Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Historical development of public and voluntary responsibility in social welfare and their interrelationship… Ully, Marie Mathilda 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 U44.pdf [ 3.64MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0104911.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0104911-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0104911-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0104911-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0104911-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0104911-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0104911-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0104911-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0104911.ris

Full Text

HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF  PUBLIC AND VOLUNTARY RESPONSIBILITY HT SOCIAL WELFARE  AND THEIR PCTERRBIATIOIISHIP IN THE UNITED STATES by Marie Mathilda Tilly Thesis Submitted i n Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the. Degree of MASTER OF SOCIAL WORK in the School of Social 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 I n p r e s e n t i n g 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 r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r an advanced degree a t the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , I agree t h a t 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 r e f e r e n c e and s t u d y . I f u r t h e r a g r e e t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e c o p y i n g o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y p u r p o s e s may be g r a n t e d by the Head o f my Department o r by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s u n d e r s t o o d t h a t c o p y i n g o r p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l not be a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . S c h o o l o f S o c i a l Work The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , Vancouver 8, Canada. i i TABLE OF COMIENTS Page The Colonial Background i n Social Welfare 1 Care of the Dependent Under the American Constitution 6 The Development of Private Philanthropy and Social Reform: Pre-Civil War 8 Aftermath of the C i v i l War: Industrialization, Poverty and Organized Charity . . • 15 The Progressive Era: Voluntary Initiative and Social Reform 26 The 1920's - A Turning Inwards • . 33 The Depression Years: A New-Pound Partnership between Public and Private Agencies 38 Issues i n the 1940's and 1950* s 44 Emerging Patterns of Public-Private Relationships i n the 1960's 55 i i i A C K IT 0 W L 3 D G E M E I f S Without the skilled, patient help and direction of Mr. Michael Wieeler and Dr. Leonard C. Marsh of the School of Social V/ork, University of British Columbia, this thesis would not have been possible. iv HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT  PUBLIC AND VOLUNTARY RESPONSIBILITY IN SOCIAL WELFARE AND THEIR INTERRELATIONSHIP I N THE UNITED STATES The Colonial Backgroiuid i n Social Welfare Social welfare i n the United States has i t s roots i n the English Poor Law. The early Colonists brought to the New World ideas and methods of taking care of the needy which had been estab-lished i n England i n the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, and these were held on to longer and more tenaciously than they were i n their country of origin. Two historians of the Poor Law i n Colonial America, have described the policies which prevailed at that time. Orphans and children whose parents were incapacitated were provided for, and children were ordered brought up to a 'calling*. Poor persons had their taxes abated, were given cash or necessary supplies, particularly i n time of illness, were provided with medical care; were housed and cared for when incapacitated. Special arrangements were often worked out according to the nature of the case: public and private assistance supplemented each other; children and elderly persons were cared for but of their estates as long as possible; a relative received help from the town for the care of a blind person; articles of clothing were loaned, not given. ^  Although this 'coverage1 seems remarkable for the period, the aid remained minimal, deterrent and local. The early settlers had l e f t their homelands because of r e l i g i -ous persecution and governmental tyranny. They were people without wealth, who came to America to wrest a l i v i n g from the wilderness. In the Old Country, throughout the centuries, t o i l had been the lot of the masses. 1 Pumphrey, Ralph E. and Pumphrey, Muriel W., The Heritage of  American Social Work; Columbia University Press; New York; 1961; pp. 19-20. 2 By tradition, however, labor was an onerous duty attaching to the laborer. It had never been highly regarded, well rewarded or entirely free: The boast of Americans, the characteristic that made American l i f e seem so vulgar to older civili z a t i o n s , was that here, for almost the f i r s t time in history, labor was prized for i t s own sake. The promise of America was not affluence, but independence; not east but a chance to work for oneself, to be sel f -supporting, and to win esteem through hard and honest labor. 1 The very business of surviving called for the employment of every able pair of hands. The a b i l i t y to look after oneself was a 2 social asset says Bremner, and this a b i l i t y was rewarded by material well-being. In a situation like this, the person who could not provide for himself was readily seen as a failure, this being attributed to personal defect, since opportunity was claimed to he the same for a l l . Remnants of this attitude toward the needy persist to the present time. The variety of cultural backgrounds of the settlers influenced their attitudes toward the needy. There were British Puritan, Scotch, English Catholic, Anglican, Dutch and French as well as 3 Quakers. Most of these people followed a rather s t r i c t code of behaviour and expected this from each other. Thrift and industrious-ness were necessary not only for survival, but also demonstrated by 1 Bremner, Robert H . , From the Depths; New York University Press; Washington Square, New York; 1961; p. 17« 2 Ibid.; p. 17. 5 Friedlander, Walter, Introduction to Social Welfare; 2nd edition; Prentice-Kail, Inc., Englewood C l i f f s , New Jersey; 1961; p. 66. 3 material success the state of grace of the individual. The Puritans in particular decried laziness and poverty, since they considered idleness to be the source of unhappiness and crime, and poverty a 1 . proof of low moral worth. "In other aspects of l i f e access to the v i r t u a l l y unlimited resources of a raw undeveloped land, and the hardships of wresting a livelihood on or from i t fostered i n -2 dividualism." The high taxes levied for r e l i e f of the poor i n their home-lands, caused these people to have an intense dislike for this responsibility; coupled with their inherited concept that paupers, beggars and vagrants were criminals, this aroused their contempt for the needy who had to ask for support from the parish. The fact that most paupers were widows and orphans, and the sick, old, and invalid persons, did l i t t l e to change these attitudes. One of the practices of the mother countries was to send out to the colonies the people who were not wanted. Thus there were considerable numbers of "demented and maimed persons and convicted 3 offenders," who were among the later arrivals. The burden of caring for those i n these groups who were not able to manage on their own was not readily accepted by the colonists. Sometimes the Settle-ment Law was invoked and these people were deported. 1 Ibid.; p. 67. 2 Vasey, Wayne, Government and Social Welfare; Henry Holt and Company; New York; 1952; p. 25. 3 Priedlander, op. c i t . ; p. 61. 4 With the appearance of the extremes of wealth and poverty, and the increase i n numbers who could not provide for their own needs, another Old Country institution was adopted, the almshouse. Tajc funds were pooled with private bequests to build them. With the growth of the population, more and more communities used this 1 arrangement. It was thought to be a more humane type of treatment than the custom of "farming out" or "selling out" the pauper, as well as being more manageable financially. In addition, i t provided better means of controlling the behaviour of the recipients. Here one sees a continuation of cooperation between public and private resources i n providing for the needy. Conditions i n the almshouses were extremely degrading and hazardous. The public seemed to make l i t t l e effort to know what went on, partly because of the prevalent feeling that those who could not care for themselves were a burden to the rest, and also because the doctrine of self-help was so whole-heartedly espoused by a l l . There were variations across the country i n the use made of the almshouse with some sections maintaining "outdoor r e l i e f " to a greater extent than others. In the South with i t s feudal-like plantations, the sense of responsibility for those in need was 2 viewed as a personal rather than corporate one. There were certain categories of the poor for which the states eventually assumed 1 Pumphrey, Ralph E. and Pumphrey, Muriel W., The Heritage  of American Social Work? Columbia University Press; 1961; p. 27. 2 Ibid.; p. 45. 5 responsibility. These were the insane, the feeble-minded, the blind, the deaf-mute, the criminal, and the delinquent. State institutions were built in which to house them. The removal of these groups from the almshouses indicated a "recognition of a special claim these 1 persons had on the sympathies of the community." There were also private ways to provide for special sections of the population. One of these was the r e l i e f offered by churches to needy members of their congregations. In the South, the Anglican church had strong ties with the government, and i n the Northern colonies the Puritan religious doctrine influenced the colonial governments. Often the combinations of community action and r e l i g i -2 ous pressure was used to bring about solution of welfare problems. Money was collected at religious services and on other occasions, as well as through special appeals i n cases of emergency. As with the other forms of r e l i e f , there was a distinction made on the grounds of the behaviour of the applicants; those whose moral behaviour was c r i t i c i s e d i n the community or those who did not heed the minis-ters admonitions were denied r e l i e f . The sick and elderly who had been known to the parish over a period of time were considered to be the "worthy" poor, while needy newcomers or strangers were considered to be "unworthy" poor. A further indication of the prevailing attitude toward the poor was their disfranchisement. 1 Vaseyj op. c i t . ; p. 26. 2 de Grazia, Alfred, and Gurr, Ted, American Welfare; New York University Press; New York; 1961; p. 41. 6 Care of the Dependent Under the American C o n s t i t u t i o n The Preamble to the C o n s t i t u t i o n of the United States r e f e r s to the desire of the people of the United States i n e s t a b l i s h i n g the Union to "promote the general welfare." However, there was no p r o v i s i o n made i n the C o n s t i t u t i o n f o r the assumption of r e s -p o n s i b i l i t y on the part of the Federal Government f o r matters of s o c i a l welfare. The fears of oppression and governmental tyranny which t h e i r forefathers had experienced i n other countries had been transmitted to the founding fathers and they bent every e f f o r t to ensure that within t h i s C o n s t i t u t i o n there would be p r o t e c t i o n of p o l i t i c a l and r e l i g i o u s freedom, and freedom from the control of large and remote i n s t i t u t i o n s of government. The people feared that the r e l i n q u i s h i n g of c o n t r o l of something so personal as i n d i v i d u a l human welfare to the Federal Government would br i n g them under p o l i -t i c a l bondage and oppression. The Revolution had been influenced by the desire f o r l i b e r t y , "resentment of B r i t i s h governmental oppression, and by the French 1 e q u a l i t a r i a n philosophy of Jean Jacques Rousseau." Treatment of the poor, however, had not been an issue i n the Revolution, conse-quently many of the provisions of the Poor Law were retained by the newly formed state governments. Although p r o t e c t i o n against s t a r -v a t i o n was assured, i n order to be e l i g i b l e f o r p u b l i c c h a r i t y the 2 applicant had to show that he was r e a l l y s u f f e r i n g . 1 Priedlander, Walter, Introduction to S o c i a l Welfare, 2nd e d i t i o n ; P r e n t i c e - H a l l , Inc.; Englewood C l i f f s , New Jersey; 1961; p. 71. 2 Pumphrey, Ralph E., and Pumphrey, Mu r i e l W., The Heritage of  American S o c i a l Work; Columbia U n i v e r s i t y Press; New York; 1961; p. 53* 7 The Territorial Laws of 1795 provided for administration of relief to be carried out by overseers of the poor, appointed by the justice of the peace, who were to assess the property within their area, provide work houses in which the needy of a l l descrip-tions would reside, and where those able to work would be required to do so; they were to refuse aid to those who would not enter the poorhouse; they could put out as apprentices children whose parents were dead or unable to provide for them; enforce the residence lawsj ensure that relatives assumed responsibility for their own needy, 1 and extract the appropriate sum i f they failed i n their duty. A condition of frontier l i f e which encouraged the abandonment of the system of "warning out" was the fact that new settlers were needed 2 and valued. With the increase in population in the f i r s t three decades of the nineteenth century, the total number of poor increased^ Moreover, crop failures and unemployment added to the numbers of able-bodied people in need of help. This increased tax burden on the local units resulted in complaints which helped bring about assumption of responsibility for some categories of the needy by state governments. Massachusetts and Connecticut were among the f i r s t to pay for those who were "unsettled" or "warned out". Because every town was responsible for its own poor, they had to be residents for a statutory period, and have paid poor relief 1 Ibid.; pp. 5k-$6. 2 Ibid.; p. 53. 8 taxes. I f they moved to another town and became destitute prior to meeting the residence requirements, they were considered to be "unsettied", and subject to return to the location where they had established residence. They were "warned out", or ordered to leave unless they could provide security by bond of a resident i n good standing. Very often the i n a b i l i t y to secure such a bond was effec-tive i n causing the poor to move onv. It was for this group of people that the state governments gradually assumed responsibility. New York also provided for state funds to help those fleeing from 1 the B r i t i s h Army or from Indians* The Development of Private philanthropy and Social Reform; Pre-Civil War One of the earliest and best examples of private ways of pro-viding for special sections of the population was the Scots' Chari-table Society, incorporated i n Boston i n l6f>7. This society based on ties of common nationality i n a strange land, took care of i t s members and their fellow countrymen i n what has come to be regarded as the oldest social agency-s t i l l functioning i n the United States. It was the prototype for thousands of nationality, religions and fraternal organi-zations Tshich have waxed and waned during the three centuries since i t s founding. 2 This society s o l i c i t e d funds from those uho might become e l i g i b l e to be recipients, and the donors had the right to choose their beneficiaries• 1 Friedlander, l o c . c i t . 2 Pumphrey, op. c i t . ; p. 30. 9 The philanthropic association founded for humanitarian motives was another form of private charity which originated early i n the history of the country. The Philadelphia Society for A l l e v i -ating the Miseries of Public Prisoners, founded i n 1787, the Massa-chusetts Charitable Fire Society, of 1791* > and the New York Society for the Relief of Poor Widows with Small Children, of 1798, are 1 examples of this type of organization* The Poor Law Commission Report of I83U i n England had reper-cussions i n America; i t helped to crystallize concern about the effects of making public aid a right. There was fear les t the recipient "become pauperized i f he has a right to r e l i e f " , and for the wealthy person "whose attitude w i l l be so much more positive i f he acts voluntarily than i f he i s required to produce the same 2 amount of assistance through taxation." A few unorthodox souls ventured the thought that the individual was not to be held wholly responsible for his fate and that economic and social action was 3 just as necessary as self-help. This trend toward the "environmental approach" was a reflec-tion of the work of England's Edwin Chadwick who had become interested i n public health and sanitary reform. The American leader i n this f i e l d was John Griscom, health Officer of New York City. He "shifted the concept of fault away from the unfortunate sufferers 1 Friedlander; op. c i t . ; p. 70. 2 Pumphrey; op. c i t . ; p. 58. 3 Ibid.; p. 59. 10 and attached i t to the landlords and the system under which they operated. Both, i n his mind, were subject to regulation by govern-1 ment, i n the f i r s t instance through c i t y ordinance." The mid-eighteen hundreds was a period of response to the extreme l i v i n g conditions of great numbers of people, and feeling about the ineffectiveness of the existing measures to deal with these conditions. In l8li3 a significant voluntary movement, the New York Association for Improving the Conditions of the Poor was organized. This movement became an example to the c i t i e s of the nation and there was widespread adoption of i t s practices. The fundamental ideas of this organization included the need for the individual approach through volunteer v i s i t o r s , with an emphasis on re-education and moral persuasion; r e l i e f was a secondary objec-2 t i v e . As was found by organizations before and after this one, the urgency of economic needs was so great that attention had to be turned to improvement of the environment. This social action activity on the part of the Association for Improving the Conditions of the Poor resulted i n the establishment of the Juvenile Asylum i n 1851* which was to take care of the homeless and neglected c h i l -3 dren who were considered to be juvenile delinquents. Other areas of concern for this group were the fields of housing, sanitary conditions, school attendance and poor parental supervision. They 1 Ibid.j p. 96. 2 Ibid.; p. 103. 3 Loc. c i t . 11 were able to influence the Legislature i n such a way as to secure the passing of a law which enabled the vagrant and unschooled children to be brought before the courts. I h i l e the principle behind this legislation was commendable, the results were often appalling* However, there was a recognition of the need to develop policy and method involving both individual and group approaches to human 1 problems. The central figure i n the Association for Improving the Conditions of the Poor movement, Robert M. Hartley, advocated the assumption by the State of the function of parent. While the founder of the Association for Improving the Condi-tions of the Poor was instrumental i n bringing about reform, he was of the opinion that the poor should leave the c i t i e s ; he, too, was a devout adherent to the creed of self-help, and the essence 2 of his advice to the poor was that they should move on elsewhere. About the same time i n history, another voluntary movement mainly concerned with the welfare of children, became active. The Children's Aid Society, under the leadership of Charles Loring Brace, attempted to solve the problems of homeless children, not by placing them i n institutions as had been the custom up u n t i l this time, but by placing them out i n private homes, preferably farm homes and preferably "out West". His philosophy emphasized the effect of environment on the child, and he hoped that by his program of "moral disinfection" these children would develop into worthy citizens. 1 Ibid.; p. lOlw 2 Bremner, Robert H., From the Depths; New York University Press; Washington Square, New York; 1961; p. 38. 12 The Young Men's Christian Association was established i n America at this time also. This organization was concerned with an older group of the homeless, and also with those belonging to a higher income l e v e l . It worked with the "uprooted youths isho had reversed Brace's pattern and emigrated from the countryside to the c i t y . Its functions were to provide a substitute for the friendly and familiar moral influences from which young men had been cut off by their removal to the c i t i e s , and to protect them against the dan-1 gers of i r r e l i g i o n , intemperance and immorality." The Young Men's Christian Association also performed a r e l i e f function, and i n the c i t i e s of Washington and Chicago i t co-ordinated the r e l i e f and welfare f a c i l i t i e s of the communities u n t i l other organizations were 2 able to take over this job. It was one of the pioneer agencies i n 3 collecting factual information on urban social conditions. There were other reform movements i n existance during this period of American history. Dorothea Dix was in f l u e n t i a l i n direct-ing attention to the inhuman treatment of the insane, and being convinced that the l o c a l care of this group i n almshouses and j a i l s was t o t a l l y inadequate, she threw her energies into influencing the states to assume responsibility for their care. Some of the obstacles that she encountered were the unwillingness of the state, and often i t s i n a b i l i t y , to finance the building of the institutions which 1 Ibid.; p. U l . 2 Ibid., p. I P . . 3 Ibid.; p. U2. 13 would provide not only custodial care but curative treatment also. In an attempt to overcome these obstacles Miss Dix turned to Congress for aid, and succeeded in getting a b i l l passed which appropriated ten million acres of land to the states for the purpose of building hospitals for the care of the insane. The debate surrounding States' Rights which raged throughout this period influenced President Franklin Pierce to declare that charitable a c t i v i t i e s were a state function and he refused to approve the b i l l . My deliberate conviction (is) that a s t r i c t adherence to the terms and purposes of the Federal compact, offers the best, i f not the only, security for the preservation of our blessed inheritance of representative li b e r t y . . . If Congress have power to make provision for the indigent insane without the limits of this jurisdiction of. this D i s t r i c t , i t has the same power to provide for the indigent who are not insane, and thus to transfer to the Federal Government the charge of a l l the poor i n a l l the states . . . to assume a l l that duty of either public philanthropy, or public necessity to the dependent, the orphan, the sick, or the needy, which is now discharged by the states themselves, or by corporate institutions, or private endowments exist-ing under the legislation of the States. The whole f i e l d of public beneficence i s thrown open to the care and culture of the Federal Government. 1 This statement showed remarkably keen insight by the President into the fundamental issues of the day which were to be battled for many years to come, and to be only partly resolved i n the passing of the Social Security Act in 1935• The States jealously guarded their rights from interference by the Central Government, and whenever concessions were made, they 1 Pumphrey, Ralph E., and Pumphrey, Muriel W., The Heritage  of American Social Work; Columbia University Press; New York; 1961; P. 132. 1U were made grudgingly. However, at the time of President Pierce's veto of the afore-mentioned proposal by Miss Dix, there were State representatives i n Congress who recognized the i n a b i l i t y of the States to provide adequately for the various categories of the needy, and who wanted Federal help. But President Pierce did not believe the "two wrongs make a right," and said, "In my judgment you cannot, by tributes to humanity, make any adequate compensation for the wrong you would i n f l i c t by removing the sources of power and p o l i t i c a l 1 action from those who are to be thereby affected." He thought that Federal aid would result i n the sources of charity being dried up i n the States, and the States would i n turn begin to beg the Central Government for help rather than being the masters of i t . The same kind of fear of providing adequately for those in need be-cause they might then come to rely on the source of supply instead of attempting to become self-sufficient, has characterized the a t t i -tudes of the "giver" to the "recipient" right down to the levels of the individual agency, and has not been completely eradicated to the present day. President Pierce's veto established a principle which lasted for eighty years; however, i t could not completely overshadow the lasting contribution of Miss Dixs "the idea that d i s a b i l i t y i s no respecter of persons and that adequate and appropriate care should 2 be available for everybody." 1 Ibid.; p. 13U. 2 Ibid.; p. 125. 1$ Throughout this period there was a p r o l i f i c growth of volun-tary organizations to deal with every imaginable type of need. There was a preoccupation with specialization of function. To add to the confusion, there were not only competing groups but competing methodological approaches. For example, i n the f i e l d of Child Welfare there were three main approaches; Brace and the Children's Aid Society, advocating removal of children to new homes out West; the Catholic Protectory in New York advocating removal to private institutions nearby; the Massachussetts State Board of Charities advocating a system of supervised foster homes i n or near the child's 1 home community. Aftermath of the C i v i l War; Industrialization, Poverty and Organized Charity The C i v i l War of 1861-1865 had a variety of effects upon social welfare organizations and the issues with which they were concerned. P o l i t i c a l issues occupied the minds of leaders, and i n some respects the pressing social questions were pushed into the background. The issue of slavery was supposedly settled by the War and was no longer highlighted i n public debate. The implica-tions of this problem went underground for a period of time. The C i v i l War brought increased impoverishment to the South and economic prosperity to the North. 1 Ibid.} p. 138. 16 By accelerating the process of industrialization and encouraging hoth urbanization and immigration i t trans-formed poverty from a local to a national problem. It accentuated the contrast between the conditions of the rich and poor, and, in so doing, created an atmosphere of discontent and unrest. 1 People moved to the areas where mechanization and the fac-tory system created a new demand for labour. In addition, the market value of traditional skills and crafts was depreciated by mechanization and the labour market was glutted by the numbers of women and children available to f i l l the new factory jobs. Although there was supposedly "freedom of contract" the employer was able to set the conditions at will because of the masses who were avail-able, as well as being prodded by the need to surpass his competi-tors. "These hard facts were made yet harsher by the prevailing theory of political economy which held that the welfare of the individual laborers was a matter of small consequence either to 2 employers or to the state." The hardships of the immigrant became particularly severe. To be an immigrant in the earlier years (prior to the Civil War) was to be part of an experience in the making. You did-n't feel unwanted or a misfit, nor did you feel ashamed of your cultural origin. But after the Civil War, with the triumph of industrialism, America became the country where miracles were in f u l l swing and where entrance waa an admis-sion to the miracle-making. As an immigrant coming to something no longer experimental but already tested and created, you were suspect of trying to cash in on a good thing. As a combined entrance fee and expiation, you were crowded into slums, forced to do the dirty and poorly paid jobs, made to feel an outsider. 3 1 Bremner j Op. cit.; pp. b2,k3, 2 Ibid.; p. U. 3 Lerner, Max; America As a Civilization; Simon and Shuster; New York; 1£57; p. 91. 17 The tendency to blame immigration for everything that was disreputable in American l i f e increased greatly. Certain groups of immigrants were the focal points for this feeling because of their places of origin or their religious persuasion. While the furor over immigration kept the issue of poverty before the people, i t also served to obscure the basic problems of economics in a haize 1 of religious and national prejudices. The Social philosophy of Rxivate Philanthropy The philosophy of non-intervention in the market by govern-ment which held sway in Europe at this time and which found its theoretical justification in the writings of Adam Smith, found acceptance in America. At the same time, religious doctrine empha-sized both the possibility and the need for individual regeneration; man could purge himself of his sins and of the bad habits which led to indigence. Bremner says that the overthrow of the authoritarian Puritanical theology resulted in the releasing of a "tumult of energy" which was directed toward the cause of "moral and humani-2 tarian reform". The emphasis on individual achievement and self-help was given a "supposedly scientific basis by the teachings of Herbert Spencer and his.American disciples, and also by the early application of Darwinian biology to social thought. If, as the Spencerian and Social Darwinians asserted, competition was the law of l i f e , there 1 Bremner; op. cit.; p. 11. 2 Ibid.; p. 18. 18 was no remedy f o r poverty except i n d i v i d u a l s e l f - h e l p . The poor who remained poor must pay the p r i c e exacted "by nature from a l l 1 the u n f i t . In accordance with t h i s philosophy, interference on behalf of the poor, on the part of the State or p h i l a n t h r o p i s t s , was considered to be dangerous because i t would i n t e r f e r e with nature's laws. Outdoor R e l i e f : A P u b l i c or Privat e R e s p o n s i b i l i t y ? Throughout t h i s period there was a continuing controversy regarding whether or not outdoor r e l i e f was to be continued, and i f so, who should assume r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r i t . This controversy was r e l a t e d to the way i n which the poor and needy were viewed by those responsible f o r r e l i e f . There was a sharp d i v i s i o n of opinion r e -garding the "worthy" and the "umrorthy" poor. Rev. H. C. Duganne, speaking i n the debate on Outdoor R e l i e f at the 1881 Conference of C h a r i t i e s and Corrections, s a i d g i v i n g of outdoor r e l i e f should be discontinued by voluntary agencies because of "the n e c e s s i t y of d i s -c riminating between the worthy and the unworthy, those whose mis-fortune i s no f a u l t of t h e i r own, and those who are h a b i t u a l l y i d l e 2 and p r o f l i g a t e , the innocently poor and the c r i m i n a l l y poor." For Rev. Duganne, the p u b l i c agency should deal with the "unworthy" while the voluntary agency should "extend the hand of true c h a r i t y " to those who d i d not cause t h e i r poverty through t h e i r own v i c i o u s 1 I b i d . ; p. 19. 2 Duganne, H. C , "Debate on Outdoor R e l i e f . " Proceedings of  the 8th Annual Conference of C h a r i t i e s and Corrections; A. Williams and Company; Boston; 1881; p. 155* 1° habits and who could benefit therefrom. Another speaker at this Conference said that there was no just i f i c a t i o n for public aid on the ground of charity. "It i s not charity, even i n the religious sense, to tax the community, 1 to take from unwilling pockets to give to other people." A speaker from London, Sir Charles Trevelyan, who was advoca-ting the organization of charities, said that because outdoor r e l i e f provided a ready-made insurance at public expense, the value of the greatest moral regulator and corrective of a l l , labour, would be ignored and people would come to look upon r e l i e f as a matter of course. He advocated the "gradual substitution of wise, discriminate 2 organized charily, for the 'master e v i l ' of out-door r e l i e f . " A favourite distinction among spokesmen for private philan-thropy during this era was that between poverty and pauperism. IShile poverty i s to be deplored, pauperism i s to be condemned. It i s the result of heredity and environ-ment, and i s fostered by public o f f i c i a l r e l i e f and indiscriminate almsgiving; but, whether caused by hereditary tendencies or the result of a process of demoralization, a lack of character and moral force i s involved. Therefore the development of character must be the object sought i n the treatment of this pauper class. 3 1 Lowe, M., "Debate on Outdoor Relief." Proceedings of the  8th Annual Conference of Charities and Corrections; A. Williams and Company; Boston; 1881; p. 160. 2 Trevelyan, Sir Charles, "Debate on Outdoor Relief." Proceedings of the 8th Annual Conference of Charities and Correc- tions'; A. Williams and Company; Boston; ldBl; p. 165. ~" 3 Todd, Hannah, "Report of the Committee on the Organization of Charities." Proceedings of the Rational Conference of Charities and Corrections; George H. E l l i s ; Boston; 18°1; p. 111. 20 In advocating the cause of organized charity, James Walks said i n 1885, that "when we shall have cut off poor law r e l i e f , 1 we shall have cut the tap root of the noxious tree o>f pauperism." An example of efforts to co-operate was the admonition that the state legislature provide generous public aid to private bene-volence and philanthropy, i n this way the state could perform i t s duties to dependent children since the private institutions were 2 thought to be better than state institutions. There were others who f e l t that the greatest gains were not to be made i n struggling against each other, but through efforts to co-operate, ^rofessor Graham Taylor said, "The f i r s t point i s the necessity of establishing reciprocal relations between our 3 private and public charities." Another speaker said, "There must be . . . constantly reciprocal checking and expanding of the two k systems of public and private charity to meet the situation." Dr. A.G. Warner, another advocate of 'cooperation' stated, "Neither the police power alone nor private associations alone can suppress 1 Walks, James, "The Relations of Organized Charity to Public and Private Relief." Proceedings of the National Conference of  Charities and Corrections; George H. E l l i s ; Boston; 1885; p. 336. 2 Prendergast, Judge R., "State Aid to Private Institutions." Proceedings of the National Conference of Charities and Corrections; George H. E l l i s ; Boston; 1886; p. l o l . 3 Taylor, Professor Graham, "Minutes and Discussion." Proceed- ings of the National Conference of Charities and Corrections; George H. E l l i s ; Boston; 1892; p. 327. k Sanborn, F.E., "Minutes and Discussion." Proceedings of the National Conference of Charities and Corrections; George H. E l l i s ; Boston; 1892; p. 327. 21 1 street-begging: the two must cooperate." The I890{s were a time of controversy regarding the causes of poverty. A minister speaking to the Conference i n 1890 said, "poverty and class distinction were supernaturally ordained and inaccessible to cure; the religious man was obligated to share his 2 abundance with the unfortunate to mitigate the severest suffering." Robert Paine thought that i t resulted from inadequate preparation of children for industrial competition; Mrs. Josephine Shaw Lowell thought that the poor had to endure deprivation so that they could be kept at work; Miss Zilpha Smith brought i n a different element 3 by saying that the poor were no different inherently than others. There were some writers who looked upon the system of free market i n labour, low wages, and the problems of poor r e l i e f administra-k tion, as being interrelated. One of these writers, Mathew Carey, was convinced that the practice of paying labourers less than subsistence wages (because of the p l e n t i f u l supply of labourers) encouraged and necessitated their use of r e l i e f . He made a comparison of wages paid to a 1 Warner, Dr. A.G., "Minutes and Discussion." Proceedings  of the National Conference of Charities and Corrections; George H. E l l i s ; Boston; 1892; p. h30. 2 Pumphrey, Ralph E., and Pumphrey, Muriel W., The Heritage  of American Social Work; Columbia University Press; New Yo±k; 1961; p. 213. 3 Ibid.; p. 213. k Ibid.; p. 80. 22 labourer and his family expenses. The results of the comparison indicated that i t was impossible for the family to exist on the rates paid. This i s one of a large class, whom some of our p o l i t i c a l economists of the new school are not ashamed to stigma-tize as worthless and improvident, because they do not, forsooth, save enough out of their miserable wages, to support themselves and families, i n times of scarcity, without aid of benevolent societies; whereas i t appears that their wages are inadequate to their support even when f u l l y employed. 1 There were no allowances made for time lost through accident, sick-ness, of employee or dependants, or for seasons of unemployment. Another writer, Sarah Hale, was alarmed by the results of the common methods of relieving the distress of the poor, and decided that, "the true way was to give employment, paying such a price for labor, as would enable those who were industrious and 2 f a i t h f u l to provide for their own support." She in i t i a t e d the practice of paying the employee at least enough for his support. Hale discovered that she could pay the workers almost double the standard rate for some of their work and s t i l l s e l l the products at the prevailing rates without loss. This practice resulted i n the employees not requiring poor r e l i e f , and also making i t possible for them to maintain their self-respect and pride i n their work. 1 Ibid.; p. 8U. 2 Ibid., p. 91. 23 They were spared the humiliation to which the applicant for poor r e l i e f was subjected, as well as the p o s s i b i l i t y of a refusal of the request. The depression of 1893 severly taxed the resources of volun-tary agencies and underlined the conditions of l i f e which cannot be controlled by the individual whether he i s considered to be "worthy11 or "unworthy". The principle of less e l i g i b i l i t y was re-vived, and may be seen i n Philip Ayres• proposals for handling future industrial emergencies. He advocated a combination of public and private r e l i e f by work. The conditions surrounding the giving of work were that i t was to be given to the local heads of families only, with "tramps" and "loafers" being given the least attractive jobs so that they would not be a poor influence on the more indus-trious. The work was to be d i f f i c u l t so that i t would require real labour, and i t must be underpaid so i t would not attract others* Not only were the causes of poverty sought out but there was great effort put into determining i t s extent. People l i k e R i i s , Helen Campbell, Amos Warner, and Florence Kelley were convinced that the public needed to be made aware of the facts and then 1 reforms would result. The Contribution of the Charity Organization Society. There were two main factors which influenced the development 1 Bremner, Robert H., From the Depths; New York University Press; Washington Square, New York; 1961; p. 81*. 2k of the Charity Organization Society movement i n America. A Society had been organized i n London, and following the economic depression of 18?3, the public once again became aware of the disorganization and inadequacy of private and public r e l i e f . In 1877, Rev. S. Gurteen organized the f i r s t American Charity Organization Society i n Buffalo. The main principles of these Societies were to secure the co-operation of a l l l o c a l charitable organizations under a board Somprised of their representatives, a central registry of r e c i p i -ents, investigation of every applicant by a v i s i t o r i n an effort 1 to determine need and appropriate measures for dealing with i t . One of the main objectives of the v i s i t o r s was by personal contact to strengthen the moral fibre of the indigent and encourage them to become self-supporting. The investigations into the conditions of the poor revealed that the concept of individual fault could not be accepted. Social reform was needed, said the investigators, and these societies became advocates of reform measures in housing improvements, clearing of slum conditions, and prevention and treatment of tuber-culosis. They supported the movement for child welfare legislation and other measures designed to secure social justice. The administrators of the Societies made a career of this employment and their staff for the most part were volunteers, with 1 Friedlander, Walter, Introduction to Social Welfare, fnd Edition; Prentice-Hall, Inc. Englewood C l i f f s , New Jersey; 1961; p. 9h. 1 25 a few paid workers who, during the early years, were considered 1 to be less desirable workers than the unpaid volunteer. However, the movement's emphasis on method crystallized the idea that staff with training and continuous experience would be better qualified to carry on these labours. An interesting development was the encouragement of women to engage i n social work by the Charity Organization Societies, a concept which was opposite to that held by the Association for Improving the Conditions of the Poor which 2 re l i e d exclusively on men to perform the required tasks. Some of the problems faced by these Societies included the pos s i b i l i t y of jealousies between them and well-established agencies, their a b i l i t y to harmonize with the existing institutions, and doubts about admitting officers of the ci t y governments because of fears 3 of " p o l i t i c a l scheming" • The Societies planned progressively to take the r e l i e f of the poor out of the hands of the city authorities, and to reduce continuously the appropriation of city monies to the support of the poor. Some f e l t that the situation would be improved by cutting off completely the c i t i e s aid and making private charity equal to a l l just demands. Others argued that to unite with the city was the best way of securing the cooperation of those authori-t i e s , especially that of the police. 1 Pumphreyj op. c i t . ; p. 139. 2 Bremner; op. c i t . ; p. 52. 3 "Cooperative Benevolence." Appendix to the Committee's Report, Proceedings of the 8th Annual Conference of Charities and  Corrections; A. Williams and Company; Boston; 1681; p. 105. 26 Some criticisms of the Charity Organization Societies were that a heartless and Pharisaical s p i r i t characterized their opera-tion, and that they were prone to measure worthiness by business 1 standards• The Progressive Era; Voluntary Initiative and Social Reform The f i r s t two decades of the twentieth century were charac-terized by an optimistic attitude and a change i n the way poverty-was viewed. Instead of seeing i t as a matter of dependency only, i t was now seen i n terms of insufficiency and insecurity. The people who were barely eking out an existence, though they were self-supporting, became objects of concern as well as those who were destitute. There was improvement i n the general economic conditions and attention was focused on matters other than those connected with mere survival. There was also a different attitude toward wealth; i t was no longer thought to be a curse, as some had thought, nor the measure of virtue as the majority claimed. There was an enthusiastic revival of the idea that poverty stemmed from economic forces over which the individual had l i t t l e control and that he should not be held accountable for i t s effects. This Iviewgained increasing acceptance during the early years of the twentieth century. 1 Bremner, Robert H., From the Depths; New York University-Press; Washington Square, New York; 1961; pp. 53, Sh» 27 It suited the secular s p i r i t of the Progressive era better than any other explanation of want, and i t was both a reflection of, and stimulus to, contemporary movements for social justice. Most significant of a l l the increasing emphasis placed on the economic (as opposed to the moral) causes of poverty denoted that the historic interest i n the condition of the poor was giving way to a newly aroused concern with the rights and grievances of the working class* 1 This view of the causes of poverty carried with i t a companion view regarding i t s cure: the indivridual reform approach gave way to social reform as the more adequate task to be performed* These new views were reflected i n statements made at the National Con-ference. There was increased emphasis on the responsibility that States should assume for the needy, and as well, a beginning of assumption of responsibility on the part of the Central Government. Although the doctrines of t h r i f t and self-help s t i l l were propounded by many, there was a beginning recognition that there were other desirable virtues also. There was a shift away from the desire to give charily to ensure the salvation of the giver, to that of benefitting the recipient. J u l i a Lathrop i n advocating public charities at the 1905 Conference said, There i s no finer conception i n the world as i t i s , than that of a system of public charities. Such a system sets aside the egotistical Oriental sanction for charity and replaces the almoner's personal effort 'to acquire merit' by the State's solemn acknowledgement of i t s responsibility for i t s feeblest members* Instead of the capricious g i f t s of individuals, we have theunfailing reservoirs of the commonwealth; instead of the uncertainty of individual 1 Ibid.; p. 135 28 interest we have, i n theory at least, the unflagging devotion of the state to a great humanitarian service accepted by i t as a necessary function of government. 1 The battle between the public and private agencies continued with the question of outdoor r e l i e f often being predominant. Frederic Almy typified one group with his views that i f the poor knew they could go at any time to the public agency and get r e l i e f , their desires would know no bounds} the treasury would appear to them to be inexhaustable, and they would come to look upon i t as their 'right 1 to receive aid in any emergency, and they would cast 2 t h r i f t to the winds. Almy's solution to the problem was that "the absolutely necessary r e l i e f be given from the adequate public 3 funds, and that this be supplemented by private personal service." This view was supported by George S. Wilson who had conducted a survey i n relation to this problem. The conclusion reached was that private rather than public r e l i e f was favoured. He too, thought that the attitude of the poor toward the source of supply k was more important than the administration of the funds. 1 Lathrop, Julia, "Report of the Committee on State Supervision and Administration." Proceedings of the National Conference of  Charities and Corrections; George H. E l l i s ; Boston; 1905; p. h20. 2 Almy, Frederic, "Public or Private Outdoor Relief." Proceed- ings of the National Conference of Charities and Corrections; George H. E l l i s ; Boston; 1900; p. 1U2. 3 Ibid.; p. 11*0. k Wilson, George S., "Outdoor Relief i n Relation to Charity Organization." Proceedings of the National Conference of Charities and Corrections; George H. E l l i s ; Boston; 1900; p. 261. 29 The conflict of views regarding §tate supervision was stated in rather strong language by some of the Conference speakers on several occasions. The issue was complicated by the fact that some private institutions were subsidized by public funds, while some were financed entirely through voluntary contributions. One speaker i n 1911 said that i f the private institution was i n receipt of public funds there should be State supervision, and that the amount of the subsidy should determine the degree of such super-1 vision and the methods employed. He aaid that the granting of lump-sum subsidies i n particular, not based on any definite measure of service rendered, had been attended with unfortunate conditions and "frequently the most insidious influences are brought to bear 2 i n the effort to obtain appropriations." The undesirable conse-quences of such a system are numerous. Wilson's solution to this problem was that, "appropriations are better made upon the basis 3 of payment for services rendered, under contract or otherwise." Wilson also favoured State supervision of private charities which received no public subsidies, on the grounds that the State has a responsibility toward i t s dependent members to ensure them of proper care. The point of view of the private organizations was expressed by Rev. Richard Biedermann. He stated that truly private charities 1 Wilson, George S., "Supervision of Private Charities From the Point of View of an O f f i c i a l Board." Proceedings of the Nat- ional Conference of Charities and Corrections; The Fort Wayne Printing Company; Fort Wayne; 1911; p. 35. 2 Ibid.; p. 37'. 3 Ibid.; p. 38. 30 should not be State supervised any more than should a private home; such supervision would be purely paternalistic. He also stated that i t was unnecessary, and almost an insulting infringe-ment of private personal liberty; i f the activity was carried on by a church, i t would also be an unwarranted interference with 1 religious l i b e r t y . That this view wasan attempted rekindling of traditional resentment against government intervention i s confirmed i n his exhortation, "Let us not emulate the methods of foreign governments, from which our fore-fathers escaped and where individuals and churches are to this day being supervised and 2 inspected almost to death." An advocate of further governmental intervention, Frank Garland, refuted the claim to exclusive experimentation on the part of private agencies with the argument that the public must be educated to allow for such activity on the part of government i n the inter-3 ests of social wellbeing. He also claimed that the newer, broader conception of government carried with i t the function of promoting the common welfare. Garland was dismayed with the unequal dis-tribution of wealth and i t s benefits, and said that one way to rec t i f y this situation to a degree was through the government's assumption of responsibility for the needy through the medium of departments of public welfare. The use of such departments would 1 Biedermann, Rev. R., "Supervision of Private Charities from the Point of View of a Private Charity." Proceedings of the  National Conference of Charities and Corrections; The Fort Wayne Printing Company; Fort Wayne; 1911; pp. 1+2. 2 Ibid.} p. 1*3. 3 Garland, Frank, "The Municipality and Public Welfare." Proceedings of the National Conference of Charities and Corrections; The Hildmann Printing Company; Chicago; 1916; p. 313. 31 provide a more even distribution of the burden upon a l l . Entire and complete coverage would also be ensured. Bremner says of this period, " . . . conviction of abundance was the well-spring of the humanitarian movements of the Progressive 1 era." The existence of poverty and untenable l i v i n g and working conditions was considered to be incongruous with the relative prosperity of the time. There were movements directed at bettering these conditions. Low wages, long working hours, child labour, were attacked. The Supreme Court ruling i n 1908 i n the case of Muller v. The State of Oregon, regarding the limitation of hours of work of women i n laundries, marked a decisive break with the past i n acknowledg-ing the right of the State to interfere with the contractual relation-ship of employer and employee. The Court's reasons f o r this particular ruling are noteworthy: Woman's physical structure, and the functions that she per-forms in consequence thereof, j u s t i f y special legislation restricting or qualifying the conditions under which she should be permitted to t o i l . . . as healthy workers are essential to vigorous offspring, the physical wellbeing of a woman becomes an object of public interest and care i n order to preserve the strength and vigor of the race . . . 2 This ruling was a decisive step i n clearing the way for sub-sequent action. "The principle that individual freedom could be 1 Bremner, Robert H., From the Depths; New York University Press; Washington Square, New York; 1961; p. 129. 2 Pumphrey, Ralph E., and Pumphrey, Muriel W., The Heritage  of American Social Work; Columbia University Press; New York; 1961; p. 283. 32 curbed to achieve the common good made social reform efforts feasible. This was a definite blow to the followers of individualistic, self-help, non-intervention, opportunistic theories which interpreted the Constitution in terms of personal gain at the expense of others. A nother factor which was influential i n bringing about this change of attitude on the part of government was the social security "i legislation enacted i n Great Britain and some countries of Europe. In this Progressive era there were various proposals for social insurance; legislation was enacted providing for Workmen's Compensa-tion; savings bank l i f e insurance was introduced, enquiries were made regarding some form of old age pension. There was an increased recognition of the need to help those who were either too young or too old to provide for themselves through their own efforts i n the labour market. Di f f i c u l t i e s which lay i n the path of enacting many of these proposals were the financial hazards, and the disparity of wealth among the states. There was agitation for federal involvement i n child welfare matters. This culminated i n the establishment of a White House Conference on Children, the f i r s t of which was held i n 1909, and later the establishment of the United States Children's Bureau i n 1912. The f i r s t chief of the Bureau was Julia Lathrop, a prominent social worker. That there was an attempt to investigate the needs of depen-dent children across the nation is shown in the remarks of the 1 Ibid.; p. 278. 33 of the Committee on Resolutions presented to the President at the f i r s t White House Conference: The particular needs of each destitute child should be care-f u l l y studied and he should receive that care which his individual needs require and which should be as nearly as possible l i k e the l i f e of the other children of the commu-nity. We respectfully recommend. . . favorable action upon the b i l l for a federal children's bureau and the enactment of such legislation as w i l l bring the laws and the public administration of the Dis t r i c t of Columbia and other federal territory into harmony with the principles and conclusions herein stated, and . . . that you cause to be transmitted to the governor of each State of the Union a copy of the proceedings of this conference for the information of the state board of charities or other body exercising similar powers. 1 From the effects of this conference other movements l i k e the drive for mother's allowances gained impetus. However, there was no uniform, consistent program adopted and the states were allowed to follow their own wishes. The 1920*8 - A Turning Inwards World War I shifted attention to specialized needs and problems. Private charities became concerned with ways of raising funds and out of this grew the Federation. The s h i f t i n emphasis to the individual and his maladjustments was also greatly influenced by the work of Freud. This preoccupation with the "inner l i f e " and i t s importance i n the causation of maladjustment turned attention away from the influence of social and economic conditions on the individual. 1 Ibid.; p. 332. 3U I i the l°20»s there was a widespread but false belief that everything was boomingj that the prosperity of the country had resulted i n the effective resolution of major social i l l s . Poverty was thought of as a thing of the past, along with child labour. The solution of social problems was considered by some to have been 1 automatically achieved by business processes. False reassurances were propagated by the country's leaders and i t took the crash of 1929 to dispel these i l l u s i o n s . Although there were some who recognized that "the satisfaction of human needs recognizes no arbitrary division of functions, no geographical boundaries, no sharp distinctions of creed or color, 2 i n truth no a r t i f i c i a l division whatsoever," there was much con-troversy surrounding the division of responsibility, finances, and functions of the private and public agencies. One enthusiastic devotee of the Federation Movement advocated an "association of private agBncies, public departments, commercial and civic organiza-tions, and groups of people interested i n one phase or another of 3 public welfare," and said that this association should operate through functional committees. The question of whether or not the private agency leas i n the 1 Bremner j op. c i t . ; p. 260. 2 Bookman, CM., "Functions of Private and Public Agencies i n the Social Work of the Future." Proceedings of the National Conference of Social Work; University of Chicago Press; Chicago; 1922; p. 89. 3 Ibid.; p. 93. 35 best position to do a l l the pioneering arose again. Those' opposed to this view said that the private agency i s restricted i n i t s i n -vestigations because of lack of authority, whereas the public 1 agency would be able to compel the giving of facts. The private sector held the view that the public agencies did not have as high ideals and 'standards as the private agencies. They had initiated training of staff which was expected to ensure high standards of practice, and the fact that most of the trained staff worked in private agencies supported this argument. However, there was an increasing interest on the part of public agencies to raise their standards as the number of these agencies grew and more areas of need were included i n the scope of their activity. There were d i f f i c u l t i e s i n the appointment of staff in public agencies because of the basis upon which appointments were made, and the absence of uniform c i v i l service standards. Those who favoured private agencies argued that government, state or local, was incapable of doing a good job because of the system of patronage, of party favouritism and rewards, which operated i n the welfare departments even more disastrously than in other departments of government. Because of this there were frequent changes of o f f i c i a l s and policies and continuity was 2 hard to sustain. 1 Whipple, Lucius, "Social Forces In A Community: Public Agencies." Proceedings of the National Conference of Social Work; University of Chicago Press; Chicago; 1922; p. 396. 2 Maclean, M. _C, "The Effect of the Federation Movement Upon the Relationship Between Public and Private Welfare Agencies. What the Relationship Should Ba," Proceedings of the National Conference  of Social Work; University of Chicago Press; Chicago; 1924; P» 519* 36 Advocates of private charities also maintained that govern-ments have d i f f i c u l t y i n getting their money and because of this factor the public agencies work would be adversely affected. Further criticism of the public agencies were that they could not enter newer fields of services because of fear of criticism by the general public. Moreover, they could not specialize l i k e the private agencies because the majority of the electorate, who were thought to be the less socially-minded members of the community, might not approve of public monies being spent for these purposes. The private sector was also persuaded that there was a growing class of broad-minded, generous-hearted people who wovLld ensure the ade-quate provision of services apart from government. The advocates of increased public responsibility based their arguments on the following propositions: It i s the function of government to promote the welfare of i t s subjects, dependency i s often i n whole or in part caused by conditions over which the individual has no control and society as a whole should assume responsibility; at present there i s a grave injustice i n that the burden for social welfare i s being borne by a fraction of the popula-tion when i t should be equally distributed upon a l l ; the standards i n public agencies are being raised and the sphere of government acti v i t i e s i s being enlarged; no longer does government merely f a l l heir to the programs and procedures of the private agency and res-1 t r i c t i t s e l f to the carrying out of these programs. 1 Ibid.} pp. 519-521. 37 One writer advocated certain functions for each to perform. The public agencies should offer a complete service; they should in s i s t on proper standards of service on the part of public and private, and provide for inspection of a l l ; they should be res-ponsible for those services which require large expenditures of funds for indeterminable periods; they should handle cases that c a l l for exercise of police power; cases of long-standing delin-quency involving long continued expense and l i t t l e hope of restora-tion to normal standards, services which have been demonstrated by 1 private agencies as desirable and necessary. The private agency should undertake such services as do not f a l l under statutory provisions, with a view to demonstrating need and desirability; demonstrate by experiment the value of specializa-tion i n social work and strive for acceptance of the best standards by a l l ; emphasize the employing of trained social workers; educate and stimulate publio opinion through study and research and by wise 2 interpretive publicity; cultivate the s p i r i t of cooperation. That there was a dearth of cooperation i s reflected i n the fears of the private agencies that the public agencies would encroach on their territory and that there would be general acceptance of the role of public agencies i n a l l aspects of social welfare. There was a growing recognition of the necessity for govern-ment to provide a variety of services. Consequently, Departments 1 Ibid.; pp. 523, 524. 2 Ibid.; p. 524. 38 of Public Welfare were organized. These Departments usually res-tricted their work to the areas of poor r e l i e f and certain child welfare matters. Concern was expressed about the overlapping of servicesJ Effort should be made to transfer the work of private agencies to the government with as much expedition as i s practicable. Pending such transfer, legal arrange-ments might be made i n many cases for the government to pay the cost of such services rendered by private institutions with fixed plants - always with proper control of such expenditure of public money. 1 Some spokesmen denied that taxes would be increased as a result of increased governmental control. They claimed that good public administration would i n fact reduce over-all cost and be cheaper than dual control because the cost would be more equitably 2 distributed. The Depression Years: A New-Found Partnership between Public and Private Agencies The Great Depression was one of the greatest single events which brought about a change i n thinking regarding welfare matters and the responsibility of the State i n making provision for i t s citizens. It was such a shocking eye-opener that even the Hoover administration could not deny the true state of a f f a i r s . 1 Carter, Leyton E., "Governmental Responsibility i n the Fiel d of Social and Welfare Work." Proceedings of the National  Conference of Social Work; University of Chicago Press; Chicago; 1926; p. 459. 2 Ibid.; p. 46O. 39 Previous to this time there were only hu large c i t i e s whose public r e l i e f agencies employed trained social workers. There were private family agencies i n about hOO large c i t i e s , and "self-respecting families i n financial need went to voluntary agencies, which 'protected them1 from the disgrace of applying for 'pauper 1 aid'". Development of the public r e l i e f agencies had been held back by the fact that private agencies received subsidies from public funds on the basis of their claim that their "methods for preven-ting destitution arid for achieving rehabilitation were more 2 economical." During the f i r s t part of the Depression when unemployment increased from 2,860,000 i n the spring of 1929, to over 1^ ,000,000 i n January, 1930, r e l i e f was administered mainly by the voluntary agencies. It was only a few months u n t i l the financial resources of the voluntary agencies were completely exhausted. Although there were frantic appeals for money by the Community Chests and Councils, funds were not forthcoming because of the complete and widespread economic disaster - there was l i t t l e money to give. President Hoover believed that the r e l i e f needs should be met by voluntary agencies through funds contributed voluntarily. His attitude prolonged the hardships encountered by the voluntary agencies i n trying to meet the demands for r e l i e f . 1 Friedlander, Walter, Introduction to Social Welfare, 2nd Edition; Prentice-Hall, Inc. Englewood C l i f f s , New Jersey; 1961; p. 117. 2 Ibid.; p. 118. 1*0 Plans were made to gave jobs to the unemployed, to "spread the work," to give free medical and hospital service as well as 1 for special appeals to get more money. By September, 1930, unemployment had increased to over 5,000,000 and county and municipal r e l i e f officers had to provide an increasing amount of r e l i e f . Because of this development the role of public r e l i e f began to be seen as one of the principal functions of government. The States' revenues from taxes had also decreased, but i n order to keep unemployed families from starving some states f i n a l l y were forced, i n 1931> to provide state unem-ployment r e l i e f . In the spring of 1931 unemployment had risen to over 8,000,000 with only further increases i n sight. Farmers, industrial workers, and employees were a l l included i n the catas-trophe. It brought to the attention of a l l , as nothing else could, that the risks of l i f e f a l l upon a l l j not just the morally corrupt or the lazy may find themselves i n the position of having to ask for help. Not u n t i l there were multiplied calamities and persistent requests for federal aid were any appeals made i n Congress. Families were broken upj disease increased; sick people went without medical care; children were passed from neighbour to neighbour because the parents had no food; suicides increased; T.B. and malnutrition increased; mast of the savings of the middle class were l o s t . When b i l l s for federal aid were passed i n Congress, President 1 Ibid.; pp. 118-119. / Hoover vetoed them. Finally i n 1932, he passed the Emergency Relief and Reconstruction Act. This action opened the way for provision of r e l i e f and public works projects. There were some lingering hopes on the part of the private agencies that when unemployment ceased they would be able to resume their old position. However, the c r i s i s proved beyond a doubt that the combined resources of government, business, and private philanthropy must be used i n making adequate provision for the needy. By the time of Roosevelt's election i n 1932, the unemployed had increased to 15*000,000; i n some states 1*0 percent of the total population were receiving r e l i e f , and i n some counties as high as 1 90 percent received aid. In the ensuing months many temporary emergency r e l i e f measures were taken, but i t f i n a l l y became obvious that a permanent welfare system was required, with the federal government sharing expenses. This awareness led to the passing of the Social Security Act i n 1935, which act remains the basis for social security measures i n the United States. The Act introduced three main programs: 1) social insurance, a Federal old-age insurance system plus federal-state unemployment compensation, 2) public categorical assistance programs supported by Federal grants-in-aid for Old-Age Assistance, Blind, and Dependent Children, 3) program of health and welfare 1 Ibid.; p. 121 42 services - Maternal and Child Health Services, Services for Crippled Children, Child Welfare Services, Vocational Rehabilitation, and 1 Public Health Services. The Social Security Act represented an over-riding of the Pierce veto after the passage of eighty-one years. It was hailed by i t s supporters as a means of insuring sound democracy and as opening the door of opportunity for the Social Work profession to provide the leadership i n a new era of humane, efficient, and constructive welfare administration. 2 Although these programs seemed like a revolutionary step, " i t may be said that the measures then adopted were largely implem-entations, amplifications, and i n some instances but p a r t i a l f u l -fillments of the program of preventive social work formulated 3 before World War I." The reaction of the private welfare community to the Federal Government1 s i n i t i a t i v e was mixed and although suspicion of public programs died hard i t was generally conceded that the scale of the present c r i s i s was far beyond the resources of any combination of private agencies. One speaker i n 1931 said, Whatever may have been the attitude of private charity toward public r e l i e f i n the past, there has been a growing tendency upon the part of thoughtful leaders i n the f i e l d of family service to cope with the r e a l i -ties of the present situation and to subordinate cher-ished traditions and sentiments to the needs of the present c r i s i s . 4 1 Ibid.; p. 135. 2 Pumphrey, Ralph E., and Pumphrey, Muriel W., The Heritage  of American Social Work; Columbia University Press; Hew York; 1961; pp. 432,433. 3 Bremner, Robert H., From the Depths; New York University Press; Washington Square, New York; 1961; p. 26l. 4 Lurie, Harry L., "The Drift to Public Relief." Proceedings  of the National Conference of Social Work; University of Chicago Press; Chicago; 1931; p. 212. U3 It was during this time of c r i s i s that cooperation between public and private charities existed i n f a c t . Together they have done the case work and distributed r e l i e f . They have merged identities and cut away duplication of effort . They have so fused philanthropy and. public service as to break down the line between them. They have met a social need shoulder to shoulder without overmuch jealousy or f r i c t i o n . 1 Instead of the private sector keeping the public sector at arms length there was pressure applied by the private to get the public to assume responsibility for the overwhelming need. SOme of the value in working together i s expressed by Elizabeth McCord. (It) has the effect of keeping the private agencies i n v i t a l tough with the breadth of the mass job, and the public agencies with the developing thought of the specialized f i e l d s . • . the work of both would be rooted in the same understanding of people, and interwoven but not overlapping. 2 There was general agreement that with the passing of the depression government would probably assume more and more respon-s i b i l i t y for social welfare and at an accelerated rate. The important thing was to develop an awareness of the need for effec-tive government, to secure good government and retain i t . The task of enlightening the public so that good government could be secured was one which the private agency thought i t s e l f well equipped 3 to do. lDyk s t r a , C.A., "The Partnership of Public and Private Agencies." Proceedings of the National Conference of Social Work; University of Chicago Pressj Chicago; 1932j p. 7k. 2 McCord, Elizabeth, "A Cooperative Experiment Between Public and Private Agencies." Proceedings of the National Conference of  Social Work; University of Chicago Pressj Chicagoj 1932j p. 27h. 3 Mandel, Arch, "Government Economics and Social Work." Proceed- ings of the National Conference of Social Work; University of Chicago Pressj Chicago, 1933, p. Ubl. hh There was no relinquishing on the part of private agencies of their claims to being "flexible, expanding, contracting, shift-ing i t s emphasis, and of changing i t s policies to keep pace with 1 the changing needs of a community." There was no acknowledgment that private agencies are equally capable of stagnating and remaining i n existence long after they cease to serve a useful function. Issues i n the 191*0's and 1950 fs World War II caused serious disruptions i n American l i f e . The flow of population to large centres where people were occupied with war work, insufficient recreational f a c i l i t i e s i n these areas, the great increase i n mothers going to work with attendant problems of care of the children, general disruption of family l i f e , and the general health and moral conditions i n those communities used for military training locations, together with the evacuation of Japanese from the West Coast, changed the nature of Social Services to a large extent. Following the War there was an increase i n services for disrupted families, as well as for people with psychiatric problems. The work of social agencies was complicated by the increased shortage of trained personnel. During the War, "a nationwidf effort of co-ordination of a l l available resources was attempted under the guidance of the office of Community War 1 Embry, Marjory, "The Role of the Private Agency, Children's Institutions and Agencies." Proceedings of the National Conference  of Social Work; University of Chicago Press; Chicago; 193d; p. 195. U5 Services, which was organized under the Federal Security Agency. The Office was guided by an Interdepartmental Advisory Council, with representatives of a l l Federal agencies engaged i n health and 1 welfare work." Voluntary organizations co-operated with public organizations to overcome problems caused by shortage of recreational f a c i l i t i e s ; the United Service Organization was formed i n 19l£. The American Red Cross provided medical and casework services i& military camps and assisted the families of the servicemen through i t s Home Services Division, Private social agencies, together with public welfare departments cooperated with the defence councils i n giving ci v i c protection, improving nutrition during rationing and war shortages, and (with the support of public health authorities) i n rendering 'social protection' against venereal diseases. 2 The War demanded a l l the effort and attention that was avail-able and differences of opinion were submerged i n meeting immediate needs. Following World War II the social services witnessed an increasing emphasis on family as the basic social unit, and a preocuupation with co-ordination of the mass of agencies that existed, as well as efforts to define responsibilities and financ-ing. There was an attempt to define the functions which were to be performed; by public and private agencies, but there was l i t t l e real resolution of this problem. Both camps proclaimed 1 Friedlander, Walter, Introduction to Social Welfare, 2nd Edition; Prentice-Hall, Inc. Englewood C l i f f s , New Jersey; l ? 6 l ; p. 135. 2 Ibid.; pp. 136, 137. U6 the need for planning community welfare programs so that there would be minimal gaps i n service or duplication of effort. Both also maintained that the services should be made available to a l l who needed them rather than be offered to only a portion of the 1 community. Making services universally available was a relatively new concept. Formerly i t was thought that the welfare services (except those offered under the Social Security Act) should be restricted to a particular segment of the population. A study carried out by Bradley Buell i n Syracuse redirected attention to the fact that the welfare services are used by a large percentage of the popula-tion. The findings of this study revealed that from 60 percent to 75 percent of families i n the urban community studied u t i l i z e the services of the health, welfare and recreation agencies. The universality of needs was once again acknowledged and this provided some impetus for later Federal enactments. There was cooperation between government and voluntary agencies i n the establishment of referral centres which were set up to "guide" people to the proper resources i n time of need. Agencies shared staff to operate these centres. Various suggestions were made for? the division of responsibi-l i t y between public and private agencies. One view was that the logical function of each was dependent upon the needs i t was set 1 Pfeiffer, C.W., "Planning So That Everybody Benefits." Proceedings of the National Conference of Social Work; Columbia University Press; New York; l°h6; p. LU8. 1*7 up to meet. In addition, the function of each was dependent upon the characteristics of public and private agencies. The follow-ing characteristics were cited as typical: The private agency represents the w i l l of the individual or group which sees a need and i s motivated to meet that need; the public agency derives i t s authority and funds from the general public and i s accountable through the legislature to the public; the private agency i s accoun-table ta:S$s: constituency through i t s Board; the public agency offers quantitative services whereas the private agencies' services are more qualitative; the public agency lacks f l e x i b i l i t y , diver-sit y , and quality, whereas the private agency tends to be more flex i b l e in setting goals and limiting intake, and i s also freer to change, experiment and demonstrate; the private agencies service 1 i s limited through lack of funds. There was l i t t l e recognition of the fact that voluntary agencies also are often slow to change policies, and that they sometimes carry on traditional programs longer than the public agencies do, after the need for the program has ended. There was l i t t l e recognition that private agencies sometimes have vested interests which are not set aside in favour of proven need. During this period i n time there was renewed recognition of the fact that the public agency represents the public interest, 1 Haremski, Roman L., "How Can Public and Private Agencies Cooperate in Meeting Needs of Children." Proceedings of the  National Conference of Social Work; Columbia University Press; New York; 2SU9't p. 23* 5 . 1+8 and that i t i s the inherent responsibility of government to secure the ultimate good of a l l . This was a totally opposite view to the one expressed earlier that "the best government i s the least government." The l°50's were a period of unrest i n the United States. The Korean War, McCarthyism, periods of high unemployment, the space race, r a c i a l conflict, increased juvenile delinquency and crime rate, and population explosion, were only some of the major issues. Some of these issues diverted attention from the social services and some of them increased interest i n them by highlighting the interdependence of the American people and the need for pniversal coverage rather than piecemeal efforts to ensure protection against the hazards of l i f e over which the individual has no control. With the advent of the Kennedy Administration, interest i n social problems was rekindled and there was a new attack on poverty. Thus far there i s no comprehensive system of social welfare measures in the United States. Among the important changes in the Federal Social Security Act was an Amendment i n 1°5>0 which added a program of Aid to the Permanently and Totally Disabled. Following this, the 1956 Amendments marked a milestone by including i n the purposes of the assistance programs the objectives of self-support and rehabilita-tion; moreover, the Federal Government accepted responsibility to provide financial assistance to the States to help them establish social work programs to strengthen family l i f e . 1*9 The breakdown of family l i f e across the nation was thought to be an issue of such magnitude that federal aid was needed to help prevent i t s further deterioration and to help families become re-established. In order to supply qualified staff to carry out this new program Congress authorized money for training of public welfare personnel. Money was also authorized to conduct research into the causes of family breakdown and to finance demonstration programs. However, this ideal situation did not materialize be-cause Congress f a i l e d to appropriate the money for training prog-rams; i t also curtailed appropriations for some of the other 1 programs. Commenting on these developments, Cohen observed "how important i t i s to exercise eternal vigilance i n the legislation. The victory of one session may easily turn into the defeats of 2 another via the appropriation route." This legislation added to the l i s t of recognized human needs that of rehabilitation. Implicit i n i t are the ideas of equality of opportunity which reflect the dignity and worth of each person. Rehabilitation and self-support are viewed as essential i f a person is to be able to enjoy social l i v i n g . Commenting on the change i n outlook Virginia Ferguson said, 1 Cohen, Wilbur, "The 1956 Social Security Legislation." The Social Welfare Forum, 1957; Columbia University Press; New York; 1957; pp. 9k, 95. 2 Ibid.; p. 95. 50 There has been a significant change from l o c a l and state to Federal responsibility i n the entire f i e l d of public welfare .... The development of the grant-in-aid device for equalizing funds for social welfare purposes i s particularly significant. It has meant a larger share of public service i n the areas most i n need of such service and least able to pay for i t . 1 She goes on to say: Today voluntary effort i n Social Welfare i s regarded as supplementary to, rather than as a substitute for, sound public provision. In redefining their functions private agencies have given consideration to the need for expression of minority viewpoints and have recog-nized as one of their functions that of innovator and interpreter. 2 There were others who claimed for the private agency the task of interpreting the social welfare program to the community. There i s no instrument at hand which can be as effective as a well-organized private social agency i n bringing before the eyes of the intelligent citizen the picture of the social problems 3 that arise out of our amazing material progress." Granger maintained that by conviction the private agencies must support high quality of public service and must interpret public welfare to the citizen body and defend i t against unfair h attack. However, interpretation i s not the sole prerogative of the voluntary agency. The public agency must engage i n this 1 Ferguson, Virginia, "Fi f t y Years of Social Work." The Social  Welfare Forum, 1950i Columbia University Press; New York; 1950;p.xii. 2 Ibid.; p. x i i i . 3 Griswold, Hal H., "The Unique Place of Voluntary Welfare Agencies i n the American Culture." Social Work As Human Relations; Columbia University Press; New York; 19U9; p. 56. 1* Granger, Lester B., "The Changing Functions of Voluntary Agencies." New Directions i n Social Work; edited by Cora Kasius; Harper and Brothers; New York; 195U; p. 71. 51 activity also because i t i s the creation of the general public and as such i s obliged to keep the public informed about i t s a c t i v i t i e s . The private agency has often made the cl'.aim that i t i s i n the best position to experiment and demonstrate new services. Although some proponents of this view recognize that public agencies have better f a c i l i t i e s for research and experimentation, and have more ready access to data and resources on a national l e v e l , they maintain that the superiority of the private agency in this function i s i n i t s being unhampered by o f f i c i a l regulations which are a part of a bureacracy, and neither does i t have to secure public agreement that the funds devoted to experimental 1 activities are spent in the interests of the community. There i s a fail u r e i n this argument to acknowledge the fact that private agencies which are i n a position to experiment are often large and subject to bureaucratic controls just as much as the public agencies. Moreover, the advent of the modern fund raising methods i s such that the constituency of the private agency i s almost the same as that of the public agency, there-fore the private agency has a responsibility to carry out the wishes of i t s constituency i n much the same measure as does the public agency. It may be noted however, that there is no guarantee that the private agency w i l l in fact carry out this responsibility. 52 The method of fund-raising cultivates a misconception - the Community Chest i s not a trustee of the public, and i t cannot ensure that the funds raised w i l l be properly spent. It has no control over member agencies other than what they choose to give i t . There is nothing inherent i n government auspices which pre-cludes pioneering and experimentationj evidence of i t s experimen-t a l activity may be found i n the area of atomic research, highly individualized service i n public welfare agencies, and casework services such as that which i s offered to families and children 1 under child welfare service and related programs. An important role which the private agency is i n a favourable position to play i s that of standard setter and c r i t i c - of public service as well as of i t s own. Although the private agency must support public welfare programs there are times when i t i s required to oppose what i t considers inadequate administration or unwise planning i n governmental programs. "In a sense, the voluntary agency is a spokesman for the beneficiaries of the social services, and i t may be called upon to be c r i t i c a l of particular operations 2 at the same time that i t i s defending principles." Although the 1956 Amendments did not produce any dramatic 1 Howard, Donald S., "Changing Roles of Public and Private Social Welfare Agencies." The Social Welfare Forum, 1952; Columbia University Press; New York; 1£52; pp. 232-250. 2 Granger; l o c . c i t . 53 results they did pave the way to a better approach to the problems facing the welfare community. Commenting on the acceptance of the fundamental principles underlying the social security prog-rams by the Eisenhower Administration, Cohen said: Thus, we now move forward on the assumption of a b i -partisan - and nonpartisan - support of these basic programs. This i s a factor i n the situation which did not exist i n the formative period when these pro-grams were being put into operation, and there were constitutional, economic, administrative, emotional and p o l i t i c a l objections to these programs. 1 This does not mean that there w i l l be complete agreement i n these matters i n future. Cohen goes on to say: We can expect that i n the kind of society in. which we l i v e there w i l l be a strong diversity of opinion on specific program changes in social security. The complexity, and magnitude of the issues involved... raise fundamental questions such as those relating to incentives, motivation, costs, standards of ade-quacy, the role of public and private agencies, and the relationship between Federal and state governments. Conflicts over these issues seem l i k e l y to be inten-s i f i e d rather than minimized, and, unfortunately, the general public seems less l i k e l y to understand the implication of the issues as they become more complex. 2 The 1958 Amendments added two important benefits to the t o t a l Social Security program, providing dependents1 benefits for dis-abled insurance beneficiaries and removing the limitation to rural areas of Federal grants for child welfare services. The latter change reflected, at last, a recognition of the mobility 1 Cohen, Wilbur, "The 1956 Social Security Legislation." The Social Welfare Forum, 1957; Columbia University Press; New York; 1957; p. 89. 2 Ibid.; p. 91. 54 of America's population and i t s concentration in urban areas with attendant problems of child welfare. The 1962 Amendments extended the benefits provided for i n the 1956 Amendments. Funds were increased for Child Welfare, and for training workers. The emphasis in these Amendments was on making the.social services a rea l i t y rather than just an aspira-tion, and to improve the services in order to prevent or reduce dependency. Eveline Burns sees as one of the most d i f f i c u l t issues of the time, the discovery of the appropriate compromise between individual self-determination and the interests of the community as a whole . . . Uncertainty as to the moral jus t i f i c a t i o n for invoking compulsion is undoubt-edly one of the reasons why we are cautious in the use of government for social welfare objectives. 1 Bums sees the role of government in Social Welfare as an ever expanding one, and as a "powerful instrument for meeting basic needs, for supplementing and supporting private enterprise and 2 the family system." Although theoretically government has been accepted as a legitimate sooial agency, comparison of earlier expenditures with recent ones would indicate a resistance to i t . "In comparison with our total national product, we are devoting a smaller proportion of our admittedly greater income to welfare than we were in the early t h i r t i e s : a drop from 6.1 percent to 3 5.1 percent." 1 Burns, Eveline M., "The Role of Government in Social Welfare." The Social Welfare Forum, 1954? Columbia University Press; New York; 1954; P. 73. 2 Ibid.; p. 71. 3 Ibid.; p. 66. 55 Soul Searching Atpong The Voluntary Organizations According to Kramer, "there has been a changing alignment between public and voluntary social welfare services which has re-1 suited i n a clouding of differences between them." He cites four ways in which this has become evident: 1) increasingly, tax funds are available to voluntary agencies i n the fi e l d s of child welfare, mental health, hospital and medical care, vocational rehabilitation, etc. 2) there has been a continued liberalization of legislative intent and perhaps practice i n public assistance, so much that the much vaunted superiority of private agency casework s k i l l s over public welfare has tended to be lessj 3) public agencies have moved into fi e l d s formerly preempted by voluntary agencies, such as adoptions; the broadened base of voluntary support, achieved through federated fund raising, has resulted i n a situation whereby the number of con-tributors to what was formerly regarded as private philanthropy i s 2 almost as large as the number of taxpayers. With the expansion of governmental activity in the f i e l d of social welfare and i t s entrance into areas which were formerly thought to be the sole territory of the voluntary agency, the voluntary organizations began to study their position in relation to the new developments. The decrease i n voluntary giving was also a cause for looking at their practices and wondering what their future role 1 Kramer, Ralph iff., "A Study of Lay and Professional Attitudes." Community Organization, 1961; Columbia University Press; New York; 1961; p. 17. 2 Ibid., pp. 17, 18. 56 should be. Some of the questions the voluntary community asked i t s e l f were: 1) does voluntary social welfare require some kind of policing to achieve optimum effectiveness and response to expecta-tions of the public? 2) who represents the "public" in determining what i s to be expected of voluntary social welfare i n the national and local communities? 3) what element of submergence of voluntary agency self-interest exists when these agencies voluntarily join 1 together i n common planning or i n other undertakings? As the extent of public welfare services increased, the role of the voluntary agency as a complementary instrument becomes more,vital. Private agencies and private agency groups have much to learn i n the art of influencing legislation concerning, and administration of, public social welfare services. 2 Granger admonished the voluntary agencies not to think that I they had a monopoly on professional s k i l l s , and that they needed to keep aware of the fact that wherever there was a situation of a client receiving services, whether the services were designed to relieve external or internal pressure, the basic principles of social work were involved. "The very nature of the responsibility implicit i n the person to person helping relationship, with i t s inherent potential for constructive and destructive uses places a l l such 3 services clearly i n the professional realm". 1 Bondy, Robert £., "Some Issues Before Voluntary Social Welfare." Paper presented at the National Social Welfare Assembly, Conference of Executives; New York; January 2kf 1962. 2 Griswold, H.H., "The Unique Place of Voluntary Welfare Agencies i n American Culture." Social Work As Human Relations; Columbia Univer-s i t y Press; New York; 192|9; p. t>3» 3 Granger, Lester B., "The Changing Functions of Voluntary Agencies." New Directions i n Social Work; edited by Cora Kasius; Harper and Brothers; New York; 195k; p. 71*. 57 With regard to the functions voluntary agencies should per-form. Granger said, "Voluntary agencies as a general rule, should not undertake maintenance needs; . . . instead they should define their areas of service, which may include the provision of some 1 social resources, particularly on a demonstration basis," New Patterns of Collaboration i n Child Welfare The 1958 Amendments to the Social Security Act marked a decisive step in preparing the way for expanding governmental a c t i -v i t y i n child welfare services. Traditionally, child welfare services were the main preroga-tiv e of voluntary agencies. With the changes i n legislation, more services were now offered to children by public agencies than by private agencies. The results of one study indicated that i n 1956, i n 28 out of 38 states surveyed, more than four-fifths of the money spent on child welfare services was administered directly by public 2 agencies. With the expansion of public services to children i t i s expected that private agency programs w i l l become more selective and specialized. Federal Child Welfare Services funds have been used directly to strengthen voluntary agency services through consul-tation and staff development, and indirectly, through recruitment of additional personnel trained under the educational leave program of public agencies. There i s cooperative planning between public and 1 Ibid.; p. 75. 2 "Report of the Advisory Council on Child Welfare Services. " Senate Document No. 92; U.S. Government Printing Office; Washington, . D.C. I960; p. 27. 58 voluntary agencies on a state-wide basis* There i s also cooperation i n studies and surveys, as well as in demonstration projects and f a c i l i t i e s for the emotionally disturbed, mentally retarded, and physically handicapped. Public and private agencies are working 1 together on staff development programs, and in devising standards. The enlarged role of government i n the f i e l d of child welfare has raised i n acute form the perennial question of the propriety of making public funds available to private agencies. During the c r i s i s i n the 1930's private agencies administered public funds but an early decision was made limiting Federal grants to public agencies. This development plus the later one of manda-tory cash payment directly to the individual recipient, was crucial i n establishing a pattern which was followed for some time* This pattern of nonsubsidiaation of voluntary welfare by tax funds helped to maintain the distinction i n social function between public and voluntary welfare. It asser-ted the principle of direct accountability for expenditure of tax funds by public'agencies and preserved the essential independence of the voluntary agencies. 2 Since that time there have been changes which allow direct payment to agencies providing care to recipients. At the present time public funds are used directly i n the operation of private agencies in three major ways: 1) construction of buildings for hospitals and nursing;homes; 2) purchase of services from private agencies with public funds, particularly i n child care, homes for 1 Ibid.; p. 27. 2 Wickenden, Elizabeth, "Social Security and Voluntary Social Welfare." reprinted from Industrial and Labor Relations Review; Volume 1U; No. 1; October, I960; p. 102. 59 aged, hospitals and c l i n i c s , and vocational rehabilitation; 5) 1 support of projects in research and experimentation. The practice of subsidizing private agencies out of public funds has i t s dangers, however, and some typical objections to the practice are summarized below. The practice i s said to create inequities and to perpetuate gaps in the provision of essential services. Private agencies establish policies and rules of e l i g i -b i l i t y which are not related to the coverage of need: consequently i n areas where public agencies are non-existent there are frequently 2 glaring gaps i n services; public subsidy tends to disguise the extent of need and protects elected o f f i c i a l s and others from 3 having to come to terms directly with these needs; a public subsidy system puts roadblocks in the way of the citizen's res-ponsible relationship to his government. For example, one child-placing agency i n one state obtained J2 percent of i t s operating funds from public sources but accepted no Negro children; a voter cannot express his disapproval by trying to vote the board of directors out of office; a system of public subsidy tends to weaken the fund-raising efforts of voluntary agency boards and other private groups; This situation accounts, in part, for the failure 1. Berkowitz, Sidney, "Points and Viewpoints.11 Journal of  Social Work; January, 1963; P» 106. 2 For elaboration of this assertion, refer to Berkowitz' a r t i c l e , "Points and Viewpoints;" Journal of Social Work; January 1963; p. 107. 3 See for example, "Public Services Through Private Agencies -Some Problems." Social Service Review; March, 1959; P» 70. 60 of private agencies to develop more lay and professional leader-ship to fight the battle for improved and expanded public services. Private agencies very often have achieved vested interests i n tax dollars to the point where their leadership may fear antagonizing legislative and governmental groups. The failure of grants paid to private agencies to meet the cost of care results i n admission of greater numbers i n an attempt to meet the costs, standards of 1 care are lowered in the process. Clearly there i s no simple answer to the complex problems inherent i n the relationship between public and voluntary agencies. It i s probably illu s o r y to look for a comprehensive formula which w i l l provide a sound guide to the distribution of responsibilities for each and every situation; but a prerequisite to the achievement of good standards of service and maximum accountability i s ruthless honesty in inquiry capable of distinguishing r e a l i t y from rhetoric. 1 Berkowitz; op. c i t . ; p. 107. 61 BIBLIOGRAPHY Books and Reports Beveridge, William, Voluntary Action; George Allen and Unwin Limited; London; 19118. Bremner, Robert H., From the Depths; New York University Press; Washington Square, New York; 1956. Bondy, Robert E., "Some Issues Before Voluntary Social Welfare." Paper presented at the National Social Welfare Assembly, Conference of Executives; New York; January 2lt, 1962. de Grazia, Alfred, and Gurr, Ted, American Welfare; New York Univer-s i t y Press; New York; 1961. Friedlander, Walter, A., Introduction to Social Welfare, 2nd Edition; Prentice-Hall Inc., Englewood C l i f f s ; New Jersey; 1961. Lerner, Max, America As A Ci v i l i z a t i o n ; Simon and Shuster; New York; 19W. Pumphrey, Ralph E., and Pumphrey, Muriel W., The Heritage of American Social Work; Columbia University Press; New York; mr. * "Report of the Advisory Council on Child Welfare Services." Senate Document Number 92; U.S. Government Printing Office; Washing-ton; I960. Swift, Linton B., New Alignments Between Public and Private Agencies; Family Welfare Association of America; 130 E. 22 Street, New York; 19 3U. Vasey, Wayne, Government and Social Welfare; Henry Holt and Company; New York; 1952. Articles and Addresses Almy, Frederic, "Public or Private Outdoor Relief." Proceedings  of the National Conference of Charities and Corrections; George H. E l l i s ; Boston; 1900. Berkowitz, Sidney, "Points and Viewpoints." Journal of Social Work; January, 1963. 62 Biedermann, Rev. Richard, "Supervision of Private Charities: From the Point of View of a Private Charity." Proceedings of  the National Conference of Charities and Corrections; The Fort Wayne Printing Company; Fort Wayne; 1911. Bookman, CM., "Functions of Public and Private Agencies i n the Social Work of the Future." Proceedings of the National  Conference of Social Work;.University of Chicago Press; Chicago; 1922. Burns, Eveline M., "The Role of Government in Social Welfare." The Social Welfare Forum, 195&J Columbia University Press; New York; 195k» Carter, Leyton E., "Governmental Responsibility in the Field of. „ Social and Welfare Work." Proceedings of the National Confer-ence of Social Work; University of Chicago Press; Chicago; Cohen, Wilbur, "The 1956 Social Security Legislation." The Social  Welfare Forum, 1957; Columbia University Press; New York; "Cooperative Benevolence." Appendix to the Committee's Report; Proceedings of the 8th Annual Conference of Charities and  Corrections; A. Williams and Company; Boston; 1881. Buganne, Rev. H.C, "Debate on Outdoor Relief." Proceedings of  the 8th Annual Conference of Charities and Corrections; A. Williams and Company; Boston, 1881. Bykstra, C.A., "The Partnership of Public and Private Agencies." Proceedings of the National Conference of Social Work; Univer-si t y of Chicago Press; Chicago; 1932; Embry, Marjory, "The Role of the Private Agency: Children's Institutions and Agencies." Proceedings of the National  Conference of Social Work; University of Chicago Press; Chicago; 1938. Ferguson, Virginia, "Fifty Years of Social Work." The Social Welfare  Forum, 1950; Columbia University Press; New York; 1950. Garland, Frank, "The Municipality and Public Welfare." Proceedings  of the National Conference of Charities and Corrections; The Hildmann Printing Company; Chicago; 1916. Granger, Lester B., "The Changing Functions of Voluntary Agencies. " New Directions i n Social Work; edited by Cora Kasius; Harper and Brothers; New York; 195k* 63 Griswold, Hal H., "The Unique Place of Voluntary Welfare Agencies in the American Culture." Social Work as Human Relations; Columbia University Press; New York; 19U9. 1 Haremski, Roman L., "How Can Public and Private Agencies Cooperate i n Meeting Needs of Children?" Proceedings of the National  Conference of Social Work; Columbia University Press; New York; 19U9. i Howard, Donald S., "The Changing Roles of Public and Private Social Welfare Agencies." The Social Welfare Forum, 1952; Columbia University Press; New York; 1952. " Kramer, Ralph, "A Study of Lay and Professional Attitudes." Community  Organization, 1961; Columbia University Press; New York; 1961. Lathrop, Julia, "Report of the Committee on State Supervision and Administration." Proceedings of the National Conference of  Charities and Corrections; George H. E l l i s ; Boston; 1905. Low, M., "Debate on Outdoor Relief." Proceedings of the 8th Annual  Conference of Charities and Corrections; A. Williams and Company; Boston; 1881. Lurie, Harry L., "The Drift to Public Relief." Proceedings of the  National Conference of Social Work; University of Chicago Press; Chicago; 1931. Maclean, M.C., "The Effect of the Federation Movement upon the Relationship Between Public and Private Welfare Agencies. What the Relationship Should Be." Proceedings of the National  Conference of Social Work; University of Chicago Press; Chicago; 192h. Mandel, Arch, "Government Economics and Social Work." Proceedings  of the National Conference of Social Work; University of Chicago Press; Chicago; 1933. McCord, Elizabeth, "A Cooperative Experiment Between Public and Private Agencies." Proceedings of the National Conference  of Social Work; University of Chicago Press; Chicago; 1932. Pfeiffer, C.W., "Planning So That Everybody Benefits." Proceedings of the National Conference of Social Work; Columbia University Press; New York; 19h6. Prendergast, Judge Richard, "State Aid to Private Institutions." Proceedings of the Rational Conference of Charities and Corrections; George H. E l l i s ; Boston;, 1886. 6k "Public Services Through Private Agencies - Some Problems." Social Service Review; Volume 33; Number One; March, 1959. Sanborn, P.E., "Minutes and Discussion." Proceedings of the National Conference of Charities and Corrections; George H. E l l i s ; Boston; 1092. Taylor, Professor Graham, "Minutes and Discussion." Proceedings  of the National Conference of Charities and. Corrections; George H. E l l i s ; Boston; 1092. Todd, Hannah M., "Report of the Committee on the Organization of Charities." Proceedings of the National Conference of  Charities and Corrections; Boston; 1091. Trevelyan, S i r Charles, "Debate on Outdoor Relief." Proceedings  of the 8th Annual-Conference of Charities and Corrections; A. Williams and Company; Boston; 1001. Walks, James, "The Relations of Organized Charity To Public and Private Relief." Proceedings of the National Conference of  Charities and Corrections; George H. E l l i s ; Boston; 1005. Warner, Dr. A. G., "Minutes and Discussion." Proceedings of the National Conference of Charities and Corrections: George H. E l l i s ; Boston; 1892. Whipple, Lucius, "Social Forces In A Community: Public Agencies." Proceedings of the National Conference of Social Work; University of Chicago Press; Chicago; 1922. Wickenden, Elizabeth, "Social Security and Voluntary Social Welfare." reprinted from Industrial and Labor Relations Review; Volume Ihi Number One; October, I960. Wilson, George S., "Supervision of Private Charities From the Point of View of an O f f i c i a l Board." Proceedings of the National  Conference of Charities and Corrections; The Fort Wayne Printing Company; Fort Wayne; 1911. 

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.831.1-0104911/manifest

Comment

Related Items