 18. FEDERAL PARTICIPATION IN CHILD WELFARE SERVICES The agency charged by law with r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for administering federal a c t i v i t i e s i n the child welfare f i e l d i s the Children's Bureau located i n the Department of Health, Education and Welfare. The Bureau was established i n 1912 to perform an investigatory and reporting function. It was established as a research not an action agency. As i t s name implies, the Children's bureau was created for the purpose of gathering information and prepar-ing reports, nationwide i n scope, on problems of ch i l d care and c h i l d welfare. The Social Security Act of 1935 created new r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s and programs for the Children's Bureau by establishing the l e g i s l a t i v e authorization for present c h i l d welfare grants-in-aid to the states. However, the Children's Bureau was given no r e a l statutory controls over the states and was i n a weak administrative position. The only control delegated to the Bureau was the requirement that to receive federal grants each state and t e r r i t o r y must submit i t s own plan developed j o i n t l y by the state and the Chief of the Children's Bureau. There are few statutory guide l i n e s f o r what must go into such a plan. Child welfare services s u f f e r from th i s lack of national control of state quality of administration and also - 17 -from a lack of state control of l o c a l c h i l d welfare services. The U.S. Children's Bureau i s primarily an information and educational agency. The Bureau does not have power to compel a state to i n s t i t u t e a c h i l d welfare program nor authority to police the quality or scope of services i n any program adopted. The Bureau was charged with seeing that the merit system requirements i n the selection and tenure of child personnel were not violated by the states. The U.S. Children's Bureau has encouraged the states to promote the development of better q u a l i f i e d c h i l d welfare s t a f f through the use of federal funds for educational leave. However, only 464 c h i l d welfare workers among the states, t e r r i t o r i e s , and the D i s t r i c t of Columbia completed educa-t i o n a l leave i n the peak year 1952. Many l o c a l government Child Welfare Agencies are either i n d i f f e r e n t or h o s t i l e to the educational leave program because they have not been able to r e t a i n on t h e i r s t a f f s those who have benefited. In states which s t i l l have children's i n s t i t u t i o n s managed under the sp o i l s system one could scarcely expect s t a f f development for i n s t i t u t i o n a l personnel. Federal l e g i s l a t i o n i s merely for the purpose of encouraging state and l o c a l government i n this f i e l d . There i s a lack of any mandatory character i n federal l e g i s l a t i o n 1 Kammerer, B r i t i s h and American Child Welfare Services, p. 3 6 . - 18 -v i s - a - v i s the states for the establishment of administrative organization or creation of programs fo r child care, l i c e n s i n g or any other a c t i v i t y . From the year 1935 on there was an emphasis on grants-in-aid for r u r a l areas. Not u n t i l 1958 was the emphasis on r u r a l areas and r u r a l population changed i n the law. Both the basis and formula f o r a l l o c a t i o n of federal c h i l d welfare grants were changed by the 1958 amendments to the S o c i a l Security Act and equally important a matching formula was written into the law requiring for the f i r s t time that states must match on a variable basis federal grants i n the f i s c a l year ending June 30, I960. Because federal law over c h i l d welfare services i s limited to grants-in-aid merely to "stimulate" state and l o c a l services and no powers are given to the Children's Bureau over the quality or scope of state administration, each state i s permitted to establish such laws and administrative devices as i t desires. In fact, no compulsion exists i n national law f o r any state to have a c h i l d welfare program. As already pointed out, even when a state accepted a federal grant, i t could, u n t i l 1958, escape any state f i n a n c i a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for c h i l d welfare services. Further-more, unless a state i s required by law to underwrite a s i z e -able portion of l o c a l c h i l d welfare costs, state supervisory powers over l o c a l units w i l l be minimal. States which administer d i r e c t services can do so on any scale, extended - 19 -or limited, that they desire. One common outcome of th i s permissive type of l e g i s l a t i o n i s f a i l u r e at the l o c a l l e v e l to establish professional c h i l d welfare services. Only half the counties i n the United States i n 1958 had the services of a professional c h i l d welfare worker, and thousands of c h i l -dren i n need of care were unprotected by law. The organization of the federal Children's Bureau to-day r e f l e c t s i t s o r i g i n a l purposes more than any control function. Only a few controls are exercised over the states i n the administration of federal c h i l d welfare grants-in-aid. The o r i g i n a l purposes of the Children's Bureau, as set f o r t h i n 1912, were fact-getting, investigation and reporting. To these have been added the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of consultation which has consistently grown since the grant-in-aid program was added i n 1935 and i s i t s e l f a p o t e n t i a l l y valuable means of influencing state p o l i c y . Money with l i t t l e power, except to require appoint-ment of personnel on the merit system and the spending of funds according to the purposes for which they are given, might be the most appropriate description of the Federal Children's Bureau's status v i s - a - v i s the states. Only one state i n the history of administration of these grants ever had i t s funds cut o f f . However, the Bureau's influence through i t s s p e c i a l i s t consultant s t a f f i n each of the d i v i -sions i s considerable with the states, especially i n those states where professional training and standards i n s o c i a l 6 - 20 -work axe respected. In a way the Children's Bureau may be said to have negative rather than positive power i n the sense that cer-t a i n things may not be done by the states i n t h e i r expenditure of c h i l d welfare grants. On the other hand, the Bureau can-not compel any program or any extension of existing services to be undertaken by the states, a fact which helps to account for the great variety i n depth and scope of services i n t h i s country. No state i s required to have c h i l d welfare services. In t h i s respect the Children's Bureau occupies a very d i f f e r e n t position from that of s i m i l a r i n s t i t u t i o n s i n England. The l a t t e r has back of i t a law which requires the rendering and financing of c h i l d welfare services by l o c a l authorities, and the Home Office may and does regulate the way i n which certain functions must be carried out. The states have provided an unparalleled laboratory for the compilation and evaluation of data about organiza-t i o n a l patterns and administrative procedures used i n the rendition of services; i t should be possible a f t e r twenty-f i v e years of federal grants to draw some conclusions as to what elements constitute good organizational structure and good management i n this f i e l d . But the material i s largely unexamined, ostensibly for lack of s u f f i c i e n t research s t a f f . To some extent this neglect has had serious consequences f o r the states. Much guidance has come from the Children's - 21 -Bureau on program a c t i v i t i e s but not on how to set up and adm i n i s t e r these a c t i v i t i e s . The American use of p r o f e s s i o n a l s p e c i a l i s t s and the l a c k of extensive c o n t r o l s over s t a t e or l o c a l a d m i n i s t r a t i o n compel the C h i l d r e n ' s Bureau to emphasize res e a r c h , develop-ment of p r o f e s s i o n a l standards, and education of p r o f e s s i o n a l s and the p u b l i c i n v o l u n t a r y adoption of new programs. There-f o r e , the .Bureau's work i s l a r g e l y centered around encourage-ment of s u b s t a n t i v e program b u i l d i n g . P u b l i c r e p o r t i n g i s seldom c a r r i e d on with any completeness or r e g u l a r i t y i n the United S t a t e s except by the U.S. C h i l d r e n ' s Bureau and the u n i t s i n a few s t a t e s . F o r a comparison of f e d e r a l g r a n t s - i n - a i d to s t a t e s f o r c h i l d w e l f a r e s e r v i c e s from the year 1936 through t o 1962, see Table 1. - 22 -Table 1. Federal Grants-in-aid to States for  Child Welfare Services: Amounts Authorized, Appropriated, and Expended by States, F i s c a l Years. 1936 to 1962 Federal funds for c h i l d welfare services F i s c a l year Authorized Appropriated Expended by States* 1936 $ 1,500, 000 $ 625,000 $ 84,956 1937 1,500, 000 1,376,457 851,089 1938 1,500, 000 1,499,543 1,312,077 1939 1,500, 000 1,500,000 1,526,678 1940 1,510, 000 1,505,000 1,492,315 1941 1,510, 000 1,510,000 1,523,985 1942 1,510, 000 1,510,000 1,554,183 1943 1,510, 000 1,510,000 1,495,994 1944 1,510, 000 1,510,000 1,473,349 1945 1,510, 000 1,510,000 1,365,007 1946 1,510, 000 1,510,000 1,276,426 1947 3,500, 000 3,500,000 1,852,470 1948 3,500, 000 3,500,000 3,077,148 1949 3,500, 000 3,500,000 4,046,120 1950 3,500, 000 3,500,000 4,046,120 1951 10,000, 000 7,075,000 4,858,064 1952 10,000, 000 7,590,400 7,116,856 1953 10,000, 000 4,370,922 7,409,061 1954 10,000, 000 7,228,900 6,988,709 1955 10,000, 000 7,228,900 6,883,876 1956 10,000, 000 7,228,900 6,933,148 1957 10,000, 000 8,361,000 7,908,291 1958 12,000, 000 10,000,000 9,541,099 1959 17,000, 000 12,000,000 11,940,334 I960 17,000, 000 13,000,000 13,024,352 1961 25,000, 000 13,666,000 13,695,310 1962 25,000, 000 18,750,000 17,811,076 * Checks issued less refunds. Source: Child Welfare S t a t i s t i c s , 1962. U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Welfare Administration. Children's Bureau, 1963, S t a t i s t i c a l Series No. 72. STATE ADMINISTRATION OF CHILD WELFARE SERVICES The scope of a c t i v i t i e s varies less among the states than does the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r conducting such a c t i v i t i e s . It would be neither f e a s i b l e nor desirable to examine the d i f f e r e n t systems of c h i l d welfare administration found i n each of the f i f t y states. From the m u l t i p l i c i t y of programs, however, i t i s possible to distinguish three major types of organization within states f o r the provision of public c h i l d welfare services. These are (a) wholly state administered programs, (b) l o c a l l y administered programs under a uniform state requirement for administrative organization, and (c) l o c a l l y administered programs under various state options f o r organization. Within each of these categories varying degrees of integration with public a s s i s t -ance programs can be found. A further source of v a r i a t i o n l i e s i n the fact that states which administer c h i l d welfare services d i r e c t l y through state f i e l d workers permit l o c a l autonomy i n the development, organization and financing of purely l o c a l programs of c h i l d welfare service. This has come about because the nature of c h i l d welfare problems i s such that the making of new policy i s a constant necessity i n order to meet the complexities of l i f e for children i n a con-t i n u a l l y changing urban, i n d u s t r i a l environment. - 24 -Because statutory law i s made slowly and often reveals a lag between emergent problems and the recognition of an existing set of conditions as a problem by the average l e g i s l a t o r , administrative agencies i n the welfare f i e l d need broad delegations of authority to adapt t h e i r programs to fundamental changes i n society. Legislators themselves recognize at least t a c i t l y the need to make adjustments i n pol i c y more rapidly than they are prepared to do, especially i n American states where the majority of le g i s l a t u r e s s t i l l meet only b i e n i a l l y for r e l a t i v e l y short sessions. They have tended to make broad delegations of policy making authority to state welfare agencies. The following examples of the major types of organiza-t i o n are based on studies made by Gladys Kammerer of the University of F l o r i d a of public c h i l d welfare services i n Indiana, Kentucky and Ohio."'* In Ohio several counties were studied intensively. Kentucky has long had a state administered system of direct services to children but i t has retained i n i t s state l e g i s l a t i o n provision f o r two d i f f e r e n t l o c a l l y administered programs of di r e c t services, and these two counties, l o c a l l y directed and l o c a l l y financed, were included i n the study. 1 Kammerer, B r i t i s h and American Child Welfare Services t. - 25 -Ohio - an Example of Locally Administered Programs Under  Various State Options f o r Organization In Ohio, the law vests the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r c h i l d welfare administration i n the county, insofar as the render-ing of d i r e c t services to children i s concerned. However, the organization from county to county may vary and the quality of the program i s v i r t u a l l y untouched by the state administrat ion. State l e g i s l a t i o n f o r state r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i n Ohio i s not too clear cut i n the sense that the D i v i s i o n of Social Administration i s given supervisory powers over l o c a l public  and private c h i l d welfare agencies and i n s t i t u t i o n s as well as authority to care for children d i r e c t l y . One of the p r i n c i p a l supervisory r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of the D i v i s i o n i s the annual examination of c e r t i f i c a t i o n of children's i n s t i t u -tions and child-placing agencies, an examination which may take the form of a written report only. The resultant c e r t i f i c a t i o n or l i c e n s i n g i s a v i t a l supervisory duty as no juvenile court i n Ohio may commit a c h i l d to an unlicensed i n s t i t u t i o n or agency, and a l l courts must receive a l i s t of c e r t i f i e d agencies and i n s t i t u t i o n s annually. The sections of the federal Social Security Act on c h i l d welfare services have been s p e c i f i c a l l y accepted i n law-by Ohio. This w i l l mean state matching contributions i n support of d i r e c t services to children i n the future and also, inevitably, a larger supervisory organization to carry out - 26 -the enlarged f i n a n c i a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . The Ohio organization for services and treatment of juvenile delinquents i s , as i n almost a l l other states, or-ganized e n t i r e l y separate from that for child welfare services, as commonly understood. The f i r s t state provision f o r children was the county home for dependent children authorized i n the post-c i v i l war period. This provision placed Ohio i n the fore-front of American states i n the care of children. A 1938 law permitted counties to establish c h i l d welfare boards, under which they were to place county children's homes. In 1946 Ohio made mandatory the creation of a county welfare department i n counties without such a department or a c h i l d welfare board. A 1957 law removed t h i s option, and a l l counties had to establish a welfare department. However, chi l d welfare services need not be organized under the wel-fare department as any county may s t i l l u t i l i z e a separate c h i l d welfare board and transfer to i t a l l administration of children's services and i n s t i t u t i o n s . The county children's welfare board i s empowered to appoint an executive secretary to serve as executive o f f i c e r , which position i s exempt from c i v i l service coverage. In th i s way, p o l i t i c a l friends may be rewarded or enemies d i s -charged indiscriminately and without reference to the welfare of children. - 27 -Duties and powers of the county c h i l d welfare hoard are numerous on behalf of children i n the county deemed by the board to be i n need of public care or protective services. This i s the loophole which allows a do-nothing board i n a parsimonious or a poor county to escape r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for program. As to, the financing of Ohio's c h i l d welfare program, the state had up to 1958 appropriated no money to the counties to a s s i s t i n carrying on the services to children. Small amounts of the federal appropriation could be channeled down to counties f o r special projects, but the entire cost of di r e c t services to children, including i n s t i t u t i o n a l care, had to be carried by each individual county under the terms of Ohio law. Indiana - An Example of Locally Administered Programs Under  a Uniform State Requirement for Administrative Organization Indiana i s another of those states which has a l o c a l government administration of di r e c t c h i l d welfare services, with the task of state supervision and only a few direct services l e f t i n the State department of Public Welfare. Indiana provides some state moneys to l o c a l units i n con-tras t to Ohio. The state agency i s a general Department of Public Welfare, which embraces the public assistance program and services to crippled children as well as the ch i l d wel-fare program. The state department i s headed by a Board of - 28 -Public Welfare of f i v e members appointed by the governor for staggered four year terms. The board i s responsible f o r policy-making and adoption of rules and regulations of the department. The only l i n e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y which the Indiana Department of Public Welfare must l e g a l l y carry i s the l i c e n s i n g of a l l c h i l d caring and c h i l d placing i n s t i t u t i o n s , public and private, boarding homes, day nurseries, and c h i l d -ren's homes. Despite the uniformity of l o c a l administrative pattern required i n Indiana, a f i e r c e desire for l o c a l autonomy pervades the state, as i n Ohio. The state i s deprived of any r e a l supervisory power. County departments i n Indiana have both the right and the duty to assume r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for any c h i l d i n the county who .needs help unless there are other agencies i n the community serving p a r t i c u l a r functions. Indiana has pro-vided a more l i b e r a l and tighter law with respect to l o c a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for care of children than has Ohio and has also incorporated a l a t e r day concept i n attempting to keep children i n t h e i r own homes. Kentucky - An Example of Wholly State Administered Program Kentucky offers a sharp contrast i n i t s l e g i s l a t i v e history as well as i n i t s actual l e g i s l a t i o n to that of the other states heretofore described. The major ch a r a c t e r i s t i c - 29 -of Kentucky l e g i s l a t i o n i s provision for u n i f i e d administra-t i o n i n a single state agency of s o c i a l services and i n s t i t u -tions for dependent, neglected and delinquent children. In the second place Kentucky has long had a state-administered system of d i r e c t services to children and t h i r d , Kentucky has retained i n i t s state l e g i s l a t i o n provision f o r two d i f f -erent l o c a l l y administered programs of direct services. The department of Kentucky state government charged with administration of casework and i n s t i t u t i o n a l services to dependent, neglected and delinquent children i s the Department of Child Welfare, which i s independent of other state departments and whose head i s d i r e c t l y answerable to the governor. Into this department, newly created by the I960 l e g i s l a t u r e , were transferred a l l f i e l d c h i l d welfare workers and supervisors responsible for casework services, placement of children, l i c e n s i n g , homemakers' services, adoption investigations, and certain probation and parole supervision. The state's r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r care of dependent and neglected children i s so loosely worded i n the law as to be almost meaningless, as the department i s not required to accept children committed by the county courts. The law places no duty upon either sta te or the county to provide care f o r such children as should be given public care or to render casework services to those i n need of them, and th i s i s a very r e a l gap i n Kentucky l e g i s l a t i o n . Almost a l l Kentucky counties and the state simply plead lack of funds f o r c h i l d - 30 -care and, because they are not compelled to render services, budgetary and appropriating agencies f i n d i t easy to deny requests f o r funds . Furthermore, there is no requirement that children placed i n a public or private i n s t i t u t i o n receive casework services on that in d i v i d u a l boarding homes be licensed - two glaring gaps i n existing l e g i s l a t i o n . Summary In conclusion one can say that c h i l d welfare services i n the United States are uneven i n quality and scope of coverage. Indiana has a state law which assures that every county w i l l have a general welfare department which w i l l provide at lea s t some c h i l d welfare services along with other welfare programs. Indiana, however, does not subsidize with state funds any part of the county's care costs or direc t services to children except f o r a part of the personnel costs of the county welfare departments. Indiana also has made no attempt to integrate i t s c h i l d welfare services with the i n s t i t u t i o n a l program f o r delinquent children, and the l a t t e r i s rather out of date. Ohio can do l i t t l e i n i t s state l e g i s l a t i o n or weak supervisory authority to encourage the l i f t i n g of standards fo r c h i l d welfare administration i n i t s backward counties, and the state has denied any state f i n a n c i a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r c h i l d welfare. Counties have a choice as to form of organization f o r c h i l d welfare, but because of in d i f f e r e n t - 21 -personnel standards f o r appointment t o the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e d i r e c t i o n of the l o c a l program and because of d i v i d e d a u t h o r i t y with the head of the county c h i l d r e n ' s home, the l o c a l programs may never advance very f a r i n many are a s . Kentucky i s unique i n u n i t i n g i n s t i t u t i o n a l and s o c i a l s e r v i c e s i n a s i n g l e , u n i f i e d c h i l d w e l f a r e depart-ment, the only f u l l - f l e d g e d s t a t e department of t h i s kind i n the county. Kentucky law, however, makes i t impossible to l o c a t e u l t i m a t e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r s e r v i c e s t o c h i l d r e n w i t h e i t h e r s t a t e or l o c a l government. C h i l d welfare a d m i n i s t r a -t i o n i n Kentucky has an anomaly. In the United S t a t e s there are f i v e s t a t e s with s t a t e - a d m i n i s t e r e d c h i l d welfare programs which a l s o permit l o c a l government u n i t s t o provide c h i l d w e l f a r e s e r v i c e s independently of the s t a t e . T h i s means not only independence of s t a t e s u p e r v i s i o n except through the l i c e n s i n g f u n c t i o n , but i t a l s o s i g n i f i e s l a c k of s t a t e or f e d e r a l money f o r the l o c a l u n i t . Kentucky i s one of these s t a t e s . Two Kentucky co u n t i e s operate t h e i r own l o c a l l y administered c h i l d w e l f a r e programs through agencies a u t h o r i z e d by s t a t e law. Each of these i s e n t i r e l y l o c a l l y financed without s t a t e subsidy. Ho s t a t e s u p e r v i s i o n has ever been extended to these l o c a l government agencies except through the s t a t e l i c e n s i n g f u n c t i o n . The reason f o r these u n i t s appears t o be p u r e l y h i s t o r i c a l , f o r the l o c a l u n i t s e x i s t e d l o n g before a s t a t e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r c h i l d welfare s e r v i c e s was recognized and e s t a b l i s h e d i n law. L o c a l government - 32 -l e g i s l a t i o n for child, welfare i n Kentucky i s uneven, con-fusing and inadequate. These variations are t y p i c a l i n greater or l e s s e r degree f o r a l l the states. It i s noteworthy that f o r the United States as a whole and two of the states used f o r i l l u s t r a t i v e purposes i n t h i s study ( s t a t i s t i c s were not available on Indiana) about two-thirds of a l l children served receive these services from public agencies, the other one-third being cared for by voluntary agencies (See Table 2). The ^ j o r public e f f o r t tends to be concentrated on casework services to children l i v i n g at home or with r e l a t i v e s or i n foster homes while private agencies are more heavily involved i n i n s t i t u t i o n a l care f o r dependent and neglected children and unmarried mothers. For the U.S.A. as a whole 85 percent of dependent and neglected children l i v i n g i n i n s t i t u t i o n s are served by private ggencies and the majority of children i n group homes are s i m i l a r l y served. Ohio de-parts s i g n i f i c a n t l y from the national pattern by having a majority (62 percent) of i t s dependent and neglected children i n i n s t i t u t i o n s under public auspices while a l l of i t s d e l i n -quent children i n public t r a i n i n g schools are served by private agencies! Contrary to what one might expect, the majority of emotionally disturbed children being treated i n r e s i d e n t i a l centres are served by public agencies (62 percent) and t h i s i s true too of i n s t i t u t i o n a l care for the mentally and physically retarded. It i s worth noting that for Kentucky there i s no report of children "being served i n r e s i d e n t i a l treatment centres, by either public or private agencies. Tables 2 or 3 indicate the variety of situations i n which c h i l d welfare services come into play as well as the absence of any con-sistent pattern or rationale for the d i s t r i b u t i o n of r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s as between public and private agencies. - 34 -Table 2. D i s t r i b u t i o n of Children Served by Public and  Voluntary Child Welfare Programs. March 51. 1962 Whereabouts of Children . Percentage served Primarily by Public Agencies Percentage served Primarily by "foliintary Agencies - USA Ohio Ky. USA Ohio Ky. Total 65 69 68 35 31 32 Children i n Ins t i t u t i o n s : For dependent and neglected children 15 62 21 85 38 79 Maternity homes for un-married mothers 100 100 100 Residential treatment centres f o r emotionally disturbed children 62 74 38 26 Voluntary i n s t i t u t i o n s f o r delinquent children _ — 100 100 _ Sub-total i n i n s t i t u t i o n s 16 54 21 84 46 79 Additional Children Receiving Child Welfare Casework Services InMiomes of parents 77 67 92 23 33 8 In homes of re l a t i v e s 90 74 92 10 26 8 In independant l i v i n g arrangement s 59 62 100 41 38 — In adoptive homes 50 39 72 50 61 28 In foster family homes 76 86 78 24 14 22 In group homes 26 17 - 74 83 -In public t r a i n i n g schools for delinquent children 93 — 100 7 100 — In i n s t i t u t i o n s for mentally retarded children 88 89 100 12 11 In i n s t i t u t i o n s f o r physically handicapped children 83 80 17 20 - 35 -Table 2. continued Whereabouts of Children Percentage Percentage served served Primarily by Primarily by Public Voluntary Agencies Agencies USA Ohio Ky. USA Ohio Ky. In other i n s t i t u t i o n s 89 - 11 100 -Elsewhere 78 88 51 22 12 49 Sub-total 74 71 87 26 29 13 Source: Child Welfare S t a t i s t i c s . 1962, Child Welfare Studies Branch D i v i s i o n of Research. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Welfare Administration, Children's Bureau, 1963. Tables 1, 13-14, 13-30. (Original figures are given i n Table 3 following.) Figures for Indiana not available. - 36 -Table 3. Children Served by Public and Voluntary Child Welfare Programs, March 31. 1962 Whereabouts of Children Served Children Primarily by Public Primarily by Volun-Agencies tary Agencies USA Ohio Ky. USA Ohio Ky. Total 65% 69% 68% 35% 31% 32% 378,400 29,105 6,942 204,700 12,983 3,260 Children i n Inst i t u t i o n s : For dependent and neglected c h i l d -ren . 15% 62% 21% 85% 38% 79% 11,700 3,001 606 67,700 1,867 2,240 Maternity homes for unmarried 100% 100% 100% mothers - - - 4,500 445 40 Residential t r e a t -ment centres for emotionally disturbed c h i l d -ren 62% 74% - 38% 26% 3,800 412 - 2,300 146 -Voluntary i n s t i t u t i o n s f o r delinquent c h i l d - 100% 100% ren - - 5,800 508 -Sub-total i n i n s t i t u t i o n s 16% 54% 21% 84% 46% 79% 15,500 3,413 606 80,300 2,966 2,280 Additional Children  Receiving Child Wel- fare Casework Ser- vice In homes of parents 77% 67% 92% 23% 33% 8% 148,300 11,763 3,256 43,900 5,757 302 In homes of rel a t i v e s 90% 74% 92% 10% 26% 8% 26,900 1,699 652 3,000 583 55 - 37 -Table 3. continued Whereabouts of Children Served Children Primarily by Public Primarily by Volun-Agencies tary Agencies USA Ohio Ky. USA Ohio Ky. In independant l i v i n g arrange-ments 59% 3,300 62% 211 100% 112 41% 2,300 38% 132 In adoptive homes 50% 27,100 39% 1,137 72% 616 50% 27,200 61% 1,760 28% 242 In foster family homes 76% 132,800 86% 78% 9,714 1,052 24% 41,500 14% 1,587 22% 293 In group homes 26% 500 17% 3 74% 1,400 83% 15 In public t r a i n -ing schools f o r delinquent child-ren 93% 5,100 100% 555 7% 400 100% 7 In i n s t i t u t i o n s f o r mentally retarded c h i l d -ren 88% 2,900 89% 8 100% 2 12% 400 11% 1 Institutions for physically handicapped children 83% 500 80% 4 17% 17% 100 20% 1 In other i n s t i t u t i o n s 89% 700 11% 100 100% 11 Elsewhere 78% 14,800 88% 1,153 51% 91 22% 4.100 12% 163 49% 88 Sub-total 74% 353,000 71% 24,702 87% 26% 6,336 122,800 29% 9,970 13% 980 Source:. See Table 2. LOCAL PATTERNS OF CHILD WELFARE SERVICES Since c o l o n i a l days the county has been the p r i n c i p a l unit responsible for welfare services and t h e i r administra-t i o n i n most American states. Only within the memory of l i v i n g persons have the states and federal government i n t h i s country assumed f i s c a l and administrative r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for services other than custodial i n s t i t u t i o n a l care. The county i s the most commonly u t i l i z e d l o c a l unit of government for welfare administration. Because c h i l d welfare problems are county-wide i n scope and require consistent treatment services, regardless of municipal boundary l i n e s , the county i s the l o g i c a l unit for such services. Much of the administration of direct s o c i a l services to children i s carried on by l o c a l governments rather than by the states. It i s p r a c t i c a l l y impossible to present a d e f i n i t i v e picture of t h i s side of American Child Welfare Services. It has been possible to examine a few l o c a l units which may be deemed representative. The two kinds of l o c a l structure most commonly found are the general welfare department under a county director and the independent c h i l d welfare department with i t s own governing board. These are the basic types. Within the single welfare department, ch i l d welfare services may be wholly integrated with public assistance, using the same set - 39 -of welfare workers to handle a l l cases on an undifferentiated basis, or such services may be organized into a separate d i v i s i o n or section with i t s own casework supervisors and separate caseworkers. The raison d'etre of the independent board form of organization i s a d i s t r u s t of the elected p o l i t i c a l o f f i c e r s of government. At the county l e v e l t h i s popular d i s t r u s t i s based on a suspicion of favoritism i n appointments to positions, i n the awarding of contracts, and i n the dispensing of benefits or services. Courthouse p o l i t i c s i n most counties do not inspire confidence. In any event, the electorate has from time to time sought as one remedy, lawg creating independent governing boards f o r services from which the most blatant spoils and p o l i t i c a l practices were to be excluded by making the boards bipartisan, requiring the presence of both sexes, having a j u d i c i a l o f f i c e r or a school superintendent make some appointments, or having long staggered terms. The l a t t e r device i n par t i c u l a r makes i t d i f f i c u l t f o r any one county:? administration to control the board. The all-purpose county welfare, department i s the other type of organization commonly used to perform c h i l d welfare services at the l o c a l l e v e l . In some states, t h i s type of agency i s headed by a statutory board which es-tablishes p o l i c y and appoints the director with f u l l d iscre-t i o n to establish p o l i c y as well as to execute i t . In Ohio there i s no statutory governing board, merely an optional - 40 -advisory board. The county commissioners, the elected heads of county government, appoint the county welfare director, and he i s accountable to them. Important as the c u l t u r a l patterns, e t h i c a l values, and quality of c i v i l leadership w i l l be i n a community i n determining the standards f o r l o c a l administration of c h i l d welfare services, the administrative structure f o r such services w i l l also have a major effect on the way i n which such services are performed and the imagination shown i n program development. The way i n which coinmunity ideas may be enlisted i n broad policy-making w i l l c e r t a i n l y have a profound effect upon a c h i l d welfare agency. This i s true because l o c a l welfare programs, especially child welfare programs, are i n a peculiar way an expression of the values of the community as no other set of services are. Their administration i s a di r e c t r e f l e c t i o n of what the people of the area demand i n man's treatment of his fellow man. Three of the f i v e l o c a l c h i l d welfare agencies examined for the present study make use of the board form of ograniza-tio n , with general policy-making and selection of the executive director of the agency vested i n the board, and execution of broad policy delegated to the executive director. Two of the agencies are subunits, each with i t s own separate chief and s t a f f , within a county welfare department operating under a single head. Each of these subunits was o r i g i n a l l y established under an independent board and was l a t e r transferred by action of the county commissioners to the county welfare department. In one case, no marked change i n policy or program resulted from the transfer; i n the other instance, marked improvements were effected, i n part from much strengthened budgetary support. Two of the agencies under board leadership have demonstrated strength and, on the whole, strong policy leader-ship for sound progress i n program development. One revealed over many years a t o t a l lack of imagination and inadequacy i n program and might be said to have exhibited a l l the worst weaknesses alleged for the board type of organization. In a l l fairness, however, one must admit that the same weaknesses would have prevailed under a single-headed department had the same person who served so long as executive secretary been that department head, s t i l l under a board, i t has within the l a s t two years shown a remarkable renascence and p o t e n t i a l i t y f o r overhaul of program. What i s one to conclude from the experience of these agencies with the board form of organization? Certainly one may say that i n county government i n thi s country, where spoi l s and courthouse p o l i t i c s are primitive i n nature as well as morally r l ^ e n s i b l e , there i s much to be said for protecting c h i l d welfare services by the insulation of a policy-making board of prominent c i t i z e n s more distinguished for t h e i r c i v i c r e s p o n s i b i l i t y than f o r their s k i l l i n p o l i t i c a l manipulation. Inasmuch as l o c a l l y administered c h i l d welfare units i n t h i s country are normally county agencies, one must take r e a l i s t i c account of the nature of - 42 -county government - the unexplored terraine of American p o l i t i c s . Those who ignore the p o l i t i c a l setting i n organiz-ing administrative services do so at great p e r i l to the services. It was with realism, i t must he remembered, that federal administrators required the merit system i n administra-t i o n of c h i l d welfare services wherever federal grants were to be used, whether i n state agencies or channeled down to the l o c a l l e v e l . It i s clear that a l l three c h i l d welfare boards studied succeeded i n keeping spoils p o l i t i c s out of ch i l d welfare administration. As to the two single-headed depart-ments, the fact cannot be overlooked that Ohio requires that merit system procedures be followed i n county welfare depart-ments. Only a minority of states have such a requirement, however, for county departments which do not use federal funds. Even though one of the independent boards did not u n t i l very recently i n s i s t upon professionally trained s o c i a l workers i n i t s s t a f f i n g , i t did not suffer personnel changes as a result of purely p o l i t i c a l changes, a point which could not be made about the l o c a l welfare agency i n the same county. In another county studied where the c h i l d welfare board had a f a r better record i n appointment of well- q u a l i f i e d s o c i a l workers and administrators as well as i n program development, this record prevailed during a long period when the county welfare department was subjected to many changes i n directors, most of them mediocre i n q u a l i f i c a t i o n s , and to r a d i c a l changes i n po l i c y . - 43 -One important conclusion of a di f f e r e n t nature can be drawn from the organization of the larger c h i l d welfare agencies studied; that i s , the d e s i r a b i l i t y of placing i n s t i t u t i o n s and services to delinquent children committed by the courts i n the same department with general c h i l d welfare services. This u n i f i c a t i o n of services to children regardless of the labels attached to the children makes optimum use of the professional services available,to a large children's agency. Why should such u n i f i c a t i o n or integra-t i o n of services not work equally well at the state level? This i s a question seldom raised and never answered. Separation of i n s t i t u t i o n s f o r juvenile delinquents from the c h i l d welfare program may deprive those i n s t i t u -tions of the leadership f o r establishment cM a treatment program and cause them to deteriorate into mere custodial care or junior penitentiaries. Although today there are only two states®;-Pennsylvania and Kentucky - which combine administration of t h e i r programs for juvenile delinquents with those for the usual range of child welfare services i n one u n i f i e d state agency, there are a number of l o c a l governments which, through t h e i r c h i l d welfare agencies, operate i n s t i t u t i o n s for the r e h a b i l i t a t i o n of children committed to th e i r care as juvenile delinquents. One c h i l d welfare agency has successfully provided i n s t i t u t i o n a l treatment for many years to both delinquent and - 44 -dependent and neglected children with no separation within the i n s t i t u t i o n . Both types of children are cared f o r success-f u l l y within the same i n s t i t u t i o n and are assigned to cottages without reference to the l a b e l with which they came to the i n s t i t u t i o n , thus refuting the arguments of those who i n s i s t on segregation. The i n s t i t u t i o n i s Ormsby v i l l a g e , operated by L o u i s v i l l e and Jefferson county, Kentucky. Concluding Remarks As a result of investigation i n the f i e l d of Child Welfare Services and of the obvious lacks i n the system, certain recommendations would seem to be i n order. 1. Enlargement of federal f i s c a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . 2. Compulsory state appropriations as a condition antecedant to federal grants. 3. Administrative controls over state program and administration. 4. Expansion of professional educational programs. Americans p a r t i c u l a r l y need to be reminded that strong federal guidance and even controls over state use of grants are quite as important f o r quality of c h i l d welfare services as f o r roads. A dynamically oriented c h i l d welfare administration w i l l be concerned continuously with the development and enun-c i a t i o n of public policy that w i l l meet the ever changing challenges of our time. It w i l l be value-infused administra-t i o n led by dedicated, highly trained men and women who also - 45 -have an understanding of the management of large scale, complex public programs and who w i l l be concerned with adapting programs and techniques as new fro n t i e r s of know-ledge are broken. It can be neither value-infused nor dynamic unless i t i s so organized and so led that program w i l l be under continuous and c r i t i c a l review to discern new and unsolved problems and a l i g n resources to meet those problems. IMPLICATION OP THE 1962 PUBLIC ASSISTANCE AMENDMENTS OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF CHILD WELFARE SERVICES IN THE ADFC PROG-RAM Item 4270 i n the Handbook of Public Assistance Administration states i n part as follows: Public Assistance and c h i l d welfare programs are basic resources for meeting the respon-s i b i l i t i e s which State public welfare agencies carry to provide s o c i a l services to families and children.... The State agency carries r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s f o r planning to develop and u t i l i z e to the best advantage the program resources of both public assistance and c h i l d welfare. This provision, which i s i d e n t i c a l i n both t i t l e s , c a l l s f o r a State plan of co-ordination between the two programs i n respect to the major aspects of State and l o c a l program assessment and planning, including policy development, provision of intake services which are related i n knowledgeable and responsible manner to the f u l l range of ser-vices provided, i n t e r - r e f e r r a l cases f o r d i r e c t services; and collaboration i n consulta-tio n , t r a i n i n g and community planning. Joint r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i n community planning i s essential to i d e n t i f y gaps i n services and resources and to enable the State and l o c a l agencies to establish p r i o r i t i e s and give e f f e c t -ive leadership i n regard to unmet needs.1 Maximum use of other agencies i s also provided i n these amendments. Item 4280 states i n part: The l e g i s l a t i o n s p e c i f i c a l l y requires that the State plan describe the steps taken to assure....maximum u t i l i z a t i o n of other agencies providing similar or related ser-vices. This means- that the State must know 1 Handbook of Public Assistance Administration, Depart-ment of Health, Education and Welfare, Social Security Administration, Washington, D.C. Nov. 30/62, p. 2. - 47 -what resources are available and take steps to assure that they w i l l be u t i l i z e d . . . . The steps that assure maximum u t i l i z a t i o n include (1) co-operative agreements with State-wide services. (2) operational p o l i c i e s to carry out such agreements and \3) guides to l o c a l departments on the development of cooperative planning with other l o c a l services.1 The important point to remember about these 1962 amendments i s that they mark a new l e v e l of purpose and aspiration and an apparent intent of the Federal Government to show leader-ship i n development of services to children. A l l experience would seem to indicate that i n i t i a t i v e for this must be taken at the federal l e v e l - both i n the f i n a n c i a l sense and also i n the development of standards. Public welfare departments are hereby given more r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to see that services are planned and co-ordinated f o r better care of children and this means the use of both public and private agencies. 'These amendments are s i g n i f i c a n t from the point of view of introducing the idea of casework services to c h i l d -ren for the f i r s t time under the public assistance programs. The ADFC program becomes as much a c h i l d welfare service as a public assistance program. Before these amendments there has been no concentrated e f f o r t to bring casework services to recipients of public welfare but the emphasis from here on w i l l be on services as 1 Handbook of Public Assistance Administration, p. 2. - 48 -well as the money payment as on objective. This i s a substantial change for the better i n welfare thinking and becomes especially s i g n i f i c a n t when one remembers that over the years, the ADFC program has come to be comprised of families suffering the most severe s o c i a l problems, including among others, desertion and separation. These amendments also provide federal authority to improve s t a f f and quality which w i l l be so necessary i n the extended casework services proposed. The objectives as set f o r t h i n Item 4270 and 4280 are c e r t a i n l y commendable. They do raise the problem as to how t h i s w i l l be worked out i n actual administrative practice. Questions present themselves regarding the f e a s i b i l -i t y of combining c h i l d welfare and public assistance func-tions without detriment to the quality of the former, and which administrative arrangements w i l l provide the best service: a common s t a f f rendering both types of service or some d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n of personnel according to the nature of the service required but within the same administrative agency. The 1962 amendments raise i n acute form the question of administrative separation of c h i l d welfare program from public assistance function as well as the question of public subsidies to private agencies and purchase of care from private agencies. This l a t t e r issue has been discussed by Martha Branscombe who maintains that there has been a p r i n c i p l e - 49 -long established i n this country that public funds be spent by public agencies i n accord with statutory authority and that f u l l and complete accounting be made to the people. With t h i s accountability necessarily goes control of expenditures. She f e e l s that the c o r o l l a r y p r i n c i p l e , that private agencies should be v o l u n t a r i l y supported i s equally basic to the freedom and f l e x i b i l i t y of private, agencies and that they must r e t a i n f i n a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and control of t h e i r purpose and program. However, as she points out: Application of these two principles does not preclude public p o l i c y permitting the pur-chase of care or services from a private agency for an individual c h i l d for whom the public agency has responsibility....and whose needs i t cannot at the time meet through i t s own resources. Nor does i t preclude joint undertakings by the public and private agencies on a co-operative basis, as i n the case of research, t r a i n i n g or demonstration p r o j e c t s . l She goes on to say: Purchase of care means payments based upon actual t o t a l cost of care for each i n d i v i d u a l c h i l d ..from public funds and must be under-taken i n accordance with the basic p r i n c i p l e s of "continuing r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and accountability. Such r e s p o n s i b i l i t y can be discharged by appropriate arrangements for periodic reporting, s t a f f conferences, continuing joint planning and any other devices that seem necessary i n any p a r t i c u l a r s i t u a t i o n . The p r i n c i p l e of continuing r e s p o n s i b i l i t y as related to purchase 1 Branscombe, Martha, "Basic P o l i c i e s and P r i n c i p l e of Public Child Care Services - An Underlying Philosophy", Child Welfare. Special Issue, 1951-52, Vol. 30-31, Child Welfare League,of America, Inc., N.Y. - 50 -of care i s based squarely upon the democratic concept of trusteeship, which applies equally to public and private agencies.l There i s great d i v e r s i t y i n public policy at the present time with regard to the use of voluntary services. Pennsylvania, for example, began i n 1951 to grant lump sum subsidies to a l l types of eleemosynary i n s t i t u t i o n s . Massachusetts,for almost half a century has prohibited the granting of public funds to voluntary agencies. There has been a marked s h i f t i n the f i e l d of c h i l d welfare from voluntary to public care i n the past two decades. It would seem that with the increasing c h i l d population, cooperative arrangements w i l l be essential. Under the broadened scope of the s o c i a l security program, public agencies w i l l now provide some of the case-work services to families and children which have been regarded as the sp e c i a l province of voluntary agencies. A r M i n Johnson f e e l s that, Some voluntary agencies have supplemented rather than complemented the expanding public services by becoming paid agents for the public authority. When this happens, as i t has i n many places, the d i s t i n c t i o n between public services and voluntary agencies becomes clouded. Changing conditions require solutions democratically arrived at but such solu-tions are guided by values held by the greatest number of people.2 1 Branscombe, "Basic P o l i c i e s and P r i n c i p l e of Public Child Care Services". 2 Johnson, A r l e i n , "Public Funds f o r Voluntary Agencies", The S o c i a l Welfare Forum, 1959, Columbia University Press, N.Y. - 51 -In 18 states as of 1959, payments for c h i l d care were made only when the public administrative agency accepted r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r care and made a plan with the voluntary agency. An additional 19 states made the same kind of pay-ment on a per capita basis. William McCullough concludes that the subsidy system continues to exist primarily from the momentum of h i s t o r i c a l precedent. It has seriously hampered the development of public c h i l d welfare programs and responsible supervision of voluntary programs.1 2 The Werner study based on a 100 percent return from questionnaires to a l l states and t e r r i t o r i e s , shows that only four states (Arkansas, M i s s i s s i p p i , Nebraska and Nevada) were not using public funds to provide care for children placed with voluntary organizations. A s i g n i f i c a n t finding of her study concerned the problem of control where care was purchased. Her conclusion was that a strong public c h i l d care program requires e f f e c t -ive supervision of the kind of care that i s purchased from the voluntary agency or i n s t i t u t i o n . It i s interesting to note that Lord Beveridge, one of.the strongest supporters of voluntary e f f o r t , was also the strongest advocate of guarantee-ing the c h i l d i n voluntary care the standards fixed for public 1 McCullough, William, State Subsidies to Private Child  Care Organiza tions i n Pennsylvania, Doctoral dissertation, School of Soc i a l Service Administration, University of Chicago, 1959, cited i n A r l e i n Johnson, "Public Funds for Voluntary Agencies", The Social Welfare Forum, 1959, Columbia U. Press. 2 Werner, Ruth M., Public Subsidies to Voluntary Child Care  Agencies. In process, School of Social Service Administration, University of Chicago, c i t e d i n A r l M n Johnson, i b i d . - 52 -agencies. Many problems arise i n connection with the purchase of care such as (1) relationships between voluntary and public services i n a l o c a l i t y . (2) determination of the basis for rates of payments and for amounts, whether to cover f u l l costs or p a r t i a l costs. (3) the standards to be maintained when care i s purchased and who should determine these standards. New York i s probably the outstanding example of the effects of t r a d i t i o n upon public-voluntary relationships. The state i n 1894 forbade state appropriation but made l o c a l subsidies permissible. At the present time the state re-imburses l o c a l welfare departments 50?£ for payments to private c h i l d welfare agencies. T r a d i t i o n a l relationships between public and voluntary services may also result i n d i f f e r e n t practices within the same state. C a l i f o r n i a i s an example of t h i s . It i s possible that a well entrenched subsidy system, even on a purchase of care basis, may deter expansion of the public program. In the U.S.A. i t would seem that where voluntary organizations are providing a large share of the services, as i n New York City and San Francisco, pressure i s st e a d i l y toward payment for the f u l l cost of care. A study i n 1929 revealed that state supervision of voluntary organizations had been set up by statute i n 47 states and that such supervision ranged from v i s i t a t i o n s only to l i c e n s i n g . In short, a trend toward centralized control i s a phenomenon not only of economics and p o l i t i c a l l i f e i n - 53 -the U.S. hut also of the Soc i a l Welfare f i e l d . Where money goes, control follows. This i s an axiom of public administration. That a certain amount of super-v i s i o n by government is, now accepted seems evident, especially when payments are made for services rendered. But the establishment of such standards i s regarded as a matter of collaboration. Under the controls set up, subsidies have often improved the standard of voluntary services, but agencies have not been free to expand the quality and the quantity of services at t h e i r own di s c r e t i o n . Arliein Johnson on the basis of materials made available by several national organizations noticed that they contained a number of common observations. On the basis of these observations she offers us three p r i n c i p l e s which may provide guidance i n the formula-t i o n of po l i c y . 1. Each agency and each community should have a clear d e f i n i t i o n of the respective functions of voluntary and public services i n that community. 2. Community planning councils must be the expediters i n making short term and long term blueprints of community services, including d i v i s i o n of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y between voluntary and public agencies. .3. Professional leadership has a major r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for helping i n policy develop-ment. More s o c i a l workers i n both* public and voluntary agencies are needed who have h i s t o r i c -a l perspective, insight into the dynamics of community l i f e and a b i l i t y to apply the insight from t h e i r professional knowledge to the d i f f i c u l t problems of community r e l a t i o n -ships. 1 Miss Johnson asks the question when public funds pay for the cost of almost every c h i l d i n the care of a voluntary agency at what point does the public welfare authority take over entirely? I f the voluntary agency i s almost wholly dependent upon, the source of support, then eventually the only private agencies for which there i s j u s t i f i c a t i o n w i l l be those who represent a sectarian philosophy. Dimock and others have analyzed the values i n small or decentralized administrative units and have maintained that size has more effect upon function and operation than does auspices, whether private or governmental. As indicated e a r l i e r i n t h i s study the d i v i s i o n of c h i l d welfare services between public and private agencies i s s t i l l i n a fluid,.dynamic state and no hard and fast l i n e s can or should be drawn. The r e a l i t i e s of the present make expansion and further development of s o c i a l services for children under both public and private auspices a compelling necessity and require a comprehensive approach. The t r a n s i t i o n of p o l i t i c a l and s o c i a l thought i n no sense weakens or negates our fundamental concepts and our f a i t h i n the primary value of and necessity for i n d i -vidual i n i t i a t i v e and voluntary cooperation i n private enterprises i n a l l spheres of human l i f e . H i s t o r i c a l l y and contemporarily, we have adhered to the basic princ i p l e set 1 Johnson, "Public Funds for Voluntary Agencies", The  Social Welfare Forum. f o r t h by Lincoln that government should undertake d i r e c t l y only those services which the c i t i z e n s i n d i v i d u a l l y or through voluntary cooperative e f f o r t cannot do or cannot do as well i n the i r private capacity or with the resources available.1 The 1962 amendments to the S o c i a l Security Act point the way towards federal leadership i n a more u n i f i e d , con-sistent and a l l embracing program f o r our nation's children. In the growth of governmental r e s p o n s i b i l i t y we must be care-f u l not to lose sight of the special contribution which only voluntary agencies can make. The task of reformulating the principles governing the appropriate spheres of action of public and voluntary organization remains among the most important of unfinished business i n c h i l d welfare. It was Seneca who said "Our forefathers have done much but they have not finished anything." 1 Branscombe, "Basic P o l i c i e s and Principles of Public Child C a r e Services - An Underlying Philosophy". BIBLIOGRAPHY A r t i c l e s "A Statement of Princi p l e s and P o l i c i e s on Public Child Wel-fare." Child Welfare. December, 1950. Child Welfare League of America* Inc., N.Y. Branscombe, Martha. "Basic P o l i c i e s and Princi p l e s of Public Child Care Services - An Underlying Philosophy". Child  Welfare. 1951-1952, Vol. 30-31 (Special Issue). Child Welfare League of America, Inc., N.Y. Dumpson, James R. "Public and Voluntary Agency Partnership •Responsibilities". Child Welfare. 1962, Vol. 41. Child Welfare League of America, Inc., N.Y. Johnson, A r l i e n . "Public Funds f o r Voluntary Agencies". The  Social Welfare Forum. 1959. Columbia University Press, N.Y. Kahn, Alfred J . "Child Welfare: Trends and Directions." Child Welfare. December, 1962. Child Welfare League of America, Inc., N.Y. Kramer, Ralph M. "Public-Voluntary Relationships i n the So c i a l Services: Some Concepts and Attitudes - Study of Lay and Professional Attitudes". Community Organization. 1961. Columbia University Press, N.Y. Lenroot, Katharine F. "Child Welfare - A Challenge to both Private and Public Agencies". The Social Service Review. March 1950. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 111. McCullough, William. State Subsidies to Private Child Care  Organizations i n Pennsylvania. Doctoral dissertation, School of Social Service Administration, University of Chicago, 1959, cited i n A r l e i n Johnson, "Public Funds for Voluntary Agencies". The S o c i a l Welfare Froum. 1959. Columbia University Press, N.Y. Mencher, Samuel. "The Future for Voluntaryism i n American Social Welfare". Cited i n Alfred J . Kahn, Issues i n  American So c i a l Work; Columbia University Press; New York, 1959. - 57 -Vanier, Georges P. "Voluntary Work i n Social Welfare". Child  Welfare. 1962, Vol. 41. (This i s part of an address given by the Governor-General at the Mid-Winter Conference of the Community Punds and Councils of Canada, a d i v i s i o n of the Canadian Welfare Council, Montreal, Quebec, Feb. 15, 1962. Child welfare League of America, Inc., N.Y. Werner, Ruth M. Public Subsidies to Voluntary Child Care Agencies. In process, School of Soc i a l Service Administra-tion, University of Chicago, cited i n A r l e i n Johnson, i b i d . Books and Reports Child Welfare as a F i e l d of Social Work Practice. Child Wel-fare League of America, 1959 (prepared in'cooperation with the Children's Bureau, So c i a l Security Administra-tion, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare). Child Welfare S t a t i s t i c s . 1962. U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Welfare Administration. Children's Bureau. 1963. S t a t i s t i c a l Series-. No. 72. Galbraith, J.K., The Affluent Society. Houghton M i f f l i n Co., Boston, 1958. Handbook of Public Assistance Administration. Department of Hea 1th, Education and Welfare, Social Security Administration, Washington, D.C. Nov. 30, 1962. Jeter, Helen R., Children Problems and Services i n Child  Welfare Programs. U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Welfare Administration, Children's Bureau, 1963. , Services i n Public and Voluntary Child Welfare Programs. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Social Security Administration, Children's Bureau. 1962. Kahn, Alfr e d , Issues i n American Social Work. Columbia University Press, New York, 1959. Kammerer, Gladys M. B r i t i s h and American Child Welfare Services; A Comparative Study i n Administration. Wayne State University Press, Detroit, 1962. Lord Beveridge. Voluntary Action. George A l l e n & Unwin Ltd., London, 1948. - 58 -Lucas, Alan Keith, Decisions About People i n Need; A Study of Administrative -Responsiveness i n Public Assistance. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel H i l l , 1957. Marx, Morstein, Elements of Public Administration. Prentice H a l l Inc., Englewood C l i f f s , N.J.., 1959. Report of the Advisory Council on Child Welfare Services, 86th Congress, 2nd Session, Document No. 92. 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0104899/manifest

Comment

Related Items