UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The Family Welfare Bureau of Greater Vancouver : its origins and development, 1927 to 1952 Mitchell, Robert James Gordon 1952

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1952_A5 M5 F2.pdf [ 3.97MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0106757.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0106757-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0106757-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0106757-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0106757-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0106757-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0106757-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0106757-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0106757.ris

Full Text

THE FAMILY WELFARE BUREAU OF GREATER VANCOUVER Its Origins and Development» 1927 to 19 52 by ROBERT JAMES GORLOI MITCHELL Thesis Submitted i n P a r t i a l Fulfilment of the Requirements f o r the Degree of MASTER OF SOCIAL WORK In the School of So c i a l Work 19 52 The University of B r i t i s h Columbia Accepted as conforming to the standard required for the degree pf Master of Social Work School of S o c i a l Work i v ABSTRACT The Family Welfare Bureau of Greater Vancouver has now been i n existence for twenty-five years, and i t i s the purpose of this study to trace i t s development from i t s origins i n the recommendations of the B r i t i s h Columbia Child Welfare Survey of 1927, to the present day. Material for this purpose was collected from the minutes of the Executive Board of the Bureau, 1927 to 1952; the annual reports of the Director for the same years; personal interviews with the Director and other s t a f f members; other related records and l i t e r a t u r e of the agency; and numerous pamphlets and publications of the Family Service Association of America. This l a t t e r body i s a standard-setting association of family agencies to which the Bureau has belonged from i t s - incept ion. In the course of i t s l i f e , the agency has been faced with many unforeseen d i f f i c u l t i e s , the more d r a s t i c of these being the depression years of the 1930's and the war years of 1939 to 1945. These two periods of economic and s o c i a l stress are r e f l e c t e d c l e a r l y i n the workload of the agency, and i t would have been understandable had t h i s new organization strayed from i t s o r i g i n a l objective, which was to do family casework. An appraisal of the work of the Bureau shows c l e a r l y , however, that: ( l ) i t has f i l l e d a d e f i n i t e need within the o v e r a l l framework of agencies in the community, and (2) i t has steadfastly maintained i t s o r i g i n a l purpose of providing family case-work, services. In addition, (3) i t has constantly s t r i -ven to improve i t s standards of professional competence, and (4) i t has followed the t r a d i t i o n a l role of private agencies i n experimenting i n the provision of new ser-v i c e s . The record also indicates that, even though the community i s showing increasing acceptance of casework services, continued and careful studies w i l l have to be made to determine the most ef f e c t i v e way of interpreting to the p u b l i c , on which the Bureau depends for i t s f i n -ancing, the meaning and value of these non-material ser-v i c e s . TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1. Evolution and Founding The changing nature of the family. The objectives o f s o c i a l work. The Charity Organization Movement. The B r i t i s h Columbia Child Welfare Survey and some of i t s recommendations. The found-ing of the Central Welfare Bureau. Chapter 2. The Depression Years - 19 29 to 19^9 Re-activating the Soc i a l Service Exchange.' Development of the Council of S o c i a l Agencies and the Welfare Federation. The meaning of Federation to the Bureau. She impact of the depres-sion. Non-resident f a m i l i e s . The Work-Relief Scheme. Estab-lishment of the V i s i t i n g Homemaker Service. The work-load of the Bureau during the depression. Chapter 3. The War Years - 1939 to 1943 Legal Aid. The outbreak of war. The increase in f i n a n c i a l assistance. The need for budgetting services. .International problems. The Dependents' Board of Trustees. The closing years of the war. The work-load i n the war years. Fee charging. Chapter 4. The Post-War Years Financing d i f f i c u l t i e s . The decreases i n s t a f f and services. Homemaker Service for "T.B. fa m i l i e s " . The "unemployed employ-ables". E f f e c t s of housing shortage. New. immigrants. A review of the work-load. Forecast of future developments. i i i TABLES IH THE TEXT Page Table 1. Fa m i l i e s r e c e i v i n g s e r v i c e s from the Family Welfare Bureau, 1928 to 1939 27 Table 2. F a m i l i e s r e c e i v i n g personal s e r v i c e and r e l i e f , 1928 to 1939 29 Table P r o p o r t i o n of servicemen's f a m i l i e s to c i v i l i a n f a m i l i e s , 1939 to 1946 40 Table 4. R e l i e f eases, 1939 to 194b 41 Table 3 . Amount of r e l i e f , 1939 to 1946 43 Table 6 . F a m i l i e s r e c e i v i n g personal s e r v i c e and r e l i e f , 1946 to 1932. 34 Table 7 . Trends i n caseloads, Family Welfare Bureau, 1931 to 1932 36 Y AGMOWLEDGEBLEHI I would l i k e to acknowledge tJae a s s i s t -ance and patience of Miss Mary McPhedraia, Execut-ive D i r e c t o r of the Family Welfare Bureau of Greater Vancouver. THE FAMILY WELFARE BUREAU OF GREATER VAHGOUVER CHAPTER 1 EVOLUTION AND FOUNDING In the not so distant past, the f a m i l y — t h e basic i n -s t i t u t i o n of our society—had much greater s e l f - s u f f i c i e n c y than i t has today. The t y p i c a l family embodied the joi n t enterprise of i t s members; the children worked at helping t h e i r parents and were soon an economic asset; many of the necessities of family l i v i n g were produced at home, such as food, clothing or f u e l . In his family the c h i l d received his chief and perhaps h i s only educ-a t i o n . In r e l i g i o u s observances and i n s o c i a l a c t i v i t i e s the var-ious members of the family united, from the oldest to the young-est. The modern family, however, i s quite d i f f e r e n t . Its character has been altered r a d i c a l l y by the economic and s o c i a l changes of the la s t century and a h a l f . Many aspects of family l i f e which centred formerly i n the home are now taken care of by people or organizations having l i t t l e d i r e c t connection with the p a r t i c u l a r home. For i t s bread or for i t s entertainment, the family today tends to depend on outside sources. The family's most important function now, apart from providing the necessi-t i e s of l i f e for i t s members, i s to provide them with the atmos-phere of a f f e c t i o n and support that promotes the i r f u l l e s t devel-opment. This function, always i m p l i c i t i n family l i f e , by the 2 deletion of these other factors has become the major force i n maintaining family unity. Too often this function i s performed inadequately. This fact, along with an expanding knowledge of the reasons for human behaviour, has brought the family under the close examination of doctors, p s y c h i a t r i s t s , s o c i o l o g i s t s and s o c i a l workers. The l a t t e r group i s one of the newest professions i n -terested i n the problems that arise within f a m i l i e s . The wider objectives of s o c i a l work have been stated as follows: "Reduced to a simple statement th i s enormous area can be compassed within two major f i e l d s and two major objectives of s o c i a l work, namely, economic well-being or a health and decency standard of l i v -ing, and s a t i s f y i n g s o c i a l relationships. Probably a l l professions would state an interest i n these objectives, but there i s l i t t l e doubt that s o c i a l work occupies a p a r t i c u l a r l y inclusive p o s i t i o n i n regard to both. For the s o c i a l worker the problems involved i n economic well-being and s o c i a l behaviour are usually interwoven. It i s this e s s e n t i a l l y d u a l i s t i c relationship which consistently has shaped s o c i a l work and given i t i t s distinguishable i f not yet wholly d i s t i n c t i v e pattern.' 1 1 From this statement, i t may be seen that the problems which people bring to s o c i a l agencies may be divided, for the most part, into those a r i s i n g from the environment of the i n d i v i d u a l , and those a r i s i n g within the person himself, or they may be a combination of bothi The former problems- 1—"environmental"—are usually a l l e -viated by the s o c i a l worker u t i l i z i n g s p e c i f i c resources available within or to the agency. Granting of f i n a n c i a l assistance, obtain' ing housing, providing food or clothing, giving legal advice, are 1. Hamilton, Gordon - Theory and Practice of Social Casework New York, University Press, 1944, page 4. 2 some examples of environmental help to an i n d i v i d u a l or family. This service often tends to toe material i n nature, though not necessarily so. The other major class of problems—"psycholog-ical"—demands that the s o c i a l worker try to help the i n d i v i d u a l understand his problem and mobilize himself to effect an adjust-ment. Early re l i e f , giving agencies operated on the premise that, i f a family's basic necessities were provided f o r , i t s problems were well on the way to solution. Gradually^ experience showed that economic need was often not the r e a l problem compli-cating family l i f e . It was recognized that a person might have as many problems within himself as without; psychological prob-lems could be every b i t as serious as environmental ones. This change of attitude led to the growing science of s o c i a l casework, the knowledge and p r i n c i p l e s of which were, to a great extent, developed i n the family agencies. It has been defined thus: "Social casework consists of those processes which develop personality through adjustments consciously effected—between men and th e i r s o c i a l environment." *• In the l i g h t of t h i s d e f i n i t i o n , s o c i a l casework may be seen as a process which develops an individual's personality by helping him make better s o c i a l adjustments. While c e r t a i n techniques and p r i n c i p l e s of casework are p a r t i c u l a r l y appropriate for those persons whose problems are, i n the main, psychological, i t i s important to note that p r i n c i p l e s of casework are inherent i n any contact or interview 1. Richmond, Mary E., What i a So c i a l Case Work? Hew York, Russell Sage Foundation, 1922, page 268. 4 with any c l i e n t regardless of the problem with which he comes to the agency. Family Social Work. Family s o c i a l work has as i t s main focus the family as a s o c i a l unit of primary importance to the i n d i v i d u a l and to soc-i e t y . The family i s seen as that basic unit wherein the i n d i v i d -ual has the opportunity of developing as an i n d i v i d u a l and as a member of a group. Most family agencies have at least these two purposes: "1. To provide a s k i l l e d casework service on problems of family l i v i n g and i n d i v i d u a l s o c i a l adjustment. 2. To promote auspices and resources that eon-trib u t e to healthy s o c i a l l i v i n g in-the community, and to combat s o c i a l conditions that threaten to undermine i t . " 1 In p r a c t i c e , these two purposes usually mean that the family agency today must be prepared to deal with a wide variety of problems, and such an agency has been described as;"...the place to which persons may come for help with problems of fam-i l y and personal relationships, help with the achievement of educational objectives, working out parent-child r e l a t i o n s , marital adjustments, f i n a n c i a l and vocational planning, health needs, and similar matters." This i s a f a r cry from the "charity" agency of byegone days, which aimed mainly at meet-1. McLean, Francis H. and Ormsby, Ralph, Organizing a Family  Agency, 1944, Family Welfare" Association of America, New York, p. 1. 2. Ibid., p. 1. 5 ing economic need. Charity Organization Movement The background of the Family Welfare Bureau l i e s i n the Charity Organization Movement, which began i n London, England i n 1869. At that time in England,2there were numerous voluntary or-ganizations devoted to r e l i e f - g i v i n g and to charitable work i n general. The m u l t i p l i c i t y of these charitable organizations often resulted i n overlapping of services and waste of funds. The Char-i t y Organization Society of London, while being a further attempt to a l l e v i a t e the sufferings of needy f a m i l i e s , was fundamentally an organization whose main purpose was to co-ordinate the work of the other voluntary agencies. In this respect, i t was a new idea. A co-ordinating agency such as this made for continuity and stab-i l i t y i n work with these families. This i n turn encouraged an i n -creased study of the causes of poverty. Knowledge gained could be passed on to successive persons. Of equal importance was a new approach to helping people which was exemplified i n the words of Edward Denison, one of the founders of the "C.O.S.": "Ho man may d e l i v e r his brother, he can but throw him a plank." 1 This i s the idea of s e l f - h e l p , which i s basic to s o c i a l casework as practiced today. This idea of s e l f - h e l p , combined with the growing b e l i e f that economic need was but one factor i n many family problems, gradually developed the role of the "C.O.S." as a fam-1. Watson, Frank Dekker, The Charity Organization Movement i n  the United States. 1922, New York, p. 5b. l l y s o c i a l casework agency. Less and less emphasis was placed on straight r e l i e f giving. From England the "C.O.S." idea was brought to America, where the f i r s t agency was opened i n Buffalo i n 1877• F i f t e e n years l a t e r there were 92 Gharity Organization Societies in the United States. In 1899 the f i r s t Canadian family agency was established i n Montreal. It was called "The Charity Organization Society"; i t s function was "to co-ordinate l o c a l welfare ser-vices and to help the poor." 1 By the time the Vancouver Family Welfare Bureau was opened, ten other s i m i l a r agencies had been established i n Can-ada. Child Welfare Survey Vancouver, i n 1927, was a progressive and busy c i t y of some 120,000 people. There were a number of private s o c i a l agencies and, l i k e some other Canadian c i t i e s , a City R e l i e f De-partment. Years before, d i f f e r e n t voluntary organizations had attempted to provide f i n a n c i a l assistance to families i n need of i t , but i n 1912 the c i t y had accepted this work as i t s respons-i b i l i t y . Its standards were apparently good, for i n 1923 the American Family Welfare Association, a f t e r surveying the quality of i t s work, included Vancouver i n i t s directory. Thus a good foundation existed for subsequent development. In 1925, the Rotary Glut of Vancouver had accumulated 1. Canadian Welfare, January 15, 1949, The Canadian Welfare Council, Ottawa. 7 §2.5,000 to be used for community service. Various requests f o r assistance from the fund were made by s o c i a l agencies i n the com-munity. In view of the amount of money available and the number of requests, the Board of Directors decided that a c a r e f u l study should be i n i t i a t e d to determine how the money could best be used. A committee was established, and soon recommended granting |10,000 toward the erection of a Preventorium for childr e n with tubercul-o s i s . In addition to t h i s , t h e i r observations convinced them that the whole f i e l d of c h i l d protection needed further i n v e s t i g a t i o n by people trained i n this f i e l d . After consulting the Canadian Council on Child Welfare, i t was decided to have a comprehensive survey made of the whole f i e l d of c h i l d care and protection i n B r i t i s h Columbia. Five service clubs agreed to underwrite the cost of the project. In addi t i o n to the Rotary Club, there were the Vancouver Kiwanis Club, the Vancouver Lions Club, the Van-couver Gyro Club, and the Harmony Service Club of Vancouver. The members of the survey team were selected by the Canadian Council on Child Welfare. These consisted of Mr. R.E. M i l l s , Director of the Children's Aid Society of Toronto; Miss Margaret Nairn, Family Worker, Toronto; Miss J. Vera Moberly, Executive Secretary of the Infants' Home, Toronto; Miss L e i l a G'Gorman, Catholic 7/el-fare Bureau of Toronto; . and Miss Charlotte Whitton, at that time Executive Secretary of the Canadian Council on Child Welfare, Ottawa. Mr. M i l l s , Miss Nairn and Miss Whitton were es p e c i a l l y active i n making the survey, and p a r t i c u l a r l y i n encouraging the 8 formation of the new famifty agency. ) •• The Survey team examined a l l the agencies connected with ch i l d care and protection i n B r i t i s h Columbia. It found almost without exception that the only method used to deal with children i n need of care was to place them i n an i n s t i t u t i o n . The report of the Survey stressed the fact that the natural environment of the c h i l d i s the home, and that the goal of the agency i n caring for the c h i l d must be to return him to the normal community l i f e i n which he would eventually be establishing his own home. How , could he learn i n an i n s t i t u t i o n what good home l i f e i s l i k e ? The f i r s t e f f o r t of the agency, therefore, should be to keep the ch i l d i n his own family setting; or, i n cases where this was im-possible or undesirable, to place him i n a fost e r home approxi-mating as nearly as possible what his own home should be. This did not answer:a more fundamental question: why did the c h i l d need care? In the majority of cases, i t was because of some d i f f i c u l t y of conduct or relationship on the part of the adults of the family. However, none of the ex i s t i n g s o c i a l agen-cies were doing any large amount of work with the families of the children i n th e i r care; nor did i t seem desirable that they should divide t h e i r energies i n pursuing t h i s l i n e of work, to the neglect of th e i r own special f i e l d s . As a background to a l l c h i l d care and protection work, therefore, the Survey team urged the development of a p r i v a t e , non-denominational, family agency to supplement and complement the work of the existing agencies. The Survey'r team's idea i s 9 seen i n the f o l l o w i n g statement; '•While the Survey has been p r i m a r i l y concerned w i t h care and p r o t e c t i o n of c h i l d r e n and hence e s p e c i a l l y w i t h o r g a n i z a t i o n s formed to c a r r y out t h i s purpose, there i s a s e r v i c e which i s so fundamental to the c a r -r y i n g on of any s o c i a l work: wi t h s p e c i a l i z e d groups, that some a t t e n t i o n must be given to the f a c i l i t i e s that e x i s t f o r rendering t h i s s e r v i c e . We have r e f -erence to f a m i l y welfare work, f a m i l y 'casework', to use a t e c h n i c a l term." 1 Another recommendation made by the Survey and r e l e v a n t to t h i s h i s t o r y was one s t r e s s i n g the need f o r co-operation amongst the v a r i o u s s o c i a l agencies i n Vancouver. Too o f t e n the Survey team had found one agency working i n ignorance of the work of an-other agency with the same f a m i l y . This meant waste of time and money; even more fundamental, i t meant l e s s b e n e f i t to the c l i e n t , f o r the agency was not drawing on the past experience of the other agencies. To f i l l t h i s need the Survey report suggested the f u t u r e formation of a C o u n c i l of S o c i a l Agencies, a F i n a n c i a l Federation ( i . e . , Community Chest) and a S o c i a l Workers Club. The C o u n c i l of S o c i a l Agencies would be a c o - o r d i n a t i n g body made up of r e -p r e s e n t a t i v e s of member agencies. I t would provide a meeting-ground where various agencies could d i s c u s s matters of common i n -t e r e s t . The F i n a n c i a l Federation would provide f o r a co-operat-ive c o l l e c t i o n of funds f o r those agencies who appealed to the p u b l i c f o r t h e i r f i n a n c i a l support. The S o c i a l Workers' Club would enable the i n d i v i d u a l workers to meet and exchange ideas and p o i n t s of view a r i s i n g from t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l f i e l d s . A l l these methods of co-operation would serve, u l t i m a t e l y , the i n t e r -T7 report of the B r i t i s h Columbia C h i l d Welfare Survey, 1927. Vancouver, p. 41 . LO ests of the individual c l i e n t s . Apart from these, however, the Survey report urged the immediate formation of a Social Service Exchange. This i s "...a central card index i n which ia entered i d e n t i f y i n g data of each family 'registered' and also the name of any agency that r e g i s t -ered as having knowledge of that family and the date i t did so. It i s a species of private directory accessible only to respon-s i b l e people." This central registry would enable an agency to learn whether a c l i e n t had had any previous contact with an-other agency. I f so, i t could r e f e r to the other agency f o r co-ordinated discussion around past or present problems. The great-er the number of agencies using the Exchange, the more valuable i t would become. The Survey report stressed the importance of the Exchange being i n the charge of a worker f a m i l i a r with var-ious kinds of s o c i a l work. It was f e l t that the family s o c i a l worker would be the person best suited to t h i s work. It may be noted here that such an Exchange had been i n operation i n the City R e l i e f Department, but had f a l l e n into d i s -use, apparently because there had not been s u f f i c i e n t apprecia-t i o n of the wider value of the Exchange. It had been thought of c h i e f l y as a Christmas Exchange, and had been used as•afmeans of co-ordinating "Christmas Cheer" work. While urging the immediate reorganization of the Ex-change, underwritten i f necessary by some lay group i n order to 1. Report of the B r i t i s h Columbia Child Welfare Survey, 19 27, Vancouver, p. 48. 11 get i t started at once, the Survey report pointed out that the Council of Social Agencies, when formed, would tie the l o g i c a l or ganization to assume r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r operating the Exchange. A number of s p e c i f i c recommendations were made to the individual agencies that' came within the scope of the survey, but i t i s with these two that t h i s study i s most concerned: "The Survey recommends that i n Vancouver a non-denominational family case working organization be created to supplement the work of the excellent r e l i e f agencies and s p e c i a l services. In such an organization s o c i a l adjustment and family r e h a b i l -i t a t i o n would be stressed and material r e l i e f should be made as small an item as possible." ^ "As a f i r s t step toward f a c i l i t a t i n g co-operation it- . i s recommended that the S o c i a l Service Exchange be re-organized for continuous service as an autono-mous agency, and that the p o s s i b i l i t i e s of a Council of S o c i a l Agencies and a Social T/orker's Club be kept i n mind f o r future development." 2 The Formation.of the Family Welfare Bureau of Greater Yancouver In June of 1?27 the Child Welfare Survey was published. The Survey members had f e l t so strongly the importance of the two recommendations just quoted that they made ef f o r t s of t h e i r own to interest l o c a l groups i n the problem. Miss Whltton (the Exec-utive Secretary) singled out the recently disbanded A u x i l i a r y of the Vancouver General Hospital as a promising means of getting these projects launched. Mrs. J.B. Rose of the A u x i l i a r y appealed to other members of her group and organized the f i r s t meeting to discuss how these recommendations could be r e a l i z e d . 1. Report of the B r i t i s h Columbia Child Welfare Survey, p. 37. 2. Ibid., p. 38. 12 "There can be no question but that the credit f o r the i n i t i a l e f f o r t s to launch this new a c t i v i t y belongs e n t i r e l y to Mrs. J.B. Rose. Selected, as already men-tioned, by Miss Whitton, Mrs. Rose undertook, this ef-fo r t with a determination that made f a i l u r e an impos-s i b i l i t y . " 1 The f i r s t meeting was held on June 30th, 1927, i n the Boardroom of the Metropolitan Building, Vancouver. Mr. J.H. Roaf presided; and,in addition to Mrs. Rose, there were present Mrs. E.S. Lee and Mrs. P.A. Wilson. They were addressed by Miss Nairn of the Survey team, who explained c l e a r l y and emphatically the need f o r both the private family agency and the s o e i a l service exchange. By October 12th, 1927 this group had increased, through Mrs. Hose* e f f o r t s , to t h i r t y ; i t had made s u f f i c i e n t headway In i t s plans for a constitu t i o n to be presented and adopted on t h i s date. Much work had been done i n the intervening months. Lead-ing v i s i t i n g s o e i a l workers had come to various meetings to d i s -cuss the operation and organization of private family agencies and s o c i a l service exchanges i n other e i t i e s outside of British. Columbia. It had been decided to combine these two purposes i n a single agency. Because this was to be a private agency—that i s , one supported not by taxation but by philanthropic contribu-t i o n s — a major consideration was the financing of this new ven-ture. The service clubs that had o r i g i n a l l y sponsored the Survey had been approaehed for their f i n a n c i a l support. Some support 1 Strong, G.F., M.D., Early History of the Family Welfare Bureau 13 had been promised, tut the committee had found that they must look elsewhere for the major portion of the funds. They were encour-aged, however, by the promise of 13000 by an anonymous donor, on the condition that they could raise a l i k e amount. The selection of a name for this new agency had been another important step. The name, "Central Welfare Bureau", had been chosen, to r e f l e c t . i t s dual function as a general welfare agency ( i n contrast with the specialized agencies then existing) and as a central r e g i s t r y . At the meeting of October 1 2 t h , a f t e r the adoption of the constitution, the f i r s t permanent o f f i c e r s were elected. Dr. G.F. Strong, who had replaced Mr. J.H. Roaf as chairman a f t e r the f i r s t four meetings, was elected President. Major G.C. Owen be-came Vice-President, Mr. H.G. Hewetson was Honorary Treasurer and Mrs. P.A. Wilson Honorary Secretary. The Executive Committee was composed of Mrs. Bryee Fleck, Mrs. Edgar Lee, Mr. J.H. Roaf, Mr. Arthur Cowan, and Mr. J.D. Kearns. Mrs. J.B. Rose, now that she saw the project so well launched, declined to take o f f i c e , though promising her f u l l e s t interest and support. The constitution stated c l e a r l y that t h i s agency was to be a non-sectarian charitable i n s t i t u t i o n supported by voluntary subscriptions. Its objectives were to do family welfare work i n Greater Vancouver; to maintain a Soeial Service Exchange f o r a l l s o c i a l welfare organizations i n Greater Vancouver and the surroun-ding d i s t r i c t s ; and to do such other welfare work as the Execut-ive might consider advisable. A membership was to' be developed with d i f f e r e n t classes of fees. From the membership would be e l -14 eeted the Executive o f f i c e r s and these, with eleven other members, would comprise the Executive Committee. Meetings of the Executive Committee would be held monthly to deal with the management of the Bureau. The o f f i c e r s of the Bureau were to be elected annually at a meeting to which a l l members of the organization would be inv-i t e d , at which the annual report would be given. The Director of the Bureau was to be appointed by the Executive Committee, and r e -sponsible to the Committee f o r the operation of the agency. The choice of t h i s Director was the next important step. The importance of obtaining trained s o c i a l workers had been s t r e s -sed i n the Survey report. The 6ommittee accepted t h i s idea, but to obtain such a person they found they would have to go to east-ern Canada. The selection demanded great care i f the agency was to be launched succes s f u l l y . By means of an Executive Committee member who was i n Toronto, two prospective candidates were ap-proached but they were not a v a i l a b l e . The p o s i t i o n of Executive Director was then offered to Miss Mary MePhedran, Supervisor of Family Work f o r the Neighbour-hood Workers' Association, Toronto. This agency was a private one doing family work. Miss MePhedran at f i r s t declined, 1" but was 1 It i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note that Miss MePhedran ( s t i l l Director of the agency today) relates that she had been to Vancouver on a holiday i n the f a l l of 19.27, at the time the findings of the Sur-vey were made known. Social welfare conditions i n B r i t i s h Colum-bia seemed so depressing to herothat she "...swore at that time that I would not come to Vancouver for anything." Later, when of-fered the p o s i t i o n , she reconsidered and saw i t as a challenging opportunity to pioneer family s o c i a l work in Vancouver. 15 f i n a l l y persuaded to accept the p o s i t i o n . Meanwhile, the Execu-tive Committee had secured o f f i c e space in the Dominion Building. They continued to hear addresses by outside s o c i a l workers, which informed and encouraged them i n t h e i r project. The new o f f i c e was opened upon the a r r i v a l of the D i r -ector on February 15th, 1928. She was at once heavily involved i n informing the community at large about the new agency^ and i n p a r t i c u l a r i n contacting the various agencies i n order to get the Exchange established. The Reorganization of the S o c i a l Service Exchange was the major e f f o r t at f i r s t . In addition, at the D i r -ector's f i r s t Board meeting she proposed membership i n the Ameri-can Association for Organizing Family S o c i a l Work (now the Family Service Association of America), a standard setting body for fam-i l y agencies. This proposal was accepted, and membership was taken out. The new Bureau received much favourable p u b l i c i t y i n the newspapers. An exception v/as a lengthy a r t i c l e i n The Morn- ing Star of March 14, 1928 attacking the Bureau, c h i e f l y on the ground that expensive "wise women from the East" were being im-ported to t e l l Vancouver how to d i s t r i b u t e i t s 'charity money'. Undeterred, however, the Central Welfare Bureau held i t s f i r s t Annual Meeting s i x weeks l a t e r , on A p r i l 2 3 r d , and con-siderable progress was reported. Four agencies were using the Exchange, and over one hundred cards had been indexed. A steno-grapher had been hired and a car obtained. The Director had ad-16 dressed several clubs and other organizations, informing them about the work, of the new agency. She had also found time to give' ease-work services to ten fam i l i e s . It i s s i g n i f i c a n t that the problems they presented had l i t t l e d i r e c t connection with r e l i e f , demonstra-ting from the very beginning that the new agency was f i l l i n g a def-i n i t e s o c i a l need. CHAPTER 2 THE DEPRESSION YEARS: 1929-1939 The major concern of the Central Welfare Bureau, at f i r s t was the r e a c t i v a t i n g of the Social Service Exchange. The old Ex-change, which had been operated and used so l e l y by the Vancouver City R e l i e f Department, had had as i t s main purpose the elimination of duplication amongst recipients of "Christmas cheer". The Sur-vey Report had pointed out that i t should have the much wider and more po s i t i v e function of enabling the various agencies in the c i t y to co-ordinate t h e i r e f f o r t s continuously to -the greater ad-vantage! of t h e i r c l i e n t s . It should, i n short, be set up on a permanent basis. The greater the- number of agencies using the Exchange the more useful i t would be, and much time was spent by the D i r - . eetor of the Bureau in, explaining to the various agencies the working of the Exchange, and i n e n l i s t i n g t h e i r p a r t i c i p a t i o n . By the year ending March 31st, 1929, twenty-two agencies were using i t , with r e g i s t r a t i o n s increasing d a i l y , which meant a constant increase i n the work of operating the Exchange. Accompanying t h i s , and to a degree which surprised the Executive Committee of the Bureau, there was a steady increase i n the family work of the agency. In addition to the work d i r e c t l y connected with the Exchange and with the family services, the D i r -18 ector was invited to address meetings to p u b l i c i z e the objectives of the new agency, and was conferring with other agencies on mat-ters of common interest; By September, 1928, less than six months af t e r the agency opened, i t became apparent that i f the Exchange was to be developed properly without neglecting the family serv-ices, another worker would have to be employed. Trained workers were not p l e n t i f u l i n t h i s community, and i t was not u n t i l Febru-ary, 1929, that even a part-time worker could be found. By the summer of 1929 a" fulltime worker was f i n a l l y secured, and in Sept-ember, 1929, a second fulltime worker was employed. In the meantime, as envisaged by the Survey, a S o c i a l Workers Club had been formed. Through this group the idea of a Council of Social Agencies was being developed. They aimedaalso at the establishment of some form o*f consolidated appeal to the public for f i n a n c i a l s u p p o r t — i n other words, a Community Chest. The Central Welfare Bureau ac t i v e l y promoted these projects, and anticipated that the Council of Social Agencies when formed would - take over the Social Service Exchange, as recommended by the Sur-vey. The Vancouver Board of Trade was equally interested i n some type of consolidated appeal. Together with the Soeial Work-ers Club i t was instrumental i n bringing to this c i t y Mr. J. Howard T. Falk, then of the Montreal Council of S o c i a l Agencies, to give experienced d i r e c t i o n to these projects. By January, 1930, a Coun-c i l of Social Agencies was established, and plans were made for a Welfare Federation. The Welfare Federation was to make i t s f i r s t 19 campaign for funds in the f a l l of that year. On A p r i l 1, •1931, the Council of S o c i a l Agencies assumed f u l l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for operating the Social Service Exchange. H i s t o r i c a l l y , this meant that the Bureau, which had had i t s roots in a coordinating organization, had now transferred that function to others and was now a family agency in i t s own r i g h t . At t h i s time also, the Welfare Federation began to supply the necessary funds for the operation of the Central Welfare Bureau. This l i f t e d a heavy load of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y from the shoulders of the members of the Bureau. Board. The Meaning of Federation to the Central Welfare Bureau. Federation meant, p r i m a r i l y , an assured budget, and, equally welcome, a larger budget. For the f i r s t year of Feder-ation, the budget of the Bureau was $20,937; for the previous year the budget had been $10,300. Even this had been secured with considerable e f f o r t on the part of the Executive. Previous to Federation, the financing of the operations of the Bureau had often taxed the ingenuity of the members of the Executive. The new agency had been merely another competitor f o r funds to the p u b l i c . Annual campaigns for funds had been held i n 1928, 1929 and 1930, but financing had been a hand to mouth busi-ness at best, and overdrafts at the bank, were not unknown. F u l l credit i s due the members of the Board whose perseverance and re-sourcefulness secured s u f f i c i e n t funds in these f i r s t few years to carry on the work of the Bureau; and when the agency entered 20 the Federation i t did so with a clean balance sheet. With the departure of the S o c i a l Service Exchange, and at the same time freed from the pressure of f i n a n c i a l uncertainty, the Central Welfare Bureau could, hopefully, devote i t s e l f to the growing demands of the family service work of Vancouver. For t h i s reason, and to avoid confusion i n the public mind with the new coordinating function of the Council and the Welfare Federa-t i o n , the Executive of the Bureau decided that i t s name should be changed. In August of 1932, therefore, the name was changed to The Family Welfare Bureau of Greater Vancouver. Family s o c i a l work could now receive the attention that the Executive and s t a f f of the Bureau f e l t i t deserved. S i g n i f i -cantly, however, the Annual Report of the year ending March 31st, 1931, mentioned f o r the f i r s t time a problem which was to have increasing importance f o r the work of the agency in the years to come: "...unemployment i s the most frequent misfortune affecting, people today." 1 The Impact of the Depression There had been a steady growth i n the number of c l i e n t s applying to the Bureau from the time of i t s opening, but 1931 saw the largest proportionate increase. In the year from A p r i l 1st , 1928 to March 31st, 1929, 173 families received some type of ser-vice from the Bureau; i n the year 1929 to 1950, 296 f a m i l i e s ; but i n the year 1930 to 1931, there were 636 f a m i l i e s , or more 1 Director's Report, Annual Meeting, A p r i l 27th, 1931-21 than double-the previous number. In addition to this, there wa3 a constant increase i n the number of families who required services continued from one year to the next. There was another substant-i a l increase i n the number of c l i e n t s i n 1932; s i g n i f i c a n t l y j over twice as many as i n the year previous required material re-l i e f (see Table 2 ) . Accompanying this increased demand fo r ser-vices came, i n November of 1931, a budget cut. The proposed bud-get f o r 1932, which had been approved by the Welfare Federation, was cut from t22,773 to $18,000. Budget cuts were made c h i e f l y i n the form of salary cuts, and continued to be necessary u n t i l 1934. At the same time, the easeworking s t a f f had to be i n -creased. On January 1st , 1932, there were four caseworkers; by the end of the year there were seven. This i s the largest propor tionate increase of any year i n the history of the agency. The increases i n s t a f f pointed up the need for larger o f f i c e space, and i n December of 1933" the Family Welfare Bureau moved to i t s present location i n the Children's Aid Society B u i l -ding. The increase i n work on the North Shore had suggested the opening of a branch o f f i c e there, but there was not enough money in the budget to permit t h i s . The depression threatened also the course i n S o c i a l Service at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia, which had been established i n the f a l l of 19-29. The Director of the Family Wel-fare Bureau, who had lectured at the school since i t opened, 22 along with others offered to lecture without salary, rather than have the school close* Hon-Resident Families One of the more contentious problems confronting the Bureau i n the early years of the depression was that of non-res-ident f a m i l i e s . These were the families who had not been i n a municipality or the province long enough to est a b l i s h residence. While both the c i t y of Vancouver and the p r o v i n c i a l government had programmes of f i n a n c i a l r e l i e f , neither was prepared to ac-cept r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r the non-resident f a m i l i e s . Many of these families turned to the Bureau f o r assistance. While the Bureau was not fundamentally a r e l i e f - g i v i n g agency, i t was f e l t that help could hardly be refused some of these families. The Bureau could not afford t h i s drain on i t s resources, however, and pressed the p r o v i n c i a l government to accept t h i s as a public r e -s p o n s i b i l i t y . In such a time of general economic str e s s , i t was necessary to establish firmly the l i n e of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y between public and private agencies} and the Bureau was determined that i t s work as a family oasework agency should not be submerged. By January of 1933, the Bureau was helping non-resid-ent families on the understanding that i t would be reimbursed by the p r o v i n c i a l government. But by May 13th, 1935, as no money had then been received, i t was decided to n o t i f y the p r o v i n c i a l government that the Family Welfare Bureau would not expend any more money for these f a m i l i e s , and that a l l such applicants 25 would be referred in future to the p r o v i n c i a l r e l i e f a u t h o r i t i e s . It was not u n t i l June that the f i r s t cheque, of over $900, was received from the government. After this, the Bureau f e l t i t could give f i n a n c i a l assistance to these families where necessary,"' knowing It would be reimbursed. This meant a great deal to the s t a f f of the agency, as the decision not to help these families had been a d i f f i c u l t one to make. The question of municipal and p r o v i n c i a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i n matters of r e l i e f was at l a s t c l a r -i f i e d by the passing of "The Residence and Responsibility Act", which did not take place, however, u n t i l the f a l l . o f 1936. The Closing Years of the Depression In A p r i l , 1935, at the Annual Meeting, Dr. G.F. Strong was succeeded as president of the Family Welfare Bureau by Mr. R.H. Tupper. While no one person can be given sole c r e d i t f o r the progress of the Bureau i n these f i r s t d i f f i c u l t years, i t i s evident that his sustaining leadership from the very inception of the Family Welfare Bureau had played a major role i n i t s suc-cess. As early as 1931, the Family Welfare Bureau had f e l t that i t would be valuable to have on i t s s t a f f a Roman Catholic worker to work p r i n c i p a l l y with families of that f a i t h . In Feb-ruary of 1932, a Catholic worker had been secured. In 1933 f however, a Catholic Family Welfare Bureau was established, and the Family Welfare Bureau was able thereafter to refer and trans-fer Roman Catholic c l i e n t s to the new agency. 24 In 1933-» "the Family Welfare Bureau revived the project of opening a branch o f f i c e i n North Vancouver. The North Shore communities had developed t h e i r own Council of Social Agencies, and had requested the Bureau to open a d i s t r i c t o f f i c e there. The Welfare Federation of Greater Vancouver approved the necess-ary budget, and i n February of 1936, the North Vancouver o f f i c e opened, with a worker from the Vancouver o f f i c e spending h a l f time there. There was also^at t h i s time, a request from Burnaby that the Bureau open a branch o f f i c e there, but this project was postponed. It was f e l t that the l o c a l demand was not unanimous, and i t was not the p o l i c y of the Bureau to thrust i t s e l f on a community. In the North Shore caseload, however, a steady growth indicated the need for a fulltime worker i n the North Vancouver o f f i c e , and i n January of 1938 t h i s was f i l l e d . The Work-Relief Project In 1938, there came a substantial increase in the amount of f i n a n c i a l r e l i e f provided by the Bureau, as compared with the e a r l i e r years of the depression. In the year A p r i l 1st, 1936 to March 31st, 1937, for instance, 406 families r e -ceived 16,632 i n r e l i e f ; while i n the year 1937 to 1938, 677 families received $10,96.8 (see Table 2). This increase was a di r e c t result of the Ifork Relief Project of the Vancouver C i t y R e l i e f Department. The purpose of the Work Rel i e f scheme was to get able bodied men o f f the r e l i e f r o l l s and on to public work projects. 25 When they had been transferred to work, the case was closed as f a r as the City R e l i e f o f f i c e was concerned. The men's morale may have been improved by the a c t i v i t y , but the economic fact was that they received less money than they had on r e l i e f . The maxi-mum, a family could receive i n r e l i e f was approximately $6.8 a month. They could also get free medical care, and some clothing. The maximum the family could get from the Work R e l i e f Project was $44 a month, with no medical care or clothing. It had been d i f f -i c u l t enough to budget on the r e l i e f allotment h but many families found i t impossible to manage on the wages received from the Work Reli e f scheme. More and more of them applied to the Family Wel-fare Bureau f o r f i n a n c i a l assistance to supplement t h e i r income. The Bureau found i t was again being forced into the role of a r e -l i e f - g i v i n g agency, to the detriment, i t was f e l t , of i t s true function, which was to supplement the r e l i e f - g i v i n g agencies. At the same time, i t was very d i f f i c u l t to refuse to help. The only solution f o r the time being was to request add i t i o n a l funds from the Welfare Federation to meet th i s emergency. The problem was not e n t i r e l y solved u n t i l the war began, when the men began to e n l i s t or to work i n war production. The V i s i t i n g Homemaker In January, 1938, the Executive of the Family Welfare Bureau set up a sub-committee to consider the p o s s i b i l i t y of de-veloping a programme of V i s i t i n g Homemakers. A V i s i t i n g Home-maker acts as a substitute mother i n a home where the r e a l mot-her i s either i l l or out of the home for some other reason. For 26 some time, the s o c i a l workers of the Bureau had become increas-ingly aware of the serious problems that could develops i n homes where the mother, for one reason or another, could not f u l f i l her r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . Often the father, t r y i n g to handle extra med-i c a l expenses, could i l l afford either to employ a housekeeper or ' to take time from work himself. A V i s i t i n g Homemaker meant that the family could be kept together; the children were not neglec-ted; the mother's mind was at rest; and the father could get on with the job, and enjoy a good sapper when he returned from work. Often the V i s i t i n g Homemaker had only to f i l l i n f o r a few weeks, but sometimes f o r an extended period of time; i n some cases her chief object would be to t r a i n an older daughter to carry on for her mother. These Homemakers were paid by the Bur-eau at the current rate for housekeepers. In March of 19 38, the f i r s t V i s i t i n g Homemaker service was provided on an experimental basis. Later, a Home Economist was engaged to supervise t h i s service, and by May, 19^9, the Director was able to state i n her Annual Report that the Home-maker service was f i l l i n g a r e a l need i n strengthening family l i f e . Six families had had the services of a V i s i t i n g Homemaker, and the service could have been extended to a number of others i f the budget had permitted. Later, a d d i t i o n a l funds were obtained from the Federation, and more Homemakers were employed. The ffork-loact and the Depression The t o t a l number of families receiving the services 27 that the Bureau provided increased f a i r l y constantly each year from 1929 to 1939, as shown i n Table 1. 1 These have been d i v -ided into three groups: 1. Intensive care, which are those eases which have two or more personal contacts with the ageney; 2. Short time care, being those cases which have less than two personal contacts with the agency; 3. Indirect service, comprising reports and i n v e s t i -gations f o r other agencies i n Vancouver and other c i t i e s . Table 1 - Families Receiving Services from the Family Welfare Bureau, Vancouver, 1928 to 1939. Tear (ending jdareh 31st) Intensive Care Short time Care ..  Indirect Service ; Total Families 1929 68 67 38 173 1930 163 113 76 354 1931 261 416 137 814 1932 377 631 187 1215 1933 497 776 269 1342 1934 361 914 353 1828 1935 575 746 414 1735 1936 636 , 694 555 1905 1937 683 • 785 420 1888 1938 693 1206 534 2433 1939 672 1226 565 2463 I t w i l l be noted- that there are three years when there 1. The figures and c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s are taken from the annual s t a t i s t i c a l reports of the agency, but were compiled in t h i s man ner for the purpose of t h i s table. 28 were especially large increases i n the t o t a l number of f a m i l i e s receiving services: 1 9 3 1 , 1934, and 1938. In 1931, the depres-sion was an undeniable f a c t , but the r e l i e f agencies had not yet organized themselves to meet the problem. As municipal and pro-v i n c i a l governments considered what to do, families struggling with the problems of unemployment came i n increasing numbers to the Bureau. In 1 9 3 8 , one of the p r i n c i p a l factors accounting for the r i s e was the problem of non-resident f a m i l i e s . In 1938, the s t a t i s t i c s show the effect of the Work Rel i e f project. Within the t o t a l number of f a m i l i e s , i t w i l l be seen that the number of eases receiving "Intensive Care" and cases o f "Indirect Service" show a f a i r l y constant growth. It i s the number of cases of "Short time Care" which r e f l e c t the marked increases of 1 9 3 1 , 1 9 3 4 , and 1 9 3 8 . These families were seeking not intensive casework services but rather immediate help with a s p e c i f i c problem. It might have been easy f o r the Bureau to be-come "another r e l i e f - g i v i n g agency"'; However, i t never l o s t sight of i t s o b j e c t i v e — t o provide casework services to f a m i l i e s , and to supplement the work of the e x i s t i n g r e l i e f agencies. There seems to be clear evidence from the facts that, during these ten years, the main emphasis of the Bureau was on the provision of non-material services rather than on r e l i e f (Table' 2). The c l a s s i f i c a t i o n i n t h i s table is as follows: 1 1 , The figures and c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s are taken from the annual s t a t i s t i c a l reports of the agency,, but were compiled i n t h i s man-ner for the purpose of this table. 29 1. Total Direct Service, which includes only those f a m i l i e s d i r e c t l y served by the Bureau, as d i s t i n c t from those c l a s s i f i e d as Indirect Service i n Table 1. 2i Personal Service Only, which were those f a m i l i e s d i r e c t l y served by the Bureau who did not receive r e l i e f . 5* R e l i e f , meaning the number of families receiving some form of material assistance from the Bureau. 4. Amount, being the t o t a l value i n d o l l a r s of the material assistance provided to these families each f i s c a l year. Table 2 - Families Receiving Personal Service and R e l i e f , 1928, to 1939* (Direct Service Cases Only) " Year Families Receiving Amount ' (1) (ending ilar'oh 31st) Personal Service Only { R e l i e f Total Direct Service 1929 106 29 135 $ 496 1930 222 56 278 1,141 1931 523 152 677 2,002 1932 698 330 1028 4,326 1933 842 431 1273 7 ,600 1934 1031 444 1475 5,687 1935 929 392 1321 6,812 1936 941 409 1350 7,388 1937 1026 406 1468 6,632 1938 1222 677 1899 10,968 1939 1210 688 1898 12,012 1. The word "Relief" i s used by the Family Welfare Bureau, a l -though the term "Financial Assistance"- i s i n general usage e l s e -where. 2. To the nearest d o l l a r . 30 It may be seen that there were substantial increases i n the "Total Direct Service" cases i n 1931, 1934, and 1938. This might be expected, from the factors discussed with reference to Table 1. These peaks coincide with those i n the families coming for "Personal Service- Only". In the " R e l i e f " grouping, however, the peaks appear only i n l ? 3 i and 1938; i n 1934, while there i s a s l i g h t increase i n the number of families receiving r e l i e f , the amount expended for r e l i e f i s actually lower. It w i l l be r e c a l l e d that, with respect to the non-resident families problem, the pro-v i n c i a l government had not only agreed to reimburse the Bureau for r e l i e f to them, but was beginning to assume some d i r e c t res-p o n s i b i l i t y for them. These families show up, hov/ever, i n the "Personal Service " column. It i s s i g n i f i c a n t to examine not only the t o t a l number of families receiving r e l i e f and the t o t a l amount of r e l i e f pro-vided, but also the average amount which, each family received. In 1931, 152 families received an average of $13.17 i a f i n a n c i a l assistance; in 1934,the average was $ 1 2 . 8 0 , and in 1938, $ 1 6 . 3 0 . Of course, some families would receive l e s s , and others much more. Some families might receive money as part of the casework plan, which would continue, over several months; others might be given a small amount of money to tide them over a weekend. However, the averages demonstrate that, even when the t o t a l numbers of families and the t o t a l amounts of f i n a n c i a l assistance increased, Sh@ Bureau never attempted or desired to provide r e l i e f on any-where near the same scale as the other r e l i e f agencies. The 31 manner i n which the depression and i t s problems a f f e c t e d the ac-t u a l workload of the i n d i v i d u a l caseworker i s followed through i n the concluding chapter. The most important c o n c l u s i o n to be drawn from the f a c t s assembled up to t h i s p o i n t , i s that t h i s new agency not only had an i n c r e a s i n g number of f a m i l i e s coming to i t f o r s e r -v i c e s , but that by f a r the l a r g e r p r o p o r t i o n of these f a m i l i e s were coming f o r non-material h e l p , which was the main object i n e s t a b l i s h i n g the agency. CHAPTER 3  THE WAR YEARS: 1939 to- 1945 In 1939 , the Family Welfare Bureau was s t i l l expanding i t s services. In January, 1939, at the request of the West Van-couver Welfare Society, a branch o f f i c e was opened i n West Van-couver, with a worker spending two days a week there, as the i n -creased number of cases seemed to warrant.-.-it. Previously, these cases.had been handled from the Horth Vancouver o f f i c e . In A p r i l of 1939 , the Vancouver Bar Association set up a Legal Aid Committee to give free l e g a l services to people who could not afford to engage t h e i r own lawyer. Th.e Family Welfare Bureau had been approached to act as a clearing house for a l l re-f e r r a l s of c i v i l action, and i t was decided to undertake t h i s f o r three months on an experimental basis. The Bureau's function would be, f i r s t , to determine the f i n a n c i a l e l i g i b i l i t y of the applicant, second, to consider the s o c i a l aspects of the need for advice, and t h i r d , to determine the nature of the problem pre-sented, and whether i t could be dealt with by other agencies without recourse to l e g a l a c t i o n . This l i a i s o n between the Bar Association and the Bureau was experimental at f i r s t ; there was no way of knowing how much work i t would involve for the Bureau. It was f e l t that the service must be allowed to grow slowly un-t i l s u f f i c i e n t experience had been gained to permit a permanent 33 p o l i c y to be l a i d down. This measured expansion was a c c e l e r a t e d abruptly by World War I I . "The request of a B r i t i s h n a v a l r e s e r v i s t on Sept-ember 1st (1939) f o r advice i n p l a n n i n g f o r the f a m i l y during h i s absence overseas brought home to us t h a t , as an agency, we should have to adapt our programme to include work with s o l d i e r ' s fam-i l i e s . " 1 Between September 1st, 1939 and March 31st, 194Q, 233 f a m i l i e s of servicemen came to the Bureau f o r some kind of h e l p . I t i s s i g n i f i c a n t , that 137 of these needed f i n a n c i a l a s s i s t a n c e . This prospect was to be borne but i n the months to come, and of the i n c r e a s i n g numbers of servicemen's f a m i l i e s who came to the Bureau f o r h e l p , a l a r g e p r o p o r t i o n required f i n a n c i a l a s s i s t -ance. While some of these cases required help f o r s p e c i a l emer-gencies, In many cases the economic d e p r i v a t i o n s of the previous ten years l e f t the f a m i l y with no f i n a n c i a l reserve to carry i t u n t i l the f i r s t dependent's allowance should come through. The Family Welfare Bureau was c o n s t a n t l y being c a l l e d upon to provide funds to t i d e the f a m i l y over. To meet t h i s emergency, an e x t r a allotment had to be obtained from the Federation. This problem, which was r e a l l y a carry-over from the depression, accounts f o r the remarkable f a c t that the Bureau's allotment f o r r e l i e f continued to increase r i g h t i n t o the war 1. D i r e c t o r ' s Report, Annual Meeting, 1940 34 years, and, i n f a c t , reached i t s peak i n 1941. In addition to actual f i n a n c i a l assistance, many of these families requested assistance i n budgetting. As fareas,.-the Bureau's records show, this was d i r e c t l y a t t r i b u t a b l e to the de-pression. They had been accustomed to small but weekly cheques; when the cheques were larger but a r r i v i n g monthly, i t was very d i f f i c u l t for many of these wives to make them stretch over the whole month; Along with t h i s , i t was d i f f i c u l t to r e s i s t pur-chasing many of the comforts the family had done without f o r so long. It was easy to get credit,., and installment buying was a l -l u r i n g . Soon i t was d i f f i c u l t to stretch the allotment to meet the various payments. Much of the'Home Economist's time was spent working with these families over t h e i r budget problems. This was such a common problem that the Bureau found i t necessary to discuss with Merchants Associations the d e s i r a b i l i t y of being more careful i n granting credit to servicemen's f a m i l i e s . The Bureau was soon concerned also with the increasing d i f f i c u l t y of locating suitable housing for servicemen's f a m i l -i e s . The transiency of service l i f e , and, of course, the same faetor i n c i v i l i a n families moving from one area to another i n war work, brought more and more families to the Bureau f o r help i n t h i s matter. Often there was l i t t l e that could be done to help the individual family, but the agency, along with other or-ganizations, made every e f f o r t to focus public attention on this prob lem. 55 In November of 1939, "the Bureau, entered into an agree-ment with the federal government to make investigations f o r the Dependent's Allowance Board. This was the federal agency which distributed the allowance a serviceman made to h i s dependents. It was frequently necessary to eheek the v a l i d i t y of the a l l o t -ment, especially for those which went,to persons other than the man's legal wife. The Bureau agreed to perform these investiga-tions f o r a small fee per case, f i l l i n g i n a four-page form and N reporting on the s i t u a t i o n . The Dependent's Allowance Board i n Ottawa had the authority to continue or withhold any allowance, basing i t s decision on t h i s report. International Problems New problems appeared thick and f a s t . In the summer of 1940, while the community was preparing for the a r r i v a l of evacu-ated B r i t i s h children; another group of children with t h e i r mo-thers were a r r i v i n g from B r i t a i n . These became known as the "Overseas Families"'. Many had apparently decided to s a i l sudden-l y , and some had only nominal i n v i t a t i o n s from some friend or r e -l a t i v e here. Soon afte r they arrived, these families were placed in a very d i f f i c u l t p o s i t i o n , when the new Foreign Exchange Control Regulations came into force in B r i t a i n . No money could be sent to them from home, though l a t e r a few exceptions were made, in exceptional circumstances. It was not possible for either t h e i r r e l a t i v e s or their friends to assume r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for these 36 families i n d e f i n i t e l y . Many of them turned to the family Welfare Bureau. "...since no one over sixteen or under s i x t y , except returning Canadians and adults with children, wa.s allowed to leave B r i t a i n , the chances for employment for these war guests was slim." 1 The Bureau was able to help i n many cases with temporary f i n a n -c i a l assistance or personal counselling services to aid them i n formulating a plan. To meet their f i n a n c i a l needs, the Co-ordin-ating Council for War Work and C i v i l i a n Services (a wartime co-ordinating body i n Vancouver) established a trust fund. It should be noted, however, that the problem of these families was not pe-c u l i a r to Vancouver; the s i t u a t i o n was so acute i n eastern Can-ada that i t was f e l t ^ f o r a time, by some s o c i a l agencies and other individuals, that national action was necessary. Soon, however, there was a d e f i n i t e decrease i n the number of families coming across, and those already over were gradually finding their feet. The Imperial Order, Daughters of the Empire established a trust fund f o r them, and by 1943, the problem,., of the "Overseas Families" was a thing of the past as fareas the Family Welfare Bureau was concerned. As might be expected, a f t e r the start of the war enemy aliens were finding d i f f i c u l t y i n obtaining employment, and at the request of the Canadian Welfare Council, the Family Welfare Bureau agreed to act on a l o c a l committee with the Swiss consul i n order to administer funds f o r the assistance of German nat-1. Director's Report, Annual Meeting, 1941. ionals. The job of the Bureau was to estimate the need of sup-plementary assistance, and to determine what form the assistance should take. Naturalized Canadians of German o r i g i n were also experiencing s i m i l a r d i f f i c u l t i e s , and were turning to the Bur-eau f o r assistancei While these tasks did not constitute a major portion of the work, they are indicative of the variety of extra war serv-ices which the Family Welfare Bureau was called on to undertake. The Dependent's Board of Trustees The amount of work involved in these tasks was compara-t i v e l y l i g h t i n comparison with that in doing the investigations for the Dependent's Board of Trustees. In 1942, the federal gov-ernment established t h i s wartime agency, which could authorize supplementary f i n a n c i a l assistance to those persons or families receiving t h e i r cheque from the Dependents' Allowance Board. This, i n e f f e c t , meant a "means te s t " , but instead of setting up any new machinery of i t s own, the government u t i l i z e d e x i s t i n g s o c i a l agencies, both public and pr i v a t e , to carry out any i n -vestigations necessary to determine e l i g i b i l i t y f o r ad d i t i o n a l grants of money. The Bureau was to be paid a set fee f o r each investigation made. ' They took on this work w i l l i n g l y , but with-out r e a l i z i n g the extent to which i t would add to t h e i r work load. "D.B.T." became a very f a m i l i a r term i n the agency, as hundreds and hundreds of investigations were made. Some idea of the extra work involved i n t h i s wartime service may be gained 38 from the fact that between March, 1942, when the Board was estab-lished, and March, 1946, 10,170 reports were completed by the Bureau. The great majority of the families required t h i s supple-mentary assistance for medical care, or for medical debts. It seems reasonable to assume, from available records, that t h i s also was a carryover from the depression. The Closing Years of the War By 1943, the war had- established a f a i r l y d e f i n i t e pat-tern of work f o r the Bureau: while they were s t i l l wrestling with one major problem, another would come treading on i t s heels. Prom the beginning of the war the Bureau had been work-ing with the families of men who had e n l i s t e d j almost as soon, they began working with the discharged men. These were few i n number at f i r s t , but, by 1943, there was a d i s t i n c t increase i n the number of ex-servicemen coming to the Bureau. S i m i l a r l y , the problems of the "'overseas f a m i l i e s " were replaced by those of war brides getting t h e i r bearings in a new country. On the other hand, Legal Aid, which had.been started experimentally, was func-tioning smoothly and was now an established service. In the Homemaker Service, s u f f i c i e n t experience had been gained to en-able the Bureau to plan more care f u l l y for i t in Intake; the Homemakers were now regarded as members of the s t a f f and were paid a monthly salary. Relief expenditures were dec l i n i n g sub-s t a n t i a l l y (see Table $). The work for the federal government, however, continued to mount; i n 1945, f o r example, over 4000 3? "D.B.T."s were completed, or almost as many as the t o t a l f o r the two preceeding years. It i s worthwhile to note that i n some of these cases, Homemaker service was provided, with the Board of Trustees paying f o r i t . For the f i r s t time i n many years, therefore, the Bureau was not so e n t i r e l y dependent on the Welfare Federation for f i n -ancing i t s e l f ; considerable revenue came from the federal gov-ernment. This made budgetting a l i t t l e easier, and made possible salary increases which were necessary to a t t r a c t s t a f f . Just as there were problems of work, so there were also problems of work-ers.. Like many other organizations, the FamiLy Welfare Bureau had d i f f i c u l t y i n securing and retaining both c l e r i c a l and pro-fessi o n a l s t a f f during the war years. Heretofore, the Bureau had always been able to employ trained soeial workers only, but with so many s o e i a l workers taking positions created by the war, i t became necessary to hire untrained workers who were known as "case aides", to help cope with a l l this extra work. The Work Load and the War Years The extent to which the Family Welfare Bureau gave as-sistance to the families of servicemen i s shown by the following table. There are four c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s i n t h i s group of "Direct Service" eases: 1. C i v i l i a n Families, being those individuals or fam-i l i e s whose problem was not d i r e c t l y connected with war service. 2. Servicemen's Families, being those families with a p r i n c i p a l member i n one of the armed forces. 40 3» T o t a l , being the t o t a l D i r e c t Service cases. 4. Percentage of Service F a m i l i e s , being the percentage of the t o t a l D i r e c t Service cases which were s e r -vicemen's f a m i l i e s . Table 3 - P r o p o r t i o n of Servicemen's F a m i l i e s to C i v i l i a n F a m i l i e s September 1, 193? to March 3 1 , 1946. 1 Family Welfare Bureau. Year D i r e c t Service Percentage (ending iiEarch 3 1 s t ) C i v i l i a n .t, F a m i l i e s Servicemen's A F a m i l i e s 1 T o t a l of S e r v i c e F a m i l i e s 1940 1696 252 1949 13f» 1941 1475 668 2143 31 1942 1156 73? 1993 37 1943 834 2124 2958 72 1944 652 3005 3657 82 1945 631 3841 4.472 86 1946 895; 358.O 4475 80 I t w i l l be noted that the number of servicemen's fam-i l i e s increased r a p i d l y , and by 1943, the great majo.rity of the f a m i l i e s coming to the Bureau were i n t h i s category. I t was i n the l a s t year of the war tha t the highest p r o p o r t i o n was reached, and the p r o p o r t i o n continued to be very h i g h even i n the year a f t e r the war. There i a a corresponding decrease i n the number of c i v i l i a n f a m i l i e s , but i t should be noted that the t o t a l num-ber of 8Dire..et.nSer.vde.aSsQ.ases increased g r e a t l y during the war; 1. The f i g u r e s and c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s are taken from the annual s t a t i s t i c a l r e p o r t s of the agency, but were compiled i n t h i s man-ner f o r the purpose of t h i s t a b l e . 4L i t was not merely a case of c i v i l i a n s reappearing i n uniform. Most of the MServicemen's Families" were "D.B.T." eases, of course. The war i s commonly thought of as a time of f u l l em-ployment, but Tables 4 and 5 show that some time elapsed before t h i s effect became apparent i n the Bureau's figures f o r r e l i e f . The "Percentage" column i s omitted, but otherwise the c l a s s i f i -cations are the same as for Table 3» Table 4 - R e l i e f Cases, September 1, 1939 to March 31, 1946 1 Family Welfare Bureau Tear (ending March 31st) R e l i e f Cases 1 C i v i l i a n . Families Servicemen's Families Total 1940 701 137 838 1941 619 303 922 1942 533 212 747 1943 231 194 425 1944 129 150 279 1945 116 100 216 1946 113 167 282 These figures show c l e a r l y that 1941 i s the peak year for r e l i e f . This may, at f i r s t sight, seem surprising; but i t 1. The figures and c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s are taken from the annual s t a t i s t i c a l reports of the agency, but were compiled i n t h i s man ner for the purpose of this table. 42 mast be remembered that employment did not pick up f u l l y u n t i l 1941, and i n addition, many people had been affected by the new r e l i e f regulations introduced in September of 1940. At that time, the province ruled that a l l married men under for t y years of age were to be taken off the l i s t s . This change was made on the grounds of improved economic conditions, but many were un-able to find work and turned to the Family Welfare Bureau. Although the figure f o r " C i v i l i a n Families" i s s t i l l high i n 1941, i t i s p r i n c i p a l l y the "Servieemen Ts ; Families" who account f o r the r i s e . Enlistments were high, and many families were awaiting the f i r s t allowance cheque. In addition to t h i s , many of these same families had medical b i l l s or other debts accumulated from the depression years, as was shown c l e a r l y i n the "D.B.T." work. By the end of the war, figures f o r r e l i e f had dropped s u b s t a n t i a l l y , although there i s a s l i g h t r i s e again i n 1946. This comes i n the"Servicemen ts Families" cate-gory, due p r i n c i p a l l y to problems ereated by discharge and re-h a b i l i t a t i o n . As might be expected from the previous tables, the peat year f o r expenditure of r e l i e f was 1941 (see Table 5 ) . This i s due to the large increase, p r i n c i p a l l y , in the amount going to the families of enlisted men. By 1944, there were r e l a t i v e l y few people who were unable to secure jobs, and the t o t a l r e l i e f expenditure dropped sharply. This was the f i r s t time i n ten years i t had gone so low. 43 Table 3 - Amount of R e l i e f , September 1, 1939 to March 3 1 , 1946. Family Welfare Bureau. Year (ending March 31st) C i v i l i a n Families Servicemen's Families Total Amount of Re l i e f 1940 1 14,745 $ 1,590 $ 16,335 1941 11,764 5,532 17,296 1942 10,551 4,893 15,444 1943 9,062 3,438 12 ,500 1944 3,823 1,793 3,616 1945 3,708 2,270 5,978 1946 2,573 1,443 4,016 It i s interesting to compare these tables (4 and 5) with Table 2 . In the midst of the depression, when there were large numbers of unemployed, the t o t a l number receiving r e l i e f and the t o t a l amount of r e l i e f provided through the Bureau was less than hal f the number and amount provided i n 1940 and 1941, when most people considered the depression was over. It was not u n t i l 1943, and s t i l l more i n 1944, that a r e a l l y large drop occurs i n the expenditures f o r r e l i e f . There i s no doubt that the work of the Family Welfare Bureau took on a new scope and meaning during the war years. It was not merely that the great majority of the i r c l i e n t s were servicemen's families; these families were facing new problems. l i Compiled from Family 'Welfare Bureau s t a t i s t i c s , to the nearest d o l l a r . 44 TJie family unit that had generally had a stable residence became a scattered and s h i f t i n g group. Many mothers were t r y i n g to cope with growing children without the help of their husbands. To the Bureau, th i s meant that these people need^more help i n maintaining normal l i v i n g , since they were deprived of the stab-i l i z i n g influences to which they had been accustomed formerly. Lack of adequate housing often added a further s t r a i n to family l i v i n g ; as time went on thi s problem became increasingly acute, and the s t a f f of the Bureau promoted i n every way possible com-munity action on housing. Employment opportunities during the war years lured many mothers out of the home. This presented two pot e n t i a l dangers: neglect of the children, and s t r a i n on marital r e -lati o n s h i p s . For older people and pensioners, the increased cost of l i v i n g presented many hardships, and i t is noteworthy that, in spite o f the pressure o f extra work, the Bureau never l o s t sight of such groups as these. For the majority, however, the war helped to create an improved standard of l i v i n g . As might be expected, the s t a f f was hard pressed to keep abreast of the work during these years. This reached i t s peak i n 1941 as f a r as interviews were concerned, when an aver-age of 12|- s t a f f members had over 18,000 interviews during the year. This, and other trends i n caseloads, w i l l be discussed l a t e r , i n the concluding chapter. In addition to t h e i r heavy work load, s t a f f members served on various committees concerned 45 with problems a r i s i n g out of the war. Some of these were: Del-inquency, Housing, Care of the Pre-sehool Child, Care of the Aged, Protection of Women, and the Family Court. Fee Charging It seems understandable that, during the closing years of the war, with employment at i t s peak., the question of fee charging began to be considered by the Bureau. In 1943, the Director had been able to report to her Board that an increasing number of c l i e n t s were expressing a desire to pay f o r the coun-s e l l i n g service which they had received. It was known that some experiments i n fee charging had been carried on i n other family agencies i n the United States. The Bureau decided at t h i s time, however, that the idea of charging a "fee f o r service" was one which would require careful study, insofar as i t was h i s t o r i c a l l y contradictory to the philosophy of the "charity movement". The c l i e n t s who wanted to jhay. were encouraged to make t h e i r eontrib* ution to the Community Chest. The idea was not discarded, but i t was some time before a d e f i n i t e p o l i c y was established by the Bureau. Because of i t s war service programme, the Family 'Wel-fare Bureau was better known i n the community. In addition to t h i s , the federal government using the Bureau f o r i t s work brought a new c l i e n t e l e to the agency, and by 1945, although extremely busy, the agency seemed to be able to take matters i n i t s s t r i d e . It was in this year that they foresaw, not only the 46 end of the war, but also rta postwar slump". The d i f f i c u l t i e s of r e h a b i l i t a t i o n of the discharged servicemen were anticipated, as well as the big question of the whole readjustment that the community would be making to a " c i v i l i a n l i f e " . CHAPTER 4 THE POST-Y/AR YEARS The depression of the and the war years follow-ing i t , had created many hardships. The former had been a time of d i s t r e s s i n g economic conditions, and many were the demands made upon governments to take action to r e l i e v e matters. R e l i e f schemes of various types were established,.but the provinces f e l t that the federal government should be the body to assume chief r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , insofar as i t had much wider powers of taxation. That the federal government had resisted doing so i s well known, but i n the next few years, under the necessity of conducting a " t o t a l war", i t was to assume more r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r control-l i n g the economic l i f e of the country than i t had done hereto-fore, and did i t with the general approbation of the c i t i z e n s . The wa,r had undoubtedly wrought many personal hardships and had created much personal d i s t r e s s , but i n spite of this the stan-dard of l i v i n g had improved. For the f i r s t time i n years, many people had economic security, which was d i r e c t l y attributable to wartime conditions. In addition to t h i s , the prosperity of the war years had encouraged the f e d e r a l government to introduce such constr-uctive pieces of l e g i s l a t i o n as Unemployment Insurance and Fam-V 48' i l y Allowances. There was also the extensive veterans' r e h a b i l -i t a t i o n program, which meant that another f a i r l y large segment of the population was being assisted by the government. In t h i s province, s o c i a l l e g i s l a t i o n had been revamped to afford more comprehensive services. It i s not surprising, therefore, that i n 1946 the annual report of the Family Welfare Bureau was en-t i t l e d : "The Government i s Doing I t ! Why the Family Welfare Bureau?" The answer to this is one that had been especially apparent i n the depression years; however c a r e f u l l y a regula-ti o n i s drawn up, i t cannot allow for a l l situations. There i s always the problem of the i n d i v i d u a l whose circumstances are not covered by the l e g i s l a t i o n . It i s the private agency, with i t s greater f l e x i b i l i t y , that can help these people. Furthermore, the Bureau was a s p e c i a l i s t i n family problems, and could apply i t s knowledge and experience in a way that public agencies could not. This was p a r t i c u l a r l y true of the public agencies, which i n spite of their broadened programmes, s t i l l tended to concent-rate on meeting f i n a n c i a l need. The work that the Bureau had been doing for the feder-a l government did not cease abruptly with the ending of the war; in the work-load of 1946, a large proportion of the cases were s t i l l servicemen's families (see Table })• By the end of 1946, however, th i s work had been completed, and, of course, the re-venue from i t came to an end, which i n 1946 alone had amounted to $10,000. This meant that the Bureau was again dependent p r i n c i p a l l y on the Community Chest f o r i t s financing. The com-4? inanity, evidently, was not too ready to resume the r e s p o n s i b i l -i t y of supporting the Chest campaigns. One of the f i r s t feat-ures of the post-war years, as far as the Bureau was concerned,, was the necessity of making dra s t i c cuts i n t h e i r budget. In the f a l l of 1 Q46, just as the income from the federal govern-ment was ceasing, i t became apparent that the proposed budget from the Chest f o r 1947 would have to be cut'by-111,500, from approximately^6 ,500 to about $65,000—approximately the amount the Bureau had received from the Chest f o r the 1946 budget. Reductions both i n s t a f f and i n services had to be made in order to balance the books. From a peak s t a f f of 20 caseworkers i n 1946, the s t a f f was decreased to an average of 17|- workers during 1947. A further reduction was necessary i n 1948, when the Chest campaign again did not meet i t s quota. Since that time, there has been an average of 16 workers em-ployed annually by the Bureau. The l i m i t a t i o n s imposed by these budget cuts were not wholly detrimental; the fact that they had to accept a smaller number of c l i e n t s meant that they were able to give them more intensive service. The Homemaker Service By the end of the war the value of the Homemaker Ser-vice had been amply demonstrated. In addition to the personal value of keeping the family i n t a c t , i t had been found that i t was actually less expensive to provide homemaker serviee than to place the children i n foster homes, i n families where there 50 were two or more children. It had been found that i t s most valu-able use was for short-term, emergency cases. Long-term cases not only tied up the Homemakers, so that the Bureau was unable to meet emergency needs, but proved too great a drain on the agency's bud-get. The p r o v i n c i a l agencies had recognized the value of the ser-vice to the extent that they were agreeable to paying 80% of the cost for those receiving public assistance, although Vancouver c i t y could not see i t s way clear to paying the remaining 20%.. The necessity for budget cuts i n 1947 meant that the Bureau could not afford to take any more long-term cases unless payment was assured, or the whole Homemaker programme would be endangered. These long-term cases were usually those where the mother had tuberculosis. It was decided, therefore, that as of January 1st, 1947 , no more applications would be accepted for this service from "T.B. f a m i l i e s " unless f u l l payment was guaranteed. The Metropolitan Health Qommit-tee was p a r t i c u l a r l y interested i n the work with the rtT.B. f a m i l i e s " who were not i n receipt of public assistance, and i n March, 1949, the Committee was instrumental i n obtaining a federal grant to be used i n paying for Homemaker service from the Bureau for "T.B. fam-i l i e s " . The grant was made on an experimental basis, and continued u n t i l 1952. Today, however, t h i s extra money i s no longer avai l a b l e , and i t has again been necessary to l i m i t the work with these fami-l i e s . The problem of financing Homemaker service for long-term eases i s s t i l l unsolved. Other Post-War Problems An old problem which reappeared i n a new form was that of the "unemployed employables". The depression was not so long 51 concluded but that the agency could f e e l alarmed at the increas-ing numbers of these people. Families were again turning to the Family Welfare Bureau for assistance, and i n 1?47 they were a l -armed to find that much of the time of the Intake worker was being taken up with applications f o r unemployment r e l i e f . Dur-ing the depression, i t w i l l be r e c a l l e d , the municipal and pro-v i n c i a l governments had accepted r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for these eases, but they were now taking the p o s i t i o n that this should be a re-s p o n s i b i l i t y of the federal government. The Bureau found that, i f i t gave any of these families temporary assistance, the mun-i c i p a l and p r o v i n c i a l authorities were simply encouraged to r e -fe r more cases to them. With t h e i r reduced budgets, the Bureau could not assume this added expense, and they were determined not to show even t a c i t acceptance of the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . F i n -a l l y , i n November, 1948, the Bureau had to decide that no more r e l i e f would be provided to these f a m i l i e s , unless there were very exceptional circumstances. £Lt the same time, they were using every means to emphasize to a l l levels of government the need f o r action on the problem. - They have continued to press for a solution, but today the federal government has not yet accepted this r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , and the "unemployed employable" i s s t i l l a s o c i a l problem. While the "unemployed employable" problem appeared a f t e r the war, i n the question of housing i t was a case of a bad s i t u a t i o n getting worse. The serious housing shortage had 52 grown progressively worse during the war years, and immediately a f t e r the war the i n f l u x of returning servicemen anxious to est-a b l i s h t h e i r own homes further aggravated the problem. The dan-gers that bad housing present to family l i v i n g i s i l l u s t r a t e d in the following statement from the annual report of 1947: "Breaking up families seems too costly a way of dealing with the housing shortage, but unless the whole community presses f o r a low cost housing scheme, the family s o c i a l workers are f i g h t i n g a losing battle i n t h e i r e f f o r t s to prevent family breakdowns i n too many otherwise stable s i t u a t i o n s . " 1 The Bureau cooperated i n every way possible i n promoting low coat housing schemes and urging community action, and i n supplying data to organizations interested i n houaing. While various housing projects have a l l e v i a t e d the s i t u a t i o n to some extent, the agency i s s t i l l aware of i t as a serious problem. Two other problems thajj seem to characterize the im-mediate poat-war years come under the heading of recent immig-rants. Many of these had d i f f i c u l t i e s i n finding suitable jobs, and, even more than other people, were at the mercy of the hous-ing shortage. The agency did what i t could with the i n d i v i d u a l problems, but they also urged the authorities to make a more careful screening of prospective immigrants to ensure that they would have s u f f i c i e n t resources to maintain themselves u n t i l they got th e i r bearings, and to see that they were more adequately informed of conditions that they would encounter i n this country. 1. Director's Report, Annual Meeting, 1947. 53 A s p e c i a l group was that of the "overseas wives" who had married Canadian servicemen.o In the majority of these cases, the problem was one of marital d i f f i c u l t y . The sense of united e f f o r t that had permeated the com-munity during the war years had more l a s t i n g effects for the so c i a l agencies; a feature of the post-war years was a greater sense of cooperation amongst them. A Review of the Work-goad The work-load of the Bureau has changed considerably i n the past twenty-five years. The most i n t e r e s t i n g post-war development i s the sharp decline i n the t o t a l number of Direct Service eases (see Table 6). The figures f o r 1946 are included for comparison, when the cases s t i l l included a large number of servicemen's f a m i l i e s . By 1947, the agency was again on a "civ-i l i a n " footing, and also, i t w i l l be re c a l l e d , their reduced budgets made i t necessary to be more selective i n the number of cases accepted. After the sharp drop i n 19 47, the t o t a l "Direct Service 1 1 cases continue to drop, but more gradually. The cl a s -s i f i c a t i o n i n this table- i s as follows: 1. Total Direct Service, which includes only those families d i r e c t l y served by the Bureau, as d i s -t i n c t from those c l a s s i f i e d as Indirect Service in Table 1. 2. Personal Service Offly, which were those families d i r e c t l y served by the Bureau who did not receive r e l i e f ; 3. R e l i e f , meaning the number of families receiying some form of material assistance from the Bureau. 54 . 4 , Amount, being the t o t a l vaLue i n d o l l a r s of the material assistance provided to these families each f l s e a l year. Table 6 - Families Receiving Personal Service and R e l i e f from the Family Welfare Bureau, 1946 to 1952. 1 (Direct Service Cases Only) Tear (end ing March 3 1 s t ) Families Receiving Amount ' ( i ) Personal Service Only ' Relief Total Direct Service 1946 4193 282 4475 1 4,017 1947 2217 218 2435 7,543 1948 1742 193 1935 5 ,558 1949 1472 186 1638 -. 3,449 1950 1434 207 1641 3 ,802 1951 1355 155 1310 4,417 1952 1206 198 1404 5,679 2 The "Personal Service Only" cases have shown a steady deeline, but the indications now are &hat they have l e v e l l e d o f f . Likewise, the figures f o r r e l i e f , apart from the s t r i k i n g r i s e f o r 1947, continue to remain at about the l e v e l they have been since the l a t e r war years (see Table 5 ) . This r i s e in the amount of r e l i e f i n 1947 seems, in part, due to the "unemployed employables" who were turning to the Bureau for assistance. There has also been, considerable change i n the size of 1. The figures and c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s are taken from the annual s t a t i s t i c a l reports of the agency, but were compiled In t h i s manner for the purpose of this table. To the nearest d o l l a r . 55 the caseloads of the i n d i v i d u a l workers, and these are examined i n Table Th.e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s i n t h i s t a b l e are as f o l l o w s : 1. Average Workers Monthly, being,the average numher of caseworkers employed each mbnth over the year, 2. Average A c t i v e gases Monthly, being the average of the monthly t o t a l s of a c t i v e cases. 5. Average A c t i v e Cases per Worker, which i s the aver-age number of a c t i v e cases per worker per month. This i s computed by d i v i d i n g column (3j i n t o column (1 ) . I t w i l l be seen that Table 7 begins i n 1931, when the Bureau was r e l i e v e d of the S o c i a l Service Exchange and became a family ag-ency e x c l u s i v e l y . The f i r s t s t r i k i n g feature here i s the steady decrease i n the s i z e of caseloads (see column 4 ) . These were very h i g h during the depression, but as the Bureau was able to increase i t s s t a f f , the loads went down. Even during the war yea.rs, when the number of f a m i l i e s increased to numbers never before experienced, caseloads g e n e r a l l y d e c l i n e d . The sharp drop f o l l o w i n g the war was mainly the r e s u l t of the end of the wartime work f o r the f e d e r a l government. Combined w i t h the drop i n caseloads over the years has been the steady increase i n the s i z e of the s t a f f . From 1931, when there were 3 workers, the s t a f f grew at an average r a t e of more than one per year, culmin-a t i n g i n the peak s t a f f of 20 i n 1946. This meant an increase of 17 workers i n 15 years. During the years 1931 "to 1939 i n c l u -s i v e , the average s t a f f was 7 p l u s . During the years 1940 to 1946 i n c l u s i v e , t h i s was doubled to an average of 15 p l u s . In the l a s t s i x years the average has been 16 workers. 1,. The f i g u r e s are taken from the annual s t a t i s t i c a l r eports of the agency. The c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s are those of the F.S.A.A. 56 Table 7 - Trends i n Caseloads, Family Welfare Bureau, 1931 to 1952. Tear (ending March 31st) Average Workers Monthly Average Active Cases Monthly' Average Active Cases Per Worker 1931 3 190 63.3 1932 296 64 1933 6fc 423 65.3 1934 7 475 67.8 1935 8 470 58.7 1936 8 , 493 61.6 1937 81 527 62 1938 91 688 72.4 1939 10 585 58.5 1940 11 630 59 1941 12| 697 55.7 1942 13 648 49.8 1943 803 53.5 1944 18. 831 47.2 1945 19 825 43.4 1946 20 827 41 .3 1947 171 509 29 194S 151 474 30 1949 392 26.1 1950 17 397 23.3 1951 16 375' 23.4 1952 151 368 23.7 57 One might well wonder how the caseloads of the Family Welfare Bureau, compare with those of other family agencies. The best yardstick, here seems to be the Family Service Association, to which the Bureau has belonged from i t s inception. Recently, the Association made a comprehensive survey of trends i n family agencies for the years 193& to 1950 i n c l u s i v e . 1 As f a r as case-loads are concerned, i t i s only since 1946, that the Family Wel-fare Bureau has approached the caseload of the median F.S.A.A. 2 agency. Although i t i s not the purpose of this study to ex-amine the q u a l i t a t i v e aspects of the family casework,^it i s worth noting, i n comparing Table 7 with Table 6'. and Table 2, that i n 1934, 7 caseworkers were handling 1475 Direct Service cases, with an average of 67.8! active eases per month; whereas i n 1952, there were 15^ workers handling 1404 cases, with an average active caseload of 23 per month. This i s indicative of the changing pro-portions of the types of problems that c l i e n t s bring to the Bur-eau. The Bureau has always been a c t i v e l y working with problems of personal adjustment, but i n the years around 1934, i t i s un-derstandable that a large number of c l i e n t s were c h i e f l y con-cerned with environmental problems. In contrast, i n the years since the war, "'psychological" problems—those of personal and 1. Shyne, Ann W», Operation S t a t i s t i c s of Family Service Agencies  1950, Family Service Association of America, New York, 1950. 2. Based on Family Welfare Bureau s t a t i s t i c s . 3 . f o r t h i s see Calnan, Wilfred M., The Effectiveness of Family  Casework, University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1948. 58 family adjustment—have been forming an increasingly large part of the work-load. These are a more time-consuming type of prob-lem. There has likewise been an increase i n the number of o f f i c e v i s i t s , as compared with the number of home v i s i t s . Here again, the Bureau d i f f e r e d considerably from other family agencies. For the years 1936 to 1950, the median F.S.A.A. agency did 69$ of i t s interviews i n the o f f i c e and 31% i n the homes. 1 For the same period, the Family Welfare Bureau did 53$ i n the o f f i c e and 47% i n the homes. 1 In the past two years t h i s has changed, and the Bureau i s now doing more o f f i c e interviews and less home v i s i t i n g . This also t i e s up with the fact that more intensive work i s being done, wherein i t i s considered better s o c i a l work p r a c t i c e . f o r the c l i e n t to come to the o f f i c e . The larger amount of home v i s i t i n g done previously would seem to be a r e f l e c t i o n of condi-tions during both the depression and the war, but es p e c i a l l y the l a t t e r , when there was the tremendous load of work f o r the federal government which required home investigation. An event which occurred i n January of 1947 i s of more than passing i n t e r e s t . I t had been at her f i r s t meeting with the Executive Board that the present Director had proposed and got membership i n the then Family Welfare Association of America. Throughout the years, the Bureau had received a professional nur-ture from t h i s body that was sustaining to i t i n almost every facet of i t s work. The Association i s a standard setting body 1. Based on studies made at the Family Welfare Bureau. 59 which i s constantly guiding the d i r e c t i o n and scope of the work of i t s member agencies. As a medium of exchange,it enables i t s member-ship to keep abreast of current developments i n the family welfare 1 f i e l d . However, the Canadian Welfare Council was assuming more r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i n t h i s f i e l d , and i t was decided, therefore, that commencing January, 1947, there would no longer be any d i r e c t mem-bership i n the Family Service Association of America, as i t i s now c a l l e d . The Canadian Welfare Council was to pay the F.S.A.A. f o r services and consultations on behalf of Canadian family agencies. The Family Welfare Bureau of Vancouver was anxious, however, not to lose i t s association with the F.S.A.A. P a c i f i c Northwest Region, and necessary arrangements were made f o r the regional F.S.A.A. rep-resentative to v i s i t the Bureau p e r i o d i c a l l y . The Past and the Future In the past twenty-five years the Bureau has given case-work services to over 33,000 fa m i l i e s . When the agency was f i r s t opened, most of these c l i e n t s were referred to i t by other s o c i a l agencies i n the community, but of recent years almost f i f t y per cent of the c l i e n t s have been coming of t h e i r own i n i t i a t i v e , or have been referred by friends or r e l a t i v e s . In short, the agency seems to have taken root i n the community. While i t i s not the purpose of t h i s study to make a c r i t i c a l evaluation of the Family Welfare Bureau, nor to compare i t with si m i l a r agencies elsewhere, but 1. The F.S.A.A. supplies i t s member agencies, which are autonomous, with a voluminous l i t e r a t u r e on every aspect of family welfare work. Wherever relevant to t h i s study, t h i s l i t e r a t u r e has been consulted. 60 rather to trace i t s development, nevertheless c e r t a i n questions do present themselves as we survey the agency today and consider i t s future. F i r s t l y , how can the Bureau a t t r a c t more male workers? I t has always had some male students, and male workers have been employed p e r i o d i c a l l y since 1940. However, at the time of t h i s study, there i s only one male s o c i a l worker out of a t o t a l s t a f f of f i f t e e n (including the D i r e c t o r ) . As more and more husbands and fathers are being interviewed, thus increasing the number of male c l i e n t s , the value of having male workers on s t a f f i s recog-nized. But not a l l male workers want to work i n a treatment set-t i n g ; many prefer a f i e l d where there are more opportunities f o r administration, and, equally important, where there are more at-t r a c t i v e salary schedules. I t w i l l be r e c a l l e d that, from i t s inception, the Bur-eau has i n s i s t e d on professional t r a i n i n g for i t s s t a f f , and with the exception of the war years, when case-aides were u t i l i z e d , every one of the caseworkers has had at least one year of profes-sional t r a i n i n g . Furthermore, out of the present s t a f f of four-teen workers, seven have completed t h e i r second year of t r a i n i n g , and many of those with only one year's t r a i n i n g have taken further courses. In addition, every e f f o r t has been made to have s t a f f members attend professional conferences. I t i s worth noting, too, that the Bureau gives f i n a n c i a l recognition to the value of t h i s second year i n the form of a higher salary scale. I t was during 61 the depression years that the f i r s t worker with an M.S.W. (Master of S o c i a l Work) joined the s t a f f , remaining f o r several years. The Bureau does not appear to have suffered from the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of transiency that seems to be such a feature of the s o c i a l work pro-fession. As of March 31, 1952, the average length of service of the fourteen workers was 5.1 years. This includes three workers who have had one year or l e s s , and does not include the Director. This has made f o r continuity and s t a b i l i t y . The best example, of course, i s the Director, who i s now i n her twenty-fifth year of service. This s t a b i l i t y has been combined with a willingness to change p o l i c i e s to meet changing needs and to u t i l i z e new knowledge of s o c i a l work pr a c t i c e . The problem of retaining good workers brings up the larger question of financing. The Family Welfare Bureau now has an annual budget of around #100,000, and the greatest proportion of t h i s i s devoted to s a l a r i e s . Although f i n a n c i a l remuneration i s not the only factor i n a t t r a c t i n g and reta i n i n g s t a f f , i t i s s t i l l evident that the Bureau has a problem i n not being able to match the s a l -ary schedules offered by some of the public agencies. A member of the Executive Board has always acted as busi-ness adviser f o r the Bureau, but considering the size of the budget, i t s probable continued growth, and the fact that the time the Board member can devote to t h i s work i s necessarily l i m i t e d , the question arises whether i t might be advantageous to h i r e a paid business ad-v i s e r , even on a part-time basis. 62 The Family Welfare Bureau i s dependent f o r i t s financing almost e n t i r e l y on the Community Chest. I t has, however, access to a number of trust funds which can be made use of i n special cases. In 1947 i t was asked by the Women's A u x i l i a r y (Vancouver) to the Seaforth Highlander^! of Canada to administer t h e i r welfare fund accumulated during the war. A t r u s t fund of $10,000, i t was to be used to a s s i s t families of members of the regiment, and l a t e r a s i m i l a r fund was established f o r educational purposes. Two years l a t e r , the Bureau agreed to make any necessary investigations i n Vancouver f o r the B r i t i s h Columbia Youth Foundation. This i s an-other fund that has been established i n the province f o r the pur-pose of a s s i s t i n g students i n continuing t h e i r education. In ad-d i t i o n to t h i s , the Bureau has access to a number of other benev-olent funds which are available to help returned servicemen. Generally speaking, though, the Bureau i s dependent on the success of the annual appeal of the Community Chest. The ob-ject i v e s of these appeals have become larger each year, 1 and the Bureau receives one of the larger shares of the funds c o l l e c t e d . At the same time, there i s the trend toward more taxrsupported welfare services. I t i s important for the Bureau to keep the public informed as to what i t i s doing, and why such an intangible service requires i t s continued support. A continuing problem f o r the agency, therefore, i s the need f o r good public r e l a t i o n s . At 1. The objective of the 1951 campaign of the Community Chest was just over one m i l l i o n d o l l a r s . 63 F.S.A.A. conferences i n 1950 and 1948 the Bureau was awarded f i r s t and second prizes respectively f o r public r e l a t i o n s a c t i v i t i e s . Understandably, the agency must keep i n mind the number of c l i e n t s i t can serve most e f f e c t i v e l y and i n t e l l i g e n t l y , and therefore i t s public r e l a t i o n s w i l l be aimed primarily at winning public under-standing and support rather than at building a large c l i e n t e l e . In the past, the private agency has tended to depend to a large extent on i t s Board and membership to interpret i t s work. Is i t time f o r d e f i n i t e research on t h i s whole question of public re-l a t i o n s , and the most e f f e c t i v e methods of developing goodwill? Evidence of the Bureau's willingness to welcome re-search i s not hard to f i n d . In the l a s t three years, f o r example, three theses have been completed using the work of the agency as the focus of study, ^ and the School of S o c i a l Work has s p e c i f i c -a l l y sent students there on research placements. With the guid-ance of the F.S.A.A., c e r t a i n aspects of the Bureau's work have been evaluated by the s t a f f ; but these people are p r i m a r i l y case-workers. Is i t possible f o r them to give s u f f i c i e n t attention to such problems of research as, f o r example, the value at t h i s time of a casework ra t i n g scale, or the p o s s i b i l i t y of improving 1. Burch, Gwendolyn, Supervised Homemaker Service i n a Vancouver  Family Agency. U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1951. Carscadden, L i l l i a n , An Evaluation of the Client-Worker Re- l a t i o n s h i p . University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1951. G i l c h r i s t , Margaret, Homemaker Servioe f o r Tuberculous Mothers. An a n a l y t i c a l study of Family. Welfare Bureau cases. U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1952. 64 the s t a t i s t i c a l record? While the Bureau i s aware of such trends as having more c l i e n t s from higher income groups, or more male c l i e n t s , these two points do not show up s t a t i s t i c a l l y . Would i t he worthwhile, also, to study the need f o r an organized follow-up of eases, i n order to determine more accurately the effectiveness of the work done? Fee- charging, of which mention has already been made, i s another matter that w i l l require further continued study. During 1948, data was co l l e c t e d i n an e f f o r t to come to a decision on t h i s question, but i t was some time before the Board could be convinced that the agency should charge any fees. I t was not u n t i l October, 1951, that i t was decided to e s t a b l i s h fee charging as a p o l i c y , on an experimental basis. Today, there i s a schedule of fees established, and c l i e n t s are informed that they may pay or not, as they choose; but the amount of money coll e c t e d has been small, and cannot be regarded as a r e l i a b l e source of income as yet. At the same time, some other family agencies, notably i n the United States, anticipate that the fee-for-service might, i n the near future, be based on the actual cost of the service and not as a nominal charge. Is the s t a f f of the Bureau, and the community, ready f o r t h i s ? In the preventative f i e l d , there i s the whole matter of family l i f e education. On d i f f e r e n t occasions members of the s t a f f have taken part i n pre-marriage and marriage counselling courses, but the amount of work to be done i n t h i s area i s very large. Could these a c t i v i t i e s be increased? Would i t be possible, f o r example, 65 to organize regular pre-marriage counselling courses, perhaps charging a fee? Could the Bureau foster child-study groups f o r parents? Many might he glad of an opportunity to "benefit from the experience and t r a i n i n g of the agency s t a f f . Such questions as these suggest the use of a research consultant. A well-qual-i f i e d person could give objective leadership and guidance i n studying these and s i m i l a r problems. In the near future, i t may be necessary f o r the Bureau to plan f o r being open i n the evening. Their North Vancouver of-f i c e has been staying open one night per week f o r the past year. Is i t time now for the Vancouver o f f i c e to es t a b l i s h t h i s prac-t i c e , f o r the benefit of those who could not v i s i t the agency at any other time? There i s also the problem, of which the Bureau i s acutely aware, of inadequate-office accommodation. The agency has never had s u f f i c i e n t space, and yet interviewing f a c i l i t i e s as well as o f f i c e e f f i c i e n c y would seem to demand that some ehagges jbe made. Another important question i s that of the future r e l a t -ionship of the Family Welfare Bureau with the Children's Aid Soc-i e t y . Here we have two large agencies i n the same building and doing related work, but with separate o f f i c e s , s t a f f s , budgets and records. Apart from the saving that might be r e a l i z e d i n labour and money, would not the fac t that the work of the two agencies i s fundamentally complementary suggest the p o s s i b i l i t y of amalgam-ation? There i s an example of t h i s close at hand, i n V i c t o r i a , B.C. 66 That there i s much to be done i s something that the agency i s well aware of. Since 1946, i t has been u t i l i z i n g the p r o v i n c i a l psychiatric c l i n i c s for consultation, but the Bureau sees the need f o r greater p s y c h i a t r i c services, f o r adults as well as f o r children. They w i l l also continue to make use of the easework consultant, whom they have had since 1948. The Bureau w i l l s t i l l be serving as a t r a i n i n g ground f o r students. I t w i l l s t i l l be necessary to press f o r action on housing, better s o c i a l l e g i s l a t i o n to cover the aged, the c h r o n i c a l l y i l l , and the unemployed employable. As a family agency, a l l of these problems are part of t h e i r d a i l y work, s i m i l a r i n some ways to that of the public agencies, but yet so d i f f e r e n t i n emphasis. The public agencies, f o r the most part, s t i l l concentrate on meeting material needs; the Family Welfare Bureau offers help to those whose need i s i n the intangible realm of interpersonal re-lat i o n s h i p s . Because i t s work is_ p r i n c i p a l l y with the family, the Bureau i s i n a unique p o s i t i o n to be aware of the s o c i a l and ec-onomic pressures a f f e c t i n g t h i s i n s t i t u t i o n . The agency also knows, that, because of the changing nature of these pressures, that they must always be prepared to adapt themselves to new know-ledge and to recognize new needs. Which way w i l l the Bureau turn next? I t i s d i f f i c u l t . to predict; the answer may l i e i n a statement made by the Dir-67 ector i n her f i r s t annual report i n 1928: "One cannot predict just what the course of the...Bureau w i l l be, f o r l i k e a l l other journeys, i t s route w i l l depend upon the inter-play of the vast network of human activity....The private fam-i l y agency has s i g n i f i c a n t contributions to make but these are a l l influenced by the functions of other s o c i a l agencies and by a l l community a c t i v -i t i e s . .. .This w i l l mean that the family welfare movement w i l l never leave the stage of 'arriving* because of the changing nature of society i t s e l f . " 6g SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY The Work of Family Agencies Hamilton, Gordon, Theory and Practice of S o c i a l Casework. New-York, University Press, 1944. Richmond, Hary S., What i s Social Case Work? New York, Russell Sage Foundation, 1917. Watson, Frank Dekker, The Charity Organization Movement i n the  United States. New York, 19 22. Records and Reports Report of the B r i t i s h Columbia Child Welfare Survey, Vancouver, Minutes of the Meetings of the Executive Committee of the Family Welfare Bureau of Greater Vancouver, 1927 to 19.52. Annual Reports of the Executive Director of the Family Welfare Bureau of Greater Vancouver, 1928 to 1952. A r t i c l e s and Pamphlets Much of the relevant l i t e r a t u r e for this study was published by the Family Service Association of America, 122 East 22nd Street, New York, N.Y. Of p a r t i c u l a r interest are the f o l -lowing publications: McLean, Francis H. and Ormsby,; Ralph, Organizing a Family Agency, New York, Family Service Association of America. Report of the Committee on Current and Future Planning, New York, Family Service Association of America, 194b. Highlights, lew York, Family Service Association of America, February, 1942, A p r i l , 1949,. and A p r i l , 1952. 

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.831.1-0106757/manifest

Comment

Related Items