I i+f : | DUPL A 745,654 1- BT tại th The t Tran ས་ -}/ **** **** }; /**• .V. *?* PERANDO *** LƏRİN TAMAN MA **** Vykakan. big d BANAN Jaji Ki GARDEN D *** H liep • 72471s back bbqdet? ghehi & WE - JE2% Chajt: £« pt #2 ****** POSTER. •••• P<£ £ £ ®q+M] ***ANA # * EN LASKA CHCHA DANAO, volkg*$* 34 ****; *j*** ** 29 *. Sal TARS 196 ** 11:04 $444 LUBANG Ha $ **FTAIL = A: ***A cað tala po pë? [KM+ $ satuakva LĄ tört End J. Pats s *** sign ****** 470 ng và 4 −5· ** 7-9 #40 SENTE 167_39) [\#= {{{*@k®? •{• ****[ **240 DE +1, bgl-*• £<* E * ****** tp đặt đ ?? B83 95 HV Soc. Work TRATION ADMINIS WELFARE WHEN *** 44-4 PUBLIC $**L *** 125# #4 * 4-4 14. • *** * * * BRECKINRIDGE ** *~*** Udf jeb§ > x=1} +4 * sənliyi 154 懦 ​1 1 victo Th·51273+ ***? v?) nélk· gekesze # } } ها #28429 SAM**+4+39 40 NORMAÙenz ****** ***** ← **** 4. RAMIRANDA 番​? me vist * $ 1• • ***** ***** * + 1236 #}={ བ་!"".- YAYLAR VAID. 1214 2 and babya 14 50% SORONAT QATA **** ** 字 ​#1 MALAKI JT PË Music Nʼz Galakon, 5 • € 1980 »***** AŠ MITENTI • **** २ Catal ******** VAHEPOs pajst sai ALMANNA Viabre : "h KANAK-KA12-04 15 A Ing-seau geta V-tier de ont *** ***P ******** 1* ******getā. **•ff «3] i kad 2 ingat 45 *** S** * jarret • makan € 1199 friend in E- -#-}·· *.194 ***** ** *3 17 dosi 3 4. 시 ​7+ יו * * י + PROPERTY OD The University of Michigan Libraries ༨༡ 1817 ARTES SCIENTIA VERITAT PUBLIC WELFARE ADMINISTRATION IN THE UNITED STATES SELECT DOCUMENTS By SOPHONISBA P. BRECKINRIDGE Professor of Social Economy in the University of Chicago Vita exco Latur THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS CHICAGO, ILLINOIS Social Work Library HV 95 .883 + COPYRIGHT 1927 BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO All Rights Reserved Published May 1927 Composed and Printed By The University of Chicago Press Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A. Sociday Wall C 31-27 16099 THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO SOCIAL SERVICE SERIES PREFATORY NOTE The present volume is one of a series of source books in the social service field. The series has been planned primarily to provide ade- quate scientific material heretofore not available for the use of stu- dents in the Graduate School of Social Service Administration of the University of Chicago and other institutions of the same kind. In a report on the work of such schools (James H. Tufts, Education and Training for Social Work, 1923), attention was called to the "general complaint of the lack of sufficient source material in form which is most desirable for critical teaching and which can be placed in the hands of all students." The report went farther and expressed confi- dence that ultimately the schools themselves would meet this need, and added: "Publication of such material is an illustration of what has been previously referred to as one of the two great functions of the professional school, namely, raising the standard of the profession through research and publication." This volume, with those that have preceded it and the others that are nearing completion and are to follow it, represents an attempt on the part of the members of the Faculty of one of these schools to help to meet this need. It is believed, however, that the different volumes. in the series will be useful, not only to those interested in social service, but to those whose interests lie in other departments of the wide field of the social sciences. vii PREFACE The documents in this volume have been collected in an attempt to set out and to illustrate the problems presenting themselves in con- nection with the undertaking on the part of the community to secure through public organization certain services now generally character- ized as welfare or social services. The custody, care, and treatment of individuals and groups of individuals who labor under some special disadvantage, in whose behalf recognized principles of relief have been developed, and for whose benefit continuous and comprehensive pro- vision should be made, are to a greater or less degree embodied in the governmental organization of all civilized states. It is generally recog- nized that these services present peculiar difficulties, largely because they are put forth in behalf of individuals unfit to assert themselves and to secure a quality of service equal to that maintained in the great mass of governmental activities. One reason for this difference between these social and other public services is that in addition to the principles of efficient economical ad- ministration that should characterize all public organization, in the case of each of these groups there is a body of professional practice to be acquired and applied. At the same time that this is true, it must also be recognized that the nature of the service-institutional care; relief in the home; care and treatment of children, of the aged, and of the mentally deficient-offers a great number and variety of opportunities for dishonest and corrupt practices. These questions are then difficult as well as important under all systems of government; in the United States there is the additional difficulty resulting from the assignment to the states rather than to the federal government of responsibility for these services. Brief reference should be made to the subject of terminology. The term "public welfare" is a relatively modern term in the vocabulary of the student or worker in this field. It was first used to describe a department of state government, when, in 1917, the Illinois Civil Ad- ministrative Code was adopted. Since that time thirteen states have more or less departmentalized their state governments, and most of them have applied the name "public welfare" to the department deal- ix X PREFACE ing with some or all of the aspects of service included in the department bearing that name in the Illinois scheme. In the period before 1917 the term "charities and correction" was commonly in use, and the services generally designated by those words were the relief of the destitute; the care and treatment of the mentally defective and insane; the education and care of the physically handi- capped, that is, the blind, deaf, and crippled; the treatment of the sick poor; the care of dependent and delinquent children; and certain di- visions of law enforcement, especially the penal and correctional sys- tem. In collecting the documents, an attempt has been made to set out the general course of development so far as it can be observed; the principles of treatment that should be applied; and the difficulties and special problems that retard progress. It will be noted that the docu- ments are almost exclusively (1) reports of legislative committees or of special commissions of investigation, pointing out the kind and volume of the need for which provision is to be made; (2) statutes by which the establishment of a public-welfare agency is authorized; (3) reports of the authorities set up under such statutes; and (4) discussions in na- tional conferences or similar gatherings evaluating these agencies and proposing their development or alteration. With reference to the scope of the volume, it should be explained that limited space is given to problems of public provision for child care, because the public organization for child welfare constitutes now so important an aspect of governmental activity as to require a volume devoted entirely to that subject. Such a volume is in preparation, and it is hoped will follow shortly after this one. In the meantime, the documents given here, it is believed, will enable the interested student to attack that problem for himself. Through the publications of the United States Children's Bureau and of certain state departments, that field is made more easily accessible than any of the other divisions of the subject. It is because of the relative accessibility of the material bearing on the problems of public child care and because they must be regarded as special aspects of the larger public-welfare organization that it has seemed best to put out this other more general collection of material first. A brief word may also be said with reference to the method of presentation. The documents are given in illustration of a principle of rather elementary character and can generally speak for themselves. However, in order sometimes to supply a summary view of the situa- PREFACE xi tion so that the student may judge of the extent to which the situation set out in the document is widely representative, on the one hand, or peculiar and exceptional, on the other, certain facts, summaries of legislation, or other supplementary material are supplied in the notes. The question may also be asked, Why compile a volume of docu- ments instead of preparing a treatise on the subject of public welfare in the United States? A study of the intricacies and difficulties il- lustrated by the following documents, and these can serve only as an introduction to the field, will convince the reader that there is an enormous volume of work to be done before a really comprehensive treatise can be prepared. The development in the various states is alike in many respects, because the modern community everywhere finds itself confronted with these problems of distress; all situations are alike in some respects; no two are alike, however, in all respects; and these diversities constitute the interest and the difficulty of the narrative. A further reason for publishing these documents is the hope that they may arouse interest and lead to wider study of this phase of governmental organization and to the increased use of governmental agencies and authorities to provide for the relief of distress and to develop such pre- ventive action as will reduce distress to a minimum. Something should be said with reference to the methods of class- room instruction applicable to such documents as these. It is obvi- ously not possible to use this volume without other "supporting" literature. A certain familiarity with our governmental organization must be assumed, and in addition to that, some historical material should also be supplied; it is believed that the references in the foot- notes give adequate suggestion on this point. Access to the Census and to the reports of state charitable authorities is of course highly desirable; and as many of these public documents can be secured on request, often without charge, it is possible to provide such supple- mentary facts as give to the documents a comprehensive character. It is also hoped that through the cross-references and the Index the doc- uments may be related to one another and their use facilitated. What will be extracted from the documents will, however, naturally relate itself closely to what of political theory, economic interpretation, and social sympathy and understanding is put into their study. These materials have been used now for the past five years in mimeographed form with small classes of graduate students in the Graduate School of Social Service Administration of the University of Chicago, and have seemed to serve reasonably well as a useful intro- xii PREFACE duction to one important group of problems confronting the profes- sional social worker in the United States at the present time. The or- ganization of the state's attorney's office, the general machinery of bringing the accused person to trial, the probation services, are treated as part of the judicial organization and will be dealt with in another volume on Social Work and the Courts. In conclusion, I wish to express my renewed indebtedness to Miss Maud E. Lavery, research assistant in the Graduate School of Social Service Administration, for invaluable help in assembling these docu- ments and preparing them for publication, for proofreading, and for preparation of the Index. I am also under obligation for clerical assist- ance to the Local Community Research Committee of the University of Chicago. Finally, it is a pleasure again to acknowledge the generous gift of Mr. Julius Rosenwald toward the publication of the "Social Service Series," without which the publication of the present volume would not have been possible. SOPHONISBA P. BRECKINRIDGE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO March 15, 1927 INTRODUCTION TABLE OF CONTENTS PART ONE: PRIOR TO 1863 INTRODUCTORY NOTE SECTION I. The LOCAL CHARACTER OF EARLY WELFARE ORGANIZA- TIONS AND OF LAW-ENFORCING AGENCIES INTRODUCTORY NOTE 1. The Poor Law before and after 1601. Royal Commission on the Poor Laws, 1909 2. Josiah Quincy Report of 1821 on the Pauper Laws of Massa- chusetts. Massachusetts General Court 3. The Relief and Settlement of the Poor. New York Legislature, 1824. 4. The Legacy of the Poor Law, 1870. Theodore W. Dwight 5. The Creation of a City Department. Laws of New York, 1849 6. A Charge to a Grand Jury, 1822. Josiah Quincy 7. The Regulation of Houses of Correction and Jails. Laws of Massachusetts, 1834 • 8. The Department of Public Charities and Correction of New York City. Laws of New York, 1860 SECTION II. THE ESTABLISHMENT OF STATE INSTITUTIONS INTRODUCTORY NOTE 1. The "Province Poor." Acts of the Province of Massachusetts Bay, 1767 2. A Colonial Institution for the Insane. Laws of Virginia, 1769 3. The Philadelphia Jail as a Convict Prison. Laws of Pennsyl- vania, 1790. 4. The Reform of the Criminal Law in Kentucky. Statute Law of Kentucky, 1798 . 5. The Kentucky Institution for the Deaf and Dumb. Acts of Kentucky A. "An Act to Endow an Asylum for the Tuition of the Deaf and Dumb," 1822 . B. "An Act to Increase the Allowance to Indigent Pupils," 1824. • I 13 16 18 30 39 54 55 57 60 62 68 71 73 76 90 98 100 xiii xiv TABLE OF CONTENTS 6. The Kentucky Lunatic Asylum. Acts of Kentucky A. "An Act to Establish a Lunatic Asylum," 1822 B. Supplementary Act, 1822 . C. "An Act to Carry into Operation the Lunatic Asylum, 1824. 7. The Deaf and Dumb Children of Massachusetts. Governor's Message, 1829 8. The Massachusetts State Prison. Governor's Message, 1831 9. Early Prison Reform in Massachusetts. Governor's Message, 1832. 10. The Massachusetts Hospital for the Insane. Laws of Massa- chusetts, 1834 • "" • II. The First Public Institution for Delinquent Boys, Massa- chusetts. Acts and Resolves of Massachusetts A. Resolves for the Erection of a State Manual Labor School, 1846 B. Resolves for Erecting the State Reform School Buildings, 1847. C. "An Act to Establish the State Reform School," 1847 12. Supervision of State Prisons in New York, 1847. Laws of New York .. 13. A General View of Massachusetts Public Charities, 1850. Massachusetts Senate Documents, 1850 · • 14. Alien Passengers in Massachusetts. Acts of Massachusetts, 1851. 15. The State Poor in Massachusetts and Their Care. Acts of Massachusetts, 1852 16. An Inquiry as to Possible Public Economies. Massachusetts Senate Documents, 1858 17. The Lack of a Supervisory Authority. Massachusetts Senate Documents, 1859 18. A General View of the Charitable Organization in New York, 1857. Select Senate Committee, New York State SECTION III. EARLY FEDERAL AID AND DOROTHEA DIX'S EFFORT INTRODUCTORY NOTE 1. Federal Aid for the Connecticut Asylum for the Deaf and Dumb. Annals of Congress A. February 22, 1819. B. March 1, 1819 . 2. The New York Deaf and Dumb Asylum, January 7, 1820. Annals of Congress 3. The Kentucky Deaf and Dumb Asylum A. May 4, 1824. Annals of Congress • IOI 102 103 104 105 107 IIO 113 113 114 119 123 129 131 134 142 149 170 172 173 174 184 TABLE OF CONTENTS XV B. March 10, 1826. Congressional Debates C. March 11, 1826. Congressional Debates D. March 28, 1826. Congressional Debates 4. Memorial of Dorothea L. Dix. U.S. Senate Miscellaneous Documents, 1848 5. President Pierce's Veto of Miss Dix's Bill. Congressional Globe 6. The Senate Debate on the Veto. Congressional Globe . PART TWO: THE PERIOD 1863-1917 INTRODUCTORY NOTE SECTION I. THE CREATION OF STATE BOARDS OF STATE CHARITIES INTRODUCTORY NOTE 1. The Massachusetts Board of State Charities. Acts of Massa- chusetts, 1863 2. Health, Lunacy, and Charity. Acts of Massachusetts, 1879 3. A Prison Commission. Acts of Massachusetts, 1879 4. Health Separated from Lunacy and Charity. Acts of Massa- chusetts, 1886 • · • ཟ • 5. The Ohio Board. General and Local Laws of Ohio, 1867 6. The New York Board of Commissioners of Public Charities. Laws of New York A. A Supervisory State Authority, 1867 B. Power Given the Board to Appoint County Boards of Visitors, 1873 · 7. Illinois Board of Commissioners of Public Charities. Public Laws of Illinois, 1869 . 8. The North Carolina Board. Public Laws of North Carolina, 1869. 9. The Pennsylvania Board. Laws of Pennsylvania A. 1869. B. 1883. 10. The Rhode Island Board. Acts of Rhode Island, 1869 11. The Wisconsin Board. General Laws of Wisconsin, 1871 12. The Michigan Board. General Acts of Michigan, 1871 13. The Kansas Board. Laws of Kansas, 1873 · 14. The Connecticut Board. Public Acts of Connecticut, 1873 SECTION II. THE SITUATION AS THE NEW BOARDS FOUND IT INTRODUCTORY NOTE 1. Classification of Massachusetts Charities. Massachusetts Board of State Charities, January, 1865 2. Organization and Cost of the Board. Massachusetts Board of State Charities, 1878 • → 187 192 193 195 221 231 237 245 247 249 252 258 259 261 264 264 268 • 270 273 275 279 285 288 290 292 299 300 xvi TABLE OF CONTENTS 3. The Volume of Work. Massachusetts Board of State Charities, 1866. 4. Principles of Treatment. Massachusetts Board of State Chari- ties, 1866 5. New York Classification of Charities. New York State Board of Public Charities, 1868 . 6. Efficiency in Public Charity. New York State Board of Public Charities, 1868 . 7. Declaration of Principles, National Prison Congress, 1870 8. The Needless Cost of Public Buildings. Theodore W. Dwight, Journal of Social Science, 1870 9. Review by the Rhode Island Governor. Report on the State Beneficiaries, 1871. 10. Pauper and Destitute Children. New York State Board of Charities, 1874 · 11. Power of the Pennsylvania State Board to Obtain Reports. Pennsylvania Board of Public Charities, 1870. 12. The Attitude of the Trustees of Institutions to the State • 1901. 18. The Reformatory Prison for Women. Prison Commissioners of Massachusetts, 1901 19. The Cost of Care of the Insane. State Charities Aid Association of New York to the State Commission in Lunacy, 1902 20. Co-operation between the Public Authority and the Private Organization A. The Work of the State Charities Aid Association. Con- ference of Charities, 1875 B. Public Powers Given to the State Charities Aid Associa- • 302 tion. Laws of New York, 1881 21. Suggestions for Visitors to State Hospitals for the Insane. State Charities Aid Association of New York to the State Com- mission in Lunacy, 1906 . 22. The Constitutional Rights of Visitation. The People v. F. Park Lewis, 1922, N.Y. App. Division Reports 305 309 310 313 319 320 Boards. Conference of Charities, 1878 328 13. Benefits of Centralization. Board of Control of Wisconsin, 1894 335 14. The Kansas Authority. Board of Trustees of the State Chari- table Institutions of Kansas, 1896. 15. The Organization of Kansas Authority. Board of Trustees of the State Charitable Institutions of Kansas, 1898 336 16. Orders Issued by the Wisconsin State Board of Control. Board of Control of Wisconsin, 1900 . 338 17. The State Prison. Prison Commissioners of Massachusetts, 324 327 339 347 349 350 354 358 359 362 TABLE OF CONTENTS xvii SECTION III. THE MOVEMENT FROM "SUPERVISION" TO "CONTROL" INTRODUCTORY NOTE 365 1. The Proper Functions of Boards of State Charities. George I. Chace, National Conference of Charities, 1882 2. State Boards Tend to Become Administrative. F. B. San- born, National Conference of Charities, 1887 3. State Control and Supervision. F. H. Wines, National Con- ference of Charities, 1902 4. State Supervision and Administration of Charities and Cor- rection. George F. Canfield, National Conference of Charities, 1903. 5. Reasons Which Favor a State Board of Control. A. W. Clark, National Conference of Charities, 1904 6. Centralization and the Use of the Expert. Mary Vida Clark, • • New York State Conference of Charities, 1907 7. The Illinois Board Suggests Its Own Abolition. Illinois Board of Public Charities A. 1900. tion Commission C. The Work of a State Board. New York State Board of Charities, 1919 . SECTION IV. SPECIAL PROBLEMS: PARTISAN INTERFERENCE WITH THE CIVIL SERVICE • INTRODUCTORY NOTE 1. Governor Butler's Controversy with the Massachusetts Board. State Board of Health, Lunacy, and Charity of Massa- chusetts, 1884 368 373 374 378 B. 1909. 8. Summary of Report of an Investigation of the Methods of Fiscal Control, 1911. Henry C. Wright. 386 9. Centralization and the Problem of Divided Responsibility. Board of Managers of Letchworth Village, 1911 . 10. Illinois Committee on Efficiency and Economy, 1915 II. Confusion in Attempted Control. Board of Managers of Letch- worth Village, 1915. 12. The Massachusetts Board Resists the Attack of the "Effi- ciency Expert." Robert W. Kelso (Massachusetts Senate Docu- ments, 1914) 379 381 383 385 13. Proposals for Reorganization in New York A. Commissioner Strong in 1915. Report of Charles H. Strong 419 B. Proposed Reorganization in 1919. New York Reconstruc- 392 394 392 401 423 425 427 430 xviii TABLE OF CONTENTS 2. Politics in Charitable and Penal Institutions. National Confer- ence of Charities, 1898 . 3. Civil Service Reform. National Conference of Charities, 1898 4. Work of the Illinois Civil Service Commission. Illinois Board of Public Charities, 1908 5. Four Years of Civil Service in Illinois. Illinois Board of Public Charities, 1909. • SECTION V. SPECIAL PROBLEMS: CLASSIFICATION IN THE PUBLIC SERVICE 6. The Merit System in Illinois. W. B. Moulton 7. Civil Service in Illinois. Board of Administration of Illinois, 1910-12. 8. The Need of Civil Service Reform. A. C. Hanford, Illinois Efficiency and Economy Committee, 1915 9. A Comparison of Civil Service Procedure with Business Meth- I ods. Great Britain Royal Commission on the Civil Service, 1914 455 10. Boards of Managers and Civil Service Appointments. Board of Managers of Letchworth Village, 1915 11. Problems Peculiar to Institutional Service. New York Senate Committee on Civil Service, 1916 . 12. The Probationary Period, Service, Records, Transfers. New York Senate Committee on Civil Service, 1916 13. Special Conditions Affecting Rates of Pay. New York Senate Committee on Civil Service, 1916 . 14. The Merit System and Child Welfare. Grace Abbott, National Conference of Social Work, 1924 . INTRODUCTORY NOTE 1. Classification a Function of the Civil Service Commission. Governmental Research Conference, 1922. 2. The Civil Service Commission and Reclassification. New York • 439 443 446 447 450 453 455 457 459 460 461 462 465 467 City Municipal Civil Service Commission, 1915 3. The Argument for Classification. New York Senate Committee on Civil Service, 1916 . 4. Classification within the Civil Service Organization. New York Senate Committee on Civil Service, 1916 . 5. Employment Problems, with Particular Reference to General Standardization Proposals. New York Senate Committee on Civil Service, 1916 . 476 6. Manner and Methods of Recruiting and Controlling Em- ployees. New York Senate Committee on Civil Service, 1916 . 477 7. Sample Definitions Framed by Classification Authority. New York Senate Committee on Civil Service, 1916 470 472 475 TABLE OF CONTENTS xix 8. In the Absence of True Classification. New York Senate Com- mittee on Civil Service, 1917 . 9. The Importance of Central Control. New York Senate Com- mittee on Civil Service, 1917 . 10. Basic Principles of Classification. Massachusetts Council, 1918 11. Classification and the Federal Civil Service. U.S. Congression- al Joint Commission on Reclassification of Salaries, 1920 . SECTION VI. SPECIAL PROBLEMS: SOUND ECONOMY AND CENTRALIZED PURCHASING INTRODUCTORY NOTE 1. Model Management. General R. Brinkerhoff, Conference of Charities, 1879 2. Non-Political Administration. General R. Brinkerhoff, Con- ference of Charities, 1880. 3. Standards of Care and Management. New York State Commis- sion in Lunacy, 1898–99 4. True Economy v. Retrenchment. New York State Board of Charities, 1902 5. Institutional Service. Department of Correction of New York City, 1914. 6. The Nature of True Economy. Kansas Board of Administra- tion, 1920 7. The Illinois Organization for the Purchase of Supplies. Illinois Board of Administration, 1910-12 8. The State Auditor of Colorado Urges a Purchasing Depart- ment. Report of 1922-24 . 9. A State Purchasing Department Reports Progress. Utah De- partment of Finance and Purchase, 1923–24 · SECTION VII. INTERSTATE RELATIONS OF PUBLIC WELFARE OFFICIALS INTRODUCTORY NOTE · • • t 482 485 486 493 502 508 509 511 514 514 517 522 526 527 A. The Relation between the State Board of One State and the State Board of Another 1. The Prelude. New York State Board of Charities, 1880 . 2. The Charge. New York State Board of Charities, 1880. 3. Conference on the Subject of Non-Resident Alien Paupers. New York State Board of Charities, 1880 . 4. The Massachusetts Point of View. Massachusetts State Board of Health, Lunacy and Charity, 1880 546 5. The Effect of the Conference. New York State Board of Charities, 1887 548 529 532 534 534 XX TABLE OF CONTENTS B. Regional Organization of States for the Use of the Products of Prison Industry 6. A National View of the Problem of Prison Industry. Ameri- can Prison Association, 1924 7. Resolutions Adopted by Regional Conferences, 1924 8. The Interstate Marketing of Prison Goods Authorized. Laws of Pennsylvania, 1925 PART THREE: 1917 TO THE PRESENT INTRODUCTORY NOTE SECTION I. DEPARTMENTALIZATION OF STATE GOVERNMENT INCLUD- ING PUBLIC WELFARE ACTIVITIES INTRODUCTORY NOTE 1. Illinois Civil Administrative Code. Laws of Illinois, 1917 2. Public Welfare Problems. Message of Governor of Illinois, 1919 3. One-Man Control, 1922. Henry C. Wright . 4. The New Jersey Department of Institutions and Agencies. Acts of New Jersey, 1918 • • 5. The New Jersey Plan of Reorganization. New Jersey State Board of Control, 1922. • 6. The Departmentalization of the Massachusetts Government. Acts of Massachusetts, 1919 7. Massachusetts Department of Public Welfare. Laws of Massa- chusetts, 1921 8. The Massachusetts Department of Mental Diseases. Massa- chusetts Commissioner of Mental Diseases, 1920 9. Further Consolidation Recommended. Massachusetts Com- mission on State Administration and Expenditures, 1922 • • • 555 • IO. A Legislature Pretends to Departmentalize A. A Secretary Replaces a Board and a Staff. Laws of Colo- rado, 1923 B. The Governor Recommends Support. Address of Governor of Colorado to General Assembly, 1925 C. The Governor Attempts to Find a Substitute. Department of Charities and Corrections of Colorado, 1923-24 II. The Peril of the New Plan. J. E. Hagerty, National Conference of Social Work, 1922 12. The Head of a Department Reviews the Situation. Ohio De- · partment of Public Welfare, 1923 . 13. Social Service and the Care of the Insane A. Massachusetts Commissioner of Mental Diseases, 1924. B. Division for the Examination of Prisoners, ibid. • 549 550 551✓ 557 562 570 573 582 590 595 598 600 бол 604 605 605 606 610 615 616 ✓ TABLE OF CONTENTS xxi 14. Co-operation between Correction, Mental Diseases, and Local Authorities after the Methods of Social Service. Massachusetts Commissioner of Correction, 1924 15. The Prison Authorities Co-operate with the State Highway Authorities. General Laws of California, 1923 . 16. The Pennsylvania Department's View of the Field. Pennsyl- vania Secretary of Welfare, 1924 . SECTION II. LATTER-DAY PROBLEMS OF COUNTY WELFARE INTRODUCTORY NOTE 1. County Institutions in Michigan. Michigan Board of Chari- table, Penal, Pauper, and Reformatory Institutions A. Conditions Prevailing in the Almshouses, 1871-72 B. The Need of Records, 1871-72 C. Recommendations, 1873-74 . 2. County Care of Insane Paupers under State Supervision. Na- tional Conference of Charities, 1882 3. Illinois "County Farms." Illinois Board of Public Charities • · A. The Delapidated County Home, 1882 B. The Sources of Pauperism, 1884 . 4. Poor Relief in Minnesota. Minnesota State Board of Correc- tions and Charities, 1884 5. Pauperism in Wisconsin. Wisconsin State Board of Charities and Reform. 6. A Plea for the Abolition of the County Jail. F. H. Wines, Na- tional Conference of Charities, 1911. 7. Indiana Jail Rules. Indiana Bulletin of Charities, 1913 8. Classification of the Judicial and County Service. New York Senate Committee on Civil Service, 1917 . 9. Attempts at Securing Records and Reports from Local Au- thorities. Indiana Bulletin of Charities, 1918 10. Proposed Department of County Public Welfare. New York Legislature Special Joint Committee on Taxation and Retrench- ment, 1923 . 11. The Cook County Bureau of Public Welfare. Laws of Illinois, 1925. SECTION III. THE CENTRAL AUTHORITY AND THE CITY INTRODUCTORY NOTE 1. The Early History of the New York City Department. De- partment of Public Charities of the City of New York, 1903 2. The Proper Division of Functions in a City. Mrs. C. R. Lowell, National Conference of Charities, 1881 • 619 623 626 628 630 634 634 635 640 641 642 644 645 650 652 656 657 659 662 665 666 xxii TABLE OF CONTENTS 3. Department of Public Charities and Correction of the City of New York. New York State Board of Charities, 1887 A. Mrs. Lowell's Report to State Board B. The State Charities Aid Reports on the City Department 4. The State Civil Service Commission Investigates the City Commissioner's Lenient Treatment of the City Department of Welfare. New York Senate Documents, 1915. 5. The City Department and the State Board. Department of Public Charities of the City of New York, 1914 . 6. Volunteer Assistance to the Civil Service Commission. New York City Municipal Civil Service Commission A. 1914. • SECTION IV. THE STATE BOARD AND THE PRIVATE CHARITABLE INSTITUTION OR AGENCY INTRODUCTORY NOTE 1. The New York Policy of Institutional Care for Dependent Children. W. P. Letchworth, New York State Board of Chari- ties, 1893 2. Need of Co-ordination of State Supervision. California State Board of Charities, 1914-16 3. The Constitutional Right to Lay Down Rules. New York Juvenile Asylum v. John W. Keller, 1902 4. When Is a "Charity" a "Charity"? People v. New York Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, 1900 5. Grants to Sectarian Institutions under the Illinois Constitu- tion. William H. Dunn v. The Chicago Industrial School for Girls, 1917. • 6. Subsidized Institutions in Pennsylvania and the Constitution. Collins v. Kephart, 1921 7. Principles Applicable to the Granting of Subsidies by the State to Private Organizations and Agencies, Pennsylvania, 1922. Kenneth L. M. Pray 8. Institutional Resistance to Supervision. New York State Board of Charities, 1925 . • B. 1915. 7. The City Department and the Subsidized Institution. Depart- ment of Public Charities of the City of New York, 1915 8. The Development of Social Service in the Department of Pub- lic Charities. Edward T. Devine, New York City Conference of Charities, 1915 692 9. Standards of Placing Out Developed after the Controversy with the State Authority. Homer Folks, New York State Con- ference of Charities, 1915. 673 678 • 681 686 687 688 689 694 708 7II 713 713 719 725 729 735 737 TABLE OF CONTENTS xxiii SECTION V. A NATIONAL PROGRAM AND PROPOSALS FOR A FEDERAL DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE INTRODUCTORY NOTE 1. Historical Sketch of Social Science. Henry Villard, Journal of Social Science, 1869 2. The Origin of the National Conference of Social Work. Journal of Social Science, 1874 3. The Constitutionality of the Maternity and Infancy Act. Massachusetts v. Mellon, 1923, U.S. Reports 4. The Need for Uniform Juvenile Court Statistics. Annual Re- port of the Chief of the Children's Bureau, 1925. 5. The Prospect of Better Statistics of Children under İnstitu- tional Care. U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1927 6. The Federal Authority Stimulates State Activity. U.S. Chil- dren's Bureau INDEX. A. First Federal Child-Labor Law. 1921 B. Promotion of the Welfare and Hygiene of Maternity and Infancy. 1925 7. One Proposal for a Federal Department of Public Welfare. Senate Bill, U.S. Congress, 1921 . 8. President Harding's Plan for the Reorganization of the Execu- tive Departments. U.S. Senate Documents, 1923 9. A National Conference Committee Proposes a Federal Bureau. National Conference of Charities, 1901 • • • 739 743 747 749 749 750 752 757 758 763 766 773 INTRODUCTION Public welfare administration is a subject of profound interest both to students of political science and to social workers. It is interesting to the student of political organization because of the important effect of the assumption by the state of the care of the so-called "dependent, defective, and delinquent" classes on the development of central or state institutions, as distinguished from local, that is, county and city agencies and institutions. The subject is important to social workers because the development of honest, competent, skilful public agencies, adequately financed, and staffed with a personnel sufficient both in number and in professional equipment, is basic to sound social work. In all those situations in which the compulsory power of the state must be exercised for the ap- prehension, detention, care, and treatment of the individual, public welfare work has long been considered necessary, for example, in the care of the insane, the feeble-minded, the delinquent groups. In all those situations, too, in which the cost of comprehensive work is too great for private agencies to carry, such as the maintenance of free hospitals and medical service; in those in which the relatively sparse population brings it about that government is substantially the only agency available for social work, such as the relief of the destitute in rural areas—in all these instances, either there is lacking a private substitute for the public authority or the efforts put forth by the private agency are inadequate unless supplemented by public co- operation. Most modern civilized states have assumed certain humanitarian tasks. Some of these, as, for example, the care of the insane and feeble- minded, were greatly neglected at an earlier date. Some of them, for example, the care of the orphan child, were largely within the province of the church. Some, as, for example, the enforcement of the criminal law, when public punishment was substituted for private vengeance, were not so much neglected as done with a widely different purpose and often with a different method. Whatever their origin, they have come to be almost universally recognized as appropriate subjects of state action, and provision for them is assumed to be a function for state agencies. Because state provision in these cases is taken for A 1. I 2 PUBLIC WELFARE ADMINISTRATION granted, it is possible to overlook the unsettled questions still awaiting solution; and to ignore the necessity for readjusting older agencies and older methods to new standards and to new conditions of life and work. In many jurisdictions, it is indeed apparent that the older methods are inadequate and that certain changes should be brought about. To many observers it is becoming clear that, whichever the group under consideration, this work must be based on an adequate knowledge of the need of the individual to whom service is rendered, on the basis of “social diagnosis," followed by an adequate treatment of the special pathological conditions revealed in his situation. That is, the prin- ciples of social service and the technique of "case work" are command- ing wider acceptance in the public welfare field. As a result, there is developing a body of social practice corresponding to the body of medical, legal, and educational practice, which can be imparted by instruction, shared by conference, and accepted as the possession of a group calling themselves members of a "profession." This pro- fession is gradually securing recognition under the name of "sociaľ work” or “social service" or "welfare work," and these terms are being widely applied in the United States and in European countries to the public organization as well as to the private agencies. In Great Britain, for example, since 1921, the government has an- nually published a "white paper" giving the cost of the "social serv- ices" administered by the public authorities. In this document is made. available annually the total expenditure under the insurance acts (health and unemployment), the pensions acts (old age, "war," and other pensions), education acts, industrial and reformatory school acts, inebriates, certain public-health acts (i.e., so far as they relate to hospitals, treatment of disease, maternity, and child welfare), the acts dealing with unemployment, the housing of the working classes, and the relief of the poor, and the lunacy and mental-deficiency acts. In the United States the situation is much more difficult and com- plicated than in many other countries, because of the division of powers between the states and the federal government. The develop- ment in the different states is varied and uneven and without the stimulus that may be received from a national authority possessing administrative powers in this field. However, uniform standards in some fields are being slowly developed through the influence of certain ¹ Public Social Services (Total Expenditures under Certain Acts of Parliament) (205, 1926). • INTRODUCTION 3 official agencies such as the federal Children's Bureau and the United States Public Health Service, on the one hand, and certain national voluntary and unofficial agencies, on the other hand. This develop- ment merits the close attention of the student of public welfare, for out of it is coming a realization of the concern of the entire community in each of these problems which is, perhaps, the soundest basis for continuous and adequate governmental action. Theoretically, the preference of the social worker would probably be for public rather than private service, wherever there is a well- recognized need and a reasonably widely accepted method of meeting that need. For the social worker can be satisfied with nothing less than a universal provision for a continuous service. And only the state can be both universal and continuous. However, the administration of much of the public social work, especially the Poor Law and the prison system both in England and in the United States, has been so unsatis- factory that many social workers question the wisdom of laying on public authorities any responsibilities other than those which private agencies are unable to carry. These would be the custodial care of those whose liberty of action must be restrained, or the assumption of those tasks clearly too costly for private enterprise. Since 1854, when President Pierce vetoed Dorothea Dix's bill authorizing grants of public land by the United States to the several states in order that more adequate provision might be made for the care and treatment of the insane,' it has been understood that the field of welfare belonged exclusively to the states. Diversity of practice was therefore inevitable, and voluntary agencies for securing agreement and increasingly wide unanimity, while difficult to establish and main- tain, were found to be correspondingly important. However, with the increased intricacy of social life, with its result- ing intimacy of association and growing consciousness of the com- munity of interest, it is important that there be a widening apprecia- tion of the true bases for the constitutional limitations under which the government operates. There is needed also a sufficiently exact knowledge of the situation and a clear purpose when the governmental structure proves unsuited to the purposes of a modern, humane, civilized community so to alter it as to adapt it to those ends. The limitation on federal services in the field of treatment, when the sources of distress are often national or at any rate nation * See Part I, Sec. III, Documents 5 and 6. See also Part III, Sec. V, Documents 6 and 7. 4 PUBLIC WELFARE ADMINISTRATION wide in character, places the whole development at a great disadvan- tage; and it becomes the more important that the discrepancy between the effectiveness of those conditions giving rise to these various forms of need and the effectiveness of the agencies developed in response to the need should be understood both in order that preventive measures may be undertaken and curative treatment provided on an increasingly effective scale and that as rapidly as possible agencies for national service may be developed in ways left open by the Constitution. Attention should also be called to the lack of public reports under the present system of multiple authorities and to the dearth of in- formation that should be available at regular intervals in such com- parable form as to supply the basis for a well-rounded and carefully thought-out policy. It is needless to point out that a situation very much like that in which the states and the federal government find themselves also exists in the relationship between the various local jurisdictions, the town, the county, sometimes the city, and the state government. This, too, is to be explained by reference to the constitutional limitations under which the legislatures of the states act. The point here is that the structure of the state governments and the distribution of powers as between the local unit, as, for example, the county and the central or state authority, are generally laid down in detail in the state constitu- tions. The result is that the legislature may find it necessary to create new agencies when it is unable to modify or abolish old offices or to regulate their administration. In the public-welfare field, too, as in other fields it is often of the greatest importance that local initiative be stimulated, and if possible, local administration be relied on. It may, however, be quite impossible for the legislature to secure in any compulsory manner the co-operation of the local authorities either among themselves or with a state authority. 1 It will appear, then, from these documents that in the field of service in which the state institution or the state agency is the appro- priate authority, reasonable progress has been made in efficiency and in adequacy of service; whereas in those fields in which reliance is still placed on the local unit, retardation, archaic methods, and great unevenness in service still prevail. The almshouse, outdoor relief, and the county jail remain with few exceptions the despair of the social worker and of the public-welfare official. No student of these subjects can, therefore, remain long unaware of the question as to the proper balanced relationship between the INTRODUCTION 5 local and the central agency. In the United States there is a twofold struggle: one for a national minimum; another for forty-eight state minima and for a consequent reduction in the cost and the waste growing out of the multiplicity of jurisdictions responsible first for the legislation and second for the administration of these important tasks. Another question to be considered is that of the proper assignment of duties as between public and private undertakings. In that connec- tion, a word should be said as to the meaning of "public" as used in the following discussion, and as to the distinction between "welfare," or its older form "charities and correction," and the legal conception of a charity. By "public" in the following discussion is meant action or structure authorized by law and supported by taxation. The law to which appeal for authority may be made may be the common law, as, for example, in the use of the Grand Jury for purposes of visitation and reporting on institutions and agencies.¹ Frequently, provision² is made in the constitution, but most often it is to a statute that reference for authority must be made.3 The subject of public charity in the sense in which the lawyer uses that term is not presented in this volume.4 ¹ Part I, Sec. I, Document 6, "Josiah Quincy's Charge to a Grand Jury." The general doctrine of public nuisance would suffice to explain the use of the grand jury. Part I, Sec. II, Document 12, “Prison Inspection"; also Part II, Sec. II, Docu- ment 22, "People v. Lewis." 3 There are the occasional agencies established by the city, as, for example, the Chicago Department of Public Welfare. See Chicago Municipal Code of 1922, chap. 64. 4 The following definition indicates the scope of the field of public charity from the strictly legal standpoint: "A gift is a 'public' charity when there is a benefit to be conferred on the public at large, or some portion thereof, or upon an indefinite class of persons. Even if its benefits are confined to specified classes, as decrepit seamen, laborers, farmers, etc., of a particular town, it is well settled that it is a public charity. The essential ele- ments of a public charity are that it is not confined to privileged individuals, but is open to the indefinite public. It is this indefinite, unrestricted quality that gives it its public character. Without undertaking to be technically accurate, a 'purely public' charity may be defined as one which discharges, in whole or in part, a duty which the commonwealth owes to its indigent and helpless citizens. Undoubtedly, it is the duty of the state to educate its poor children, and thus fit them for discharg- ing the duties of citizenship; to care for the indigent insane, its helpless orphans, and its poor who are sick and afflicted; and therefore any institution which, serving no selfish interest, discharges, in whole or in part, any such duty, is a purely public charity. Thus, if an institution is one of the benefits of which the public generally are entitled to enjoy, it is then a purely public charity-public, because although 6 PUBLIC WELFARE ADMINISTRATION A third question of importance is that of the relative efficiency of the part-time volunteer service of a number of persons as compared with the full-time compensated service of a much smaller number. This is the question of the boards of trustees of institutions as com- pared with the single board of control or the board of administration. This problem presents itself especially in the period from 1890 to 1915. After 1917, when Illinois departmentalized its administration, the question arose as to the relative efficiency of the board form of authority and the single-headed department form of organization.² Another problem to which attention is directed is that of the as- signment of tasks as among the different divisions of the government: that is, the question of the scope and meaning of "welfare." In that connection, attention may be briefly directed to a principle of ad- ministration which called forth within the past decade a considerable amount of discussion. This is a principle laid down by a British Com- mittee on the Machinery of Government which together with a Report not owned by the public, its uses and objects are wholly public, and for the benefit of the public generally, and in no sense private as being limited to particular indi- viduals. Notwithstanding these general rules it is usually held that a charity is none the less public because it is limited in its operation to the members of a particular sect or society, so long as it is wholly altruistic in the end to be attained and no private or selfish interest is fostered under the guise thereof; though there are cases which lay it down that none is a public charity which the state is not under obliga- tion in the first instance to endow for the use of the very class to be benefited. Under this latter view the fact that a charity is limited in its operation to the members of a particular organization or association has been held to deprive it of its purely public character, for it is said that the word 'public' relates to or affects the whole people of a nation or state. A charity may restrict its admissions to a class of humanity, and still be public; it may be for the blind, the mute, those suffering under special diseases, for the aged, for infants, for women, for men, for different callings or trades by which humanity earns its bread, and as long as the classification is determined by some distinction which involuntarily affects or may affect any of the whole people, although only a small number may be directly benefited, it is public; but when the right to admission depends on the fact of voluntary association with some particular society, then a distinction is made which concerns not the public at large. The public is interested in the relief of its members, because they are men, women, and children, not because they are members of some social organization. A home, without charge, exclusively for Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Catholics, or Method- ists, would not be a purely public charity."-5 Ruling Case Law, p. 293. See Part III, Sec. IV, Document 4. ▪ Illinois Revised Statutes (Smith-Hurd, 1925), chap. 127. 2 Part III, Sec. I, is devoted largely to this question. 1 INTRODUCTION 7 of another Committee on the Transfer of Powers is looked upon as the basis for the reorganization of the British administrative machinery.¹ The first of these committees dealt with the relative effectiveness of different principles determining the allocation of functions to de- partments of government, and in particular with the question whether those functions should be determined on the basis of (a) persons or class- es served or (b) on the basis of the kind of services to be rendered. It is significant that this committee adopted squarely the principle that functions should be assigned on the basis of the service to be performed, and the argument is so persuasive and the principle so attractive that the statement is given here at some length: In addition to the two problems of the constitution and procedure of the Cabinet, and the organization of enquiry and research, there is another which it is essential to solve for the smooth working of the executive as a whole. Upon what principle are the functions of Departments to be deter- mined and allocated? There appear to be only two alternatives, which may be briefly described as distribution according to the persons or classes to be dealt with, and distribution according to the services to be performed. Under the former method each Minister who presides over a Department would be responsible to Parliament for those activities of the Government which affect the sectional interests of particular classes of persons, and there might be, for example, a Ministry for Paupers, a Ministry for Children, a Ministry for Insured Persons, or a Ministry for the Unemployed. Now the inevitable outcome of this method of organization is a tendency to Lilliputian administration. It is impossible that the specialised service which each De- partment has to render to the community can be of as high a standard when its work is at the same time limited to a particular class of persons and ex- tended to every variety of provision for them, as when the Department concentrates itself on the provision of one particular service only, by whom- soever required, and looks beyond the interests of comparatively small classes. The other method, and the one which we recommend for adoption, is that of defining the field of activity in the case of each Department accord- ing to the particular service which it renders to the community as a whole. Thus a Ministry of Education would be concerned predominantly with the provision of education wherever, and by whomever, needed. Such a Ministry would have to deal with persons in so far only as they were to be educated, and not with particular classes of persons defined on other principles. This ¹ Great Britain Ministry of Reconstruction, Report of the Machinery of Govern- ment Committee (Cd. 9230, 1918): see also Cd. 8917, Local Government Com- mittee, Transfer of Powers; see also Cd. 9211, Memorandum on Ministry of Health Bill. 1 8 PUBLIC WELFARE ADMINISTRATION method cannot, of course, be applied with absolute rigidity. The work of the Education Department, for example, may incidentally trench on the sphere of Health, as in the arrangements of school houses and care for the health of scholars. Such incidental overlapping is inevitable, and any difficulties to which it may give rise must in our opinion be met by systematic arrange- ments for the collaboration of Departments jointly interested in particular spheres of work. But notwithstanding such necessary qualifications, we think that much would be gained if the distribution of departmental duties were guided by a general principle, and we have come to the conclusion that dis- tribution according to the nature of the service to be rendered to the com- munity as a whole is the principle which is likely to lead to the minimum amount of confusion and overlapping. In this way such divisions of the busi- ness of Government as Health, Education, Finance, Research, Foreign Affairs, and Defence would each be under separate administration, the Cabinet being in a position of supreme executive direction, and Parliament holding the various Ministers directly responsible to it for the efficiency of the service with which they were respectively charged.¹ The following documents will, however, bring out the impossibility of giving wide application to any such principle as is set forth in these paragraphs, and will suggest the necessity of keeping attention focused on the need presented by the different groups of persons in distress and on the response by the individuals to the kinds of treatment under- taken, until an adequate body of experience is at hand on which to base a general policy. Public authority is administered through human agents in relation to human need, and far larger bodies of fact with reference to the response of individuals to different kinds of treatment than are yet available are required before many of the questions pre- sented by these various efforts to deal with distress can be given con- clusive answers. The unsettled state of opinion on these points is indicated by the frequent changes in the nature of the agencies set up in the field of public welfare and the variety of scope as among the different juris- dictions. The documents in Part II, Section I, and in Part III, Section I, and the lack of any definite, recognizable principle in the proposals during President Harding's administration to create a federal depart- ment of public welfare (Part III, Section V) bring out this point. Still another subject claiming attention is that of the relative in- effectiveness of the ordinary agencies of government for successful ad- ministration of public welfare activities and the consequent apparent ¹ Extract from Great Britain Ministry of Reconstruction, Report of the Machin- ery of Government Committee (Cd. 9230, 1918), pp. 7–8. INTRODUCTION necessity of supplying not only the special agencies to do the tasks but additional agencies to supervise and report upon the work done. The documents in Part II, Section III, especially emphasize this question. The situation here may be described somewhat as follows: A mem- ber of a modern civilized community desires the public revenues to be applied to the performance of certain services in behalf of persons who are often helpless and inarticulate. Those persons are unable to make known the fact that the services are not such as are desired and intend- ed by the great body of taxpayers. It is therefore argued that a special agency should be created to make sure that the proper stand- ards are maintained and that any departure from those standards is reported. The question is one on which there are still wide differences of opinion, perhaps especially between those who devote their atten- tion to questions of efficiency and social workers who emphasize the importance of further knowledge of the human factors involved in so- cial treatment. Five main questions, then, may be said to emerge from an examina- tion of the development in this field of governmental organization: (1) the relative adjustment as between local and central authority in the states and the possible expansion of national, i.e., federal influence; (2) the relative value of the services of volunteer part-time officials as com- pared with those of a much smaller number of full-time salaried offi- cials; (3) the relative efficiency of the single-headed as compared with the board form of authority; (4) the scope and range of duties intrusted to the welfare authority and the relation of welfare activities and agencies to the other divisions of the administrative organization; and (5) the question of the peculiar necessity of supervision in this field as a function independent of the provision for reasonable uniformity and comprehensiveness in the service. In the following sections, an attempt has been made to present certain important documents dealing with each of these questions. At- tention is directed especially to the two questions: first, the degree to which centralization is to be desired as against local administration, second, the extent to which principles of concentration of control are effective as against supervisory direction of decentralized administra- tion. However, it is also important to ask two additional questions: (a) the degree to which the varied aspects of institutional administration have been professionalized and can therefore be intrusted to officials. selected by civil-service methods; and (b) the degree to which methods ΙΟ PUBLIC WELFARE ADMINISTRATION of business organization are applicable to institutions and agencies caring for the wards of the states. There is also the question of the standard of care that should be given these wards of the state as com- pared with the standard of life of the great mass of the population. What, for example, can the state afford to do? What are the costs of leaving these tasks undone? The main thread of development that has been followed is, there- fore, that of the structural growth of nation-wide, though not national, provision for the relief and treatment of certain forms of distress, and especially the development of state-wide agencies. The institutions and agencies to which attention must be given are in some cases ancient institutions such as the almshouse, the outdoor-relief system, and the jail. In some cases, as in the care of the insane, of the feeble-minded, of dependent or delinquent children, organization has in some jurisdic- tions taken on a more modern and efficient aspect, and advances in knowledge are reflected in improved service to the group under care.¹ In others, belated attitudes and forms of treatment survive. It is of great interest to social workers that improved standards anywhere should be reflected in the widest and swiftest adoption of those im- proved methods everywhere, and the question of ways and means of speeding up such a process is therefore of paramount concern. ¹ Note, for example, the recent use in Massachusetts of the Department of Mental Diseases in connection with the treatment of persons accused of certain offenses (see Part III, Sec. I, Document 13, B). PART I PRIOR TO 1863 INTRODUCTORY NOTE TO PART I A view of public charitable organization in the United States sug- gests the division of the subject on a chronological basis into three periods: (1) that prior to 1863, when the first state board or central state authority was created in Massachusetts; (2) from 1863 to 1917, when the first department of public welfare was established in Illinois; and (3) from 1917 to the present time. During the first period, three main subjects suggest themselves as indicating and forecasting the later development. First, the local char- acter of the early Poor Law administration¹ and the combination in that administration of tasks that were at once relief and police measures, such as enforcing support of the destitute by their relatives and such as those having to do with the apprehension of vagabonds. The doc- trine of venue brought the administration of the criminal law dealing with felons into the hands of local authorities for purposes of detention until trial, and all dealings with the petty misdemeanant were in the hands of local authorities. Section I of this part is devoted to docu- ments illustrating these points. The second development to which attention should be directed, and to which Section II especially calls attention, is the establishment of state institutions for certain groups of persons. The sources of pover- ty, vagrancy, and mendicancy were national in England; and, in the United States, they were by no means exclusively local; the machinery for relief, aid, conviction, and punishment were, however, largely, if not exclusively, local. I * ["In each commonwealth the fabric of the public charitable institutions rests upon the quicksands of the poor-law, which few study and probably none under- stands. It was said of the English poor-law, by the commission appointed to investi- gate its workings, that there was scarcely one statute connected with the administra- tion of poor-relief which had produced the effect designed by the legislature, and that the majority of them had created new evils and aggravated those which they were intended to prevent. The same is substantially true in many of our own States, and especially in the older commonwealths, such as New York and Pennsylvania, where the legislatures have not been careful to repeal existing legislation when enact- ing new laws. The result is a tangle of statutes which cannot be rationally inter- preted because they have no rational basis. The courts construe them from time to time, because they must, and not because they know how" (Amos G Warner, American Charities: A Study in Philanthropy and Economics, p. 311).] 13 14 PUBLIC WELFARE ADMINISTRATION The waste of the law of settlement and the inadequacy of the local administrative unit for the larger undertakings such as the erection and maintenance of almshouses and jails, and other institutions of treat- ment or detention, are now obvious. The gradual discovery of those features of the early administration is one pathway toward the realiza- tion of the need of a central agency in this field of authority. In addi- tion to this, however, it became evident that certain groups must be given specialized treatment. Sometimes the proposal was for a re- grouping of local units; but, in general, the state was looked to as a more efficient substitute for local units. For example, at an early date, some of the Colonies took action, looking toward the functioning of the central authority in the care or detention of certain groups of persons now recognized as in need of special treatment. King Philip's War brought out in Massachusetts the responsibility of the province for certain "unsettled poor"; in 1769, Virginia established a state institution for the care of the insane, an example followed by Kentucky in 1822, when the Lexington Asylum was authorized. State provision for the detention of persons convicted of felony was made in Pennsylvania in 1790, in New York in 1797, and in Kentucky in 1798. Kentucky in 1822 provided for a state in- stitution for the deaf, while in other localities the problem of their instruction was being attacked by private benevolence; and Ohio in 1837 took the same action with regard to the blind. In 1847 a state institution for delinquent boys was established by Massachusetts, and in 1851 idiots were in New York added to the list of the "wards of the state." . In other words, in different sections of the country these state institutions were being established. The form of the organization was that of an unsalaried board of trustees, appointed usually by the governor and senate, who were asked to assume the responsibility for selecting the site of the institution, overseeing the erection of a build- ing for which they determined the plans, and appointing the re- sponsible executives of the institution. The members of the staff thus organized were supposed to provide decent, comfortable, suitable living accommodations, with proper diet and with suitable arrangements for the use of the time and labor power of the patients, as well as to furnish that degree of expert care or treatment recognized at the time as nec- essary or desirable. The most superficial examination of their duties reveals the fact that the services to be secured involved both such professional skill INTRODUCTORY NOTE TO PART I 15 as that of the medical, nursing, educational, disciplinary expert, and technical ability in engineering, dietetics, agriculture, and purchasing, as well as the unspecialized services characteristic of all establishments in which human beings live together. These boards of trustees reported to the governor or legislature, and the recurring appropriation or the grant of enlarged resources de- pended on the presentation of their annual statements. There was, possibly, a standing committee of each branch of the legislature, and from time to time a special committee of one house or the other was set up to investigate a particular institution. Or a special committee might be called on to survey the entire situation and to make recom- mendations. There was, too, always the Grand Jury who might report on the conditions existing in an institution in the county in which the jury was sitting, and the governor was, of course, theoretically keeping his eye on the entire administration for which he was responsible. But the lack of an efficient, specialized, continuous, unifying influence be- came apparent, the creation of such an authority was recommended, and in 1863 the first central board was set up in Massachusetts. In the third place, two lines of experience suggested at an early date an appeal for aid to the federal government. The first of these was the interstate service rendered by certain institutions, notably those for the deaf, and an appeal based on this service met with a favorable response in the case of the Connecticut and the Kentucky schools for the deaf. The second was the universality of the need and the inade- quacy of the state resources to meet that need in the care of the insane. An appeal based on this argument, magnificently framed, was ap- proved by Congress in 1854 but finally denied when President Pierce vetoed, on constitutional grounds, Dorothea Dix's statute assign- ing 10,000,000 acres of the public land to the states for the support and treatment of their insane, and 2,500,000 for the education of the deaf. Neither the earlier grants to the schools for the deaf nor Miss Dix's later statute provided for such federal supervision, inspection, and reporting as would have assured what might be called a "national standard” in treatment. They recognized, however, a national respon- sibility; and, as in the later development in the educational field, would undoubtedly have brought proposals for the creation of federal ad- ministrative agencies. SECTION I INTRODUCTORY NOTE The influence of the English Poor Law has been of constant and of great importance in the development of American public-welfare administration. In this section, the student is asked to review the methods used under the Poor Law in England, and attention is called to certain administrative principles made clear by English experience. Among the problems presented are the questions of the size of the administrative unit; the methods employed to secure income; the rela- tion between the statutory officials designated to carry out its provi- sions under the act and the magistrates; and, finally, the methods of treating destitute individuals. The result of the experience tended to create pressure toward a larger unit of administration, toward clearer distinction between execu- tive and judicial functions, toward the substitution of ideals of ade- quacy for those of "less eligibility," and toward a recognition of the relation between the disorganization and dislocation of industry and the phenomena of misery. In some of the commonwealths in the United States the English Poor Law was copied faithfully so that its very terminology was taken over; and the same results followed that had been experienced in the parent administration. The principle of local administration, resulting in England in friction between parishes and "unions," gave rise in the United States to controversies between towns or between counties. The energy absorbed by these controversies was so great as seriously to impede the development of sound principles of treatment. The result has been that in communities where outdoor relief was a method of helping the destitute, improvement and reform have been sought by substituting almshouse care; and, when a policy of indoor care is adopted, its failure leads would-be reformers to propose outdoor relief as the way out. Whether the scene be in England, in the eastern states, or the middle western or western commonwealths, whatever the loca- tion, the small unit of administration and the inadequate understand- ing of the relation between destitution and social or industrial dis- I See Documents 2 and 3. 16 LOCAL WELFARE ADMINISTRATION 17 organization give rise to the same cruelties and the same failures. The problem assumes special interest when the local jurisdiction becomes densely populated and takes on urban features. It will appear, then, that there are, questions of county, town, and city organization. In the following section these questions are very briefly set out, indicating the hopeless character of any undertaking which leaves untouched the administrative relationships referred to. After the extract from the British Royal Commission of 1909 on the administration of the Poor Law follow two reports, one from Massa- chusetts, one from New York, showing the early recognition in the United States of evils like those with which England was attempting to deal. These are followed by documents illustrating the development under urban conditions of agencies to deal with the same questions. The documents selected for this purpose are taken from those which trace the development of the Department in New York City,' where the growth of numbers of persons in distress and requiring assistance, called for the creation of elaborate administrative machinery. There are likewise documents illustrating the uses to which the Grand Jury may be put and the local character of jail and Bridewell administra- tion. It will appear from later sections³ that the establishment of state supervision has had little effect on the methods and standards of those institutions and agencies remaining under local jurisdiction, so that the almshouse, public-outdoor relief, and the jail remain almost as uni- versal a source of despair as at any earlier time.4 2 I See Documents 5 and 8. 2 See Documents 6 and 7. 3 See below, Secs. II and III in Part III. 4 See, for example, Estelle M. Stewart, The Cost of American Almshouses, “U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Bull. 386" (Washington, D.C., 1925); Emil Frankel, Poor Relief in Pennsylvania, "Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare Bull. 21" (1925); Harry C. Evans, The American Poor Farm and Its Inmates (Des Moines, 1926); Chicago Community Trust, Reports Comprising the Survey of the Cook County Jail (Chicago, 1922); Alexander Johnson, The Almshouse "Russell Sage Foundation Publications." See below, Part III, Secs. II and III. THE LOCAL CHARACTER OF EARLY WELFARE ORGANIZATIONS AND OF LAW-ENFORCING AGENCIES I. The Poor Law before and after 1601¹ 5. Origin and antiquity of the Poor Law.-In order that its true place and value may be assigned to the Poor Relief Act 1601 (43 Elizabeth, c. 2), it is necessary to take cognisance of the working of the Poor Law before and after that date. The Act of 1601 was a temporary measure. It was according to Lord Coke "a probationer." Its details were largely a reproduction of an earlier Act-39 Elizabeth, c. 3. The chief purposes of the Act of 160r were, in the words of the statute: a) For setting to work the Children of all such whose Parents shall not by the said Churchwardens and Overseers, or the greater Part of them, be thought able to keep and maintain their children; b) And also for setting to work all such persons, married or unmarried (as) having no Means to maintain them, use no ordinary or daily Trade of Life to get their Living by; c) And also to raise weekly or otherwise (by taxation of every Inhabitant, Parson, Vicar and other, and of every Occupier of Lands, Houses, Tithes Impropriate, Propriations of Tithes, Coal Mines or saleable Underwoods in the said parish, in such competent Sum and Sums of Money as they shall think fit) a convenient Stock of Flax, Hemp, Wool, Thread, Iron, and other Ware and Stuff, to set the Poor on Work; d) And also competent Sums of Money for and towards the necessary Relief of the Lame, Impotent, Old, Blind, and such other among them being Poor and not able to Work; e) And also for the putting out of such Children to be Apprentices, to be gathered out of the same Parish, according to the Ability of the same Parish; f) And to do and execute all other Things, as well for the disposing of the said Stock, as otherwise concerning the Premises, as to them shall seem convenient. 6. The Act indeed closed a series of experimental legislation which throughout the Tudor period was concerned with those whom at one time it was usual to class as the impotent poor. ¹ Extract from Great Britain, Report of the Royal Commission on the Poor Laws and Relief of Distress (reprinted from the Parliamentary Paper Cd. 4499 of Session 1909), Vol. I (being Parts I-VI of the Majority Report), Part III, pp. 80–98. 18 LOCAL WELFARE ADMINISTRATION 19 7. The Tudor Acts which thus culminated in the Statute of 1601, as well as those preceding them, had largely in view the prevention and regulation of begging. The well-known authority, Dr. Burn, in his History of Poor Law, writes: Regulation and restriction of begging.—First, the poor were restrained from begging at large, and were confined to beg within certain districts (11 Henry VII, c. 2; 19 Henry VII, c. 12; 22 Henry VIII, c. 12). Next the several hundreds, towns corporate, parishes, hamlets, or other like divisions were required to sustain them with such charitable and voluntary alms, as that none of them of necessity might be compelled to go openly in begging, and the churchwardens or other substantial inhabitants were to make col- lections for them, with boxes on Sundays, and otherwise by their discretions. And the minister was to take all opportunities to exhort and stir up the people to be liberal and bountiful (27 Henry VIII, c. 25). Next, houses were to be provided for them by the devotion of good people, and materials to set them on such work as they were able to perform. Then the minister after the Gospel every Sunday was specially to exhort the parishioners to a liberal contribution (1 Edward VI, c. 3). Next the collectors for the poor on a cer- tain Sunday in every year, immediately after Divine Service, were to take down in writing what every person was willing to give weekly for the ensuing year; and if any should be obstinate and refuse to give, the minister was gently to exhort him. If he still refused, the minister was to certify such refusal to the bishop of the diocese, and the bishop was to send for and exhort him in like manner. If he stood out against the bishop's exhortation, then the bishop was to certify the same to the justices in session and bind him over to appear there; and the justices at the said sessions were again gently to move and persuade him; and finally if he would not be persuaded, then they were to assess him what they thought reasonable towards the relief of the poor. And this brought on the general assessment in the 14th year of Queen Elizabeth (5 and 6 Edward VI, c. 2; 5 Elizabeth, c. 3). 8. In 1567 Thomas Harman published a book, A Caveat or Waren- ing for Common Cursetors, and, according to the statements it con- tained, the beggar's trade was at that time thriving. Twenty years later, Harrison, in his Description of England, published in 1586, esti- mated that, though not quite sixty years had passed since the trade began, the beggars numbered about 10,000. 9. The last Statute in Dr. Burn's Summary-the 14 Eliz., c. 5— aimed at the suppression of the roaming beggar by a measure also designed for the local care of the aged, decayed, and impotent. The Justices by Sec. 16 were empowered to appoint meet and convenient places for the habitations and abidings of the latter class. Those who 20 PUBLIC WELFARE ADMINISTRATION refused to be bestowed in the appointed abiding places or left them to beg were to be punished as rogues or vagabonds (Sec. 18). The Act may also deserve mention as recognising the principle of non-resident relief. It seems that Bath and Buxton were the resorts of a great num- ber of the poor, who repaired "to the baths there for ease of their grief." These persons were to be not only licensed by Justices, but also "provided for by the inhabitants of such hundreds, parishes or places from whence they shall so be licensed to travel." 10. It should be added that the 14 Eliz., c. 5, was shortly after- wards amended by the 18 Eliz., c. 3, and that the later Act required provision to be made of a competent stock of wool, hemp, flax, iron, or other stuff to be delivered to the poor, who might work the stock into yarn or other matter, and receive payment according to the desert of the work. For those who refused or spoilt work or went abroad begging or lived idly, houses of correction were to be provided. 11. The Act of 1601 was, as we have said, passed for a limited period. It was, with other Acts, renewed at the beginning of the reigns of James I and Charles I. In the reign of Charles I (1641) it was made perpetual. Each occasion saw a new development. Thus on the first renewal an amendment to facilitate apprenticeship was introduced; while on the second renewal this amendment was coupled with the provision that the churchwardens and the overseers of the poor in the said Act made in the three and fortieth year (of Queen Elizabeth) may, "with the consent of justices," set up, use, and occupy any trade mystery or occupation, only for the setting on work and better relief of the poor of the parish, town or place, of or within which they shall be churchwardens or overseers, any former statute to the contrary notwithstanding. Even after 1641 there is ground for the belief that the operation of the Statute of Elizabeth was for many years partial. 12. These extracts seem to show that: 1. Parochial chargeability; 2. Repression of begging, except where authorized; 3. The provision of employment as a means of assistance; 4. The care of the lame, the impotent, the old and blind who are poor, and are unable to work; 5. The setting to work and apprenticeship of children; and 6. The free use of the house of correction for the idle and the petty offender; were the principles dominating the Acts passed for the relief of the poor. It may be noted that the appointment to the office of Overseer under the Act was compulsory, and that the office was unpaid. LOCAL WELFARE ADMINISTRATION 21 LEGISLATION IN THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY 13. As regards Poor Law, the eighteenth century was one of experiment and criticism. Everyone is familiar with Adam Smith's exposure of the effects of the Law of Settlement in obstructing the mobility of labour, and with his denunciation of the law as "an evident violation of natural liberty and justice." An Act of 1795 removed the principal hardship by forbidding the removal of persons from any parish until they became actually chargeable to the rates. But, apart from this, two marked and opposite policies emerged during the cen- tury. 14. The 9 Geo. I, c. 7 (1722), had two notable effects. First, it limited the power of the Justices, who appear to have formed the habit of ordering relief to any applicants who came to them, without the knowledge of the parish officers, by enacting that no one should re- ceive relief from the Justices until oath were made before such Justice of some matter that he should judge to be a reasonable cause, and until the person had applied to a Vestry or to two of the Overseers and had been refused relief. Second, it went far to establish a workhouse test. Parishes, either singly or in combination, were empowered to provide houses and contract with any persons "for the lodging, keeping and maintaining, and employing" of poor persons, and "to take the benefit of their work, labour and service." And "no poor who refused to be lodged and kept in such houses should be entitled to parochial relief.” 15. The immediate result of this was a diminution of expenditure. But returns to Parliament, some fifty years later, in 1776, and again in 1786, showed that, judging from the state of several parishes, the charge of maintaining their poor had advanced very rapidly, notwith- standing the aid of workhouses, and perhaps as rapidly as in those parishes which have continued to relieve the poor by occasional pen- sions at their own habitations. According to the data available at the time, it was estimated that poor relief expenditure, which in 1701 amounted to about £900,000 for the year, had increased to £1,250,000 in 1760. 16. The 22 Geo. III, c. 83 (1782), known as Gilbert's Act, insisted on the failure of the previous Act, both as regards the increase of expenditure and the increased sufferings of the poor. Power was now given to adjacent parishes to unite by voluntary arrangement into a Union or Incorporation and build a workhouse for the combined parishes. And the 29th section provided that no persons should be sent to such poor house except such as were become indigent by old 22 PUBLIC WELFARE ADMINISTRATION age, sickness, or infirmities, and were unable to acquire a maintenance by their labour . . . . and orphan children. For the able-bodied, the Guardians were ordered to find suitable employment near their own homes. Under this Act, power was again handed back to the Justices; they were to appoint and control visitors and paid Guardians; and by these visitors and Guardians poor relief was to be administered. OUTDOOR RELIEF OF THE ABLE-BODIED IN KIND 25. The "most usual form" of this relief was that of "relieving the applicants, either wholly or partially, from the expense of obtaining house room." 26. One form of this was the exemption from rates given, "almost always" in the case of parishioners, "frequently," in the case of non- parishioners. One evil effect of this was, in some places, a speculation in building small tenements-yielding the owner a rent heightened by the exemption-and these of the worst and most unhealthy kind. "In order to make out a case for the non-payment of rates, it is necessary to have inconveniences and defects." 27. But in many places the rent of the parish paupers was paid out of the parish fund. • OUTDOOR RELIEF OF THE ABLE-BODIED IN MONEY 28. When the outdoor relief of the able-bodied was afforded in money—the more prevalent system—this was generally effected by one of five expedients. I. RELIEF WITHOUT LABOUR 29. In many districts this was so common as to have acquired the technical name of "relief in lieu of labour," and was favoured as saving trouble and expense. 30. The sums were sometimes small-"insufficient for complete subsistence" and given under the condition that the applicant should shift for himself and give the parish no further trouble. But it is more usual to give a rather larger weekly sum, and to force the applicants to give up a certain portion of their time by confining them in a gravel-pit or in some other enclosure, or directing them to sit at a certain spot and do nothing, or obliging them to attend a roll-call several times in the day, or by any contrivance which shall prevent their leisure from becoming a means either of profit or of amusement. 2. ALLOWANCE 31. This form of relief, known in Berkshire as "make-up" or "bread-money," was the parochial relief which a person employed by LOCAL WELFARE ADMINISTRATION 23 individuals at the average wages of the district obtained on account of his children; sometimes a sum to meet occasional wants, sometimes a certain weekly sum or, more frequently, the value of a certain quantity of flour or bread, to each member of the family. In some places this had matured into a system, forming the law of a whole district, sanc- tioned and enforced by the Magistrates, and promulgated in the form of local statutes under the name of "scales." By the use of these scales the amount of relief was increased or reduced according to the price of bread. . . . . 32. To use a modern term, the weekly sum thus calculated was considered the "living wage" which each household, according to its constitution and numbers, should earn, and, when wages came short of this, they were supplemented according to the scale. 33. There were two ways, however, of calculating the "make-up.” In perhaps a majority of the parishes in which the allowance system prevails, the earnings of the applicant, and, in a few, the earnings of his wife and children, are ascertained, or at least professed or attempted to be ascertained, and only the difference between them and the sum allotted to him by the scale is paid to him by the parish. This system existed in the southern counties, and was extending itself in Yorkshire, Durham, and the north of England generally. But in other parishes the labourer was not supposed to be earning more than a given sum, and if that were less than the size of the family entitled him to, the parish made up the difference. 34. No consideration was given to the amount of wages earned over the year-only to those earned in the current or the previous week or fortnight. Thus: "Many of those who at particular periods of the year receive wages far exceeding the average amount of the earnings of the most industrious labourer, receive also large allowances from the parish." 35. The effect of placing married and unmarried on a different foot- ing as to relief was, of course, to encourage early and improvident marriages. A child very soon came to be considered as an independent claimant for relief, and entitled to it, though residing with his parents, and though the parents might be in full work at high wages. 3. THE ROUNDSMAN SYSTEM 36. Under this system the parish sold pauper labour to the occu- piers of property at a certain low price, and made up the difference 24 PUBLIC WELFARE ADMINISTRATION between that and the scale allowance. Sometimes the paupers were sold to the farmers at auction. . 4. PARISH EMPLOYMENT 37. Although the 43rd of Elizabeth did not authorise relief to be afforded to any but the impotent except in return for work, payment for work appeared to be "the most unusual form" in which relief was administered. Out of over £7,000,000 expended in the year ending March 26th, 1832, for the relief of the poor, less than £354,000, or scarcely more than one-twentieth part, was paid for work, including work on the roads and in the workhouses. 38. This was easily accounted for: 1. When work was paid for, superintendence had to be provided, and this was costly and inefficacious. 2. Collecting the paupers in gangs for the performance of parish work was found to be more immediately injurious to their conduct than even al- lowance or relief without requiring work. 3. Parish employment did not afford direct profit to any individual. 39. The “work” provided was generally on the roads-sometimes for part of the week, or part of the day, with the intention of inducing and enabling the paupers to find work for themselves. In some of the agricultural districts, the prevalent mismanagement in this respect was found to have created in the minds of the paupers a notion that it was their right to be exempted from the same degree of labour as inde- pendent labourers. Hence the adoption in some parishes of eight till four as the hours of work, with one hour off for dinner. "It was a thing unknown before," said the paupers of Great Farringdon, "in this parish or any other, that parish labourers should work as long or as hard as the other classes of labourers.' دو 40. In many places, while the labour exacted was trifling, the parish pay equalled or exceeded the average wage of the district, and wives of the independent labourers were heard regretting that their husbands were not paupers. "If a man did not like his work he would say: I can have 12s. a week by going on the roads, and doing as little as I like." Without adequate supervision, of course, this work turned into a farce; men who bestirred themselves a little were laughed at by their companions. 5. THE LABOUR-RATE SYSTEM 41. This was the sharing out of the labourers who had settlements in the parish by agreement among the ratepayers, each ratepayer em- LOCAL WELFARE ADMINISTRATION 25 ploying a certain number, and paying them, not according to the real demand for labour, but according to rental, or acreage, or number of horses kept for tillage or contribution to rates, or some other scale. In default of employment, the ratepayer paid a corresponding sum to the overseer. 42. There were considerable differences of method and distribu- tion, varying almost with each parish adopting this system. But, gen- erally the practice seemed to be, "not a sharing in fair proportions of the burthen amongst all, but a shifting of the burthen from one class to some other"; sometimes from the farmers to those in trade, and sometimes from large occupiers of land to small, or from arable to grass farmers; while in some cases a strong desire was shown to place it upon the tithes. Hence the peculiar injustice of tradesmen and small farmers being saddled with labourers whom they had no means of employing "working out the labour rate" as it was called-and having to pay in default. The small occupier, who, by himself or with his children, was able to perform all the labour necessary for his little farm, was, in the great majority of cases, the severest sufferer. 43. The "indirect and unrecorded loss" sustained by the ratepayers in this way was illustrated by the case of a farmer of 500 acres, paying a poor rate of IOS. per acre, and who had constantly to employ four or five more labourers than he required-costing him another £100--to say nothing of the damage done by worthless labour. OUTDOOR RELIEF OF THE IMPOTENT 44. This―as no profit could be made out of it by individuals---was subject to less abuse: "Even in places distinguished in general by the most wanton parochial profusion, the allowances to the aged and infirm are moderate." 45. Outdoor relief of the sick was usually effected by contract with a surgeon, but the contract generally included only those who were parishioners. On the whole, medical attendance seemed to be ade- quately supplied, and economically, if only the price and the amount of attendance were considered. INDOOR RELIEF 49. Workhouse relief also was found to be subject to great mal- administration. . . . . The chief evils were absence of classification, discipline, and employment, and the extravagance of allowances. Chil- dren were herded with older people, and soon acquired their bad habits 26 PUBLIC WELFARE ADMINISTRATION particularly was this the case with young girls obliged to associate with the many prostitutes among the inmates; paupers were allowed to leave the workhouse one day a week, and return intoxicated without punishment; prostitutes came in to recruit their health, and returned to their trade, etc., etc. • ADMINISTRATIVE MACHINERY Without going in detail into all the charges made against the vari- ous classes, the conclusions may be summed up as follows: I. OVERSEERS 70. The Overseers generally farmers in the rural districts, shop- keepers or manufacturers in towns were empowered by law to make, assess, collect, and distribute the fund for the relief of the poor. Serving compulsorily for three, four, six, or twelve months, they might be indicted or fined if they refused or neglected to serve, but they received no remuneration for serving. On the other hand, if they refused relief, or granted less than the applicant thought himself entitled to, they might be summoned before the justices-if, indeed, recourse was not had to more summary forms of remedy, viz., personal violence and arson. As a fact, in many districts, the principal obstacle to improve- ment was the well-founded dread of these atrocities.. 6. MAGISTRATES 81. But there was another local authority which had powers as regards poor relief. The 3 and 4 Will. and Mary, c. 11, after reciting that many inconvenciences did daily arise by reason of the unlimited powers of the Overseers who did frequently, upon frivolous pretences, but chiefly for their own private ends, give relief to what persons and numbers they thought fit, prescribed that the poor in each parish should be registered, with date of first receiving relief, and of the oc- casion which brought the applicants under that necessity; that the register should be produced to the Vestry yearly in Easter-week, when there should be a call over of the persons receiving collections, and a new list made of such persons as the Vestry should think fit to allow to receive collection; and that no other person should receive collection, but by authority under the hand of one Justice of the Peace residing within such parish, or, if none were there dwelling, in the parts near or next adjoining, or by order of the Justices in Quarter Sessions, except in cases of pestilential disease. LOCAL WELFARE ADMINISTRATION 27 82. But owing to loose drafting of subsequent amending Acts, a Justice was enabled, on the pauper's statement of some matter which the Justice should consider to be a reasonable cause or ground for relief, to summon the Overseers to show cause why relief should not be given, and to order such relief as he should think fit. And against this order there was no appeal. . . . 85. The very mode in which their jurisdiction was enforced seemed intended to destroy all vigilance and economy on the part of those who administered relief, and all sense of degradation or shame on the part of those who received it. The Overseer was summoned, perhaps, six or seven miles from his business, or his farm, to defend himself before the tribunal of his immediate superiors against a charge of avarice or cruelty. He seldom had any opportunity to support his defence by evidence; the pleadings generally consisted of the pauper's assertions on the one side, and the Overseer's on the other. The Magistrate might admit or reject the evidence of either party at his pleasure; might humiliate the Overseer in the pauper's presence, with whatever reproof he might think that the Overseer's frugality deserved, and finally pro- nounce a decree, against which, however unsupported by the facts of the case or mischievous in principle, there was no appeal. It must be remembered, too, that the pauper had often the choice of his tribunal. All the Overseers of a district were, therefore, at the mercy of any two Magistrates, and it might be, even at the mercy of any one. The pauper might select those Magistrates whom misdirected benevolences or de- sire of popularity, or timidity led to be profuse distributors of other people's property, and bring forward his charges against the Over- seer, secure of obtaining a verdict. He appeared in the character of an injured man dragging his oppressor to justice. If he failed he lost nothing, if he succeeded he obtained triumph and reward. And yet persons were found expressing grave regret that the parochial fund was wasted, that relief was claimed as a right, and that pauperism had ceased to be disgraceful. 86. Supposing that such a power to "enforce charity and liberality by summons and fine" ought to exist, there were strong grounds for thinking, that the existing Magistrates were not the best persons to be entrusted with it. In the first place, they were men of fortune, un- acquainted with the domestic economy of the applicants for relief, and as unfit, from their own associations, "to settle what ought to be the weekly incomes of the industrious poor" as the industrious poor would be to regulate the weekly expenditure of the Magistrates. 28 PUBLIC WELFARE ADMINISTRATION 87. And, secondly, the Magistrate, even if he had a general knowl- edge of the subject, seldom had and seldom could acquire a knowledge of the individual facts on which he had to decide. A pauper claimed 35. on the ground that his family consisted of five persons, and that he had earned during the last week only 75. The Overseers believed that he had, in fact, earned more, or that he might have earned more if he thought fit to exert himself, or that the lowness of his acknowledged earnings was the result of a collusion between him and his employer, in order to throw part of his wages on the parish. The Vestry agreed in opinion with the Overseer and the pauper appealed to the Magis- trate. 89. It was little wonder that the Overseers complained bitterly of the obstruction given to their exertions by decisions of Magistrates. As one said: "The greatest evil of which I am aware is the facility with which every plan of the vestry or overseer is brought into ques- tion on the complaint of the pauper, who selects a kind and often inconsiderately liberal magistrate as his patron.' "" 90. In the towns, again, where investigation into cases was much more necessary and much more difficult, the jurisdiction of the Magis- trates was still more objectionable. Summonses were granted indis- criminately, and relief ordered almost as indiscriminately. One ridicu- lous case was quoted where fifty paupers in a body came to the Over- seer and demanded immediate relief on a Magistrate's order, and where the Overseer insisted on the whole fifty cases being gone into separately before the Magistrate, only to receive the reply that: "To examine into these cases of fifty paupers, at five minutes per case, would take four hours and ten minutes, which is impossible to be done, and un- necessary, inasmuch as it was the duty of the overseer to have en- quired into the cases himself, and relieved the deserving, and rejected the undeserving." REMEDIAL MEASURES 1 92. Reviewing the evidence thus presented, one may well under- stand the statement of the Commission' that the most pressing of the evils described were those connected with the relief of the able-bodied, and that these were the evils, therefore, for which they would first pro- pose remedies. That is, the Poor Law Commissioners' Report of 1834; reprinted [Cd. 2728] 1905. LOCAL WELFARE ADMINISTRATION 29 * 93. If evils such as these-or evils resembling or even approaching them--were necessarily incidental to the compulsory relief of the able- bodied, they would not, they said, have any hesitation in recommend- ing its entire abolition.