The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
Children’s Year A brief summary of work done and suggestions for follow-up work Children’s Year Follow-up Series No. 4 Bureau Publication N o. 67 U. S. Department of Labor Children’s Bureau 1920 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 1 CONTENTS. Page, Children’s Y ear campaign______________ _____ ________ _________ _______ 5_g A war measure,___ _ ___________________ ____ ________ ___ 5 Organization___ __ ____ _____________ _______________ _ 5 Response of country__________ __ __ ________ ___________________ g_,7 Library -cooperation......... .......... ,................................................................. 6 Weighing and measuring._____________ ____ _______ __________________ 7 Recreation___ ______ ________ ______ _____________ ' ____ 7 g Back to school, ,____ _________ __________ '____________________ __ Results of Children’s Year, . . . , _____ __ _________ ________________ ^ _ 8-11 H*ew measures for child health___ . ...-............... ....... .................................. 9 10 Recreation a public responsibility________ _____ _______ _______ ______ Higher standards of education required., . . , ____________________ 10 Conference on standards__ _______ ____ ___ ______________________ H Children’s Year ifollow-np._______ ___ ______________ __ _____ . _ 13-17 Protectien of maternity -and infancy,, , , __ _____ ___ ___________ ______ 13 Protection of working children______ _______________ _____ ____ _____ 15 Protection of -children bom out of wedlock-____________________ ______ 16 Program of Children’s Year follow-up_________ _____ __ _____________ ____ 19 MAPS. States organized for follow-up work, April, .1920_____ _____________________ States included in the birth-registration area, April, 1920,____ _____________ 3 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 4 18 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Children’s Year. CHILDREN’S YEAR CAMPAIGN. A WAR MEASURE. »The Children’s Year campaign was formally inaugurated on April 6, 1918, the beginning of the second year of this country’s participation in the war. The campaign was carried on in cooperation with the Child Conservation Section of the Field Division of the Council of National Defense as a distinct war measure. European experience showed that war-time conditions affect children adversely, even disas trously, and that the protection of its children is a primary essential to a nation at war. It also demonstrated that even under these con ditions determined effort can accomplish much toward shielding children from the effects of war. The Children’s Bureau, therefore, felt that it could offer no more valuable contribution to the country during the war than to assist in stimulating and coordinating public and' volunteer effort for child welfare and to put its experience at the service of the Council of National Defense and other agencies undertaking work in behalf of children. The importance of this campaign as a war measure was imme diately recognized. In a public letter, President Wilson expressed his conviction that such work was “ second only in importance” to supplying the immediate need of the combatants. ORGANIZATION. The Woman’s Committee of the Council of National Defense offered full cooperation through its Child Welfare Department (later known as the Child Conservation Section of the Field Division), whose executive chairman was Dr. Jessica B. Peixotto, of the Univer sity of California. In January, 1919, Dr. Peixotto was obliged to return to the University of California and was succeeded by Mrs. Ina J. N. Perkins. This department worked with untiring zeal in carrying out the program outlined as follows in the Fifth and Sixth Annual Reports of the Children’s Bureau : If Public protection of maternity and infancy. 2. Mothers’ care for older children. / 3. Enforcement of child-labor laws and free schooling for all children of school age. 4. Recreation for children and youth, abundant, decent, pro tected from any form of exploitation. 1 Practically all the material in this leaflet has been taken from the Seventh Annual Report of the Chief, Children’s Bureau, IJ. S. Dept, of Labor, Washington, 1920. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 5 6 c h il d r e n ’s year . RESPONSE OF COUNTRY. The response to the appeal made by the Children’s Bureau and the Child Conservation Section of the Council of National Defense was mmediate and generous. Three months from the date of the first circular of organization, January 25, 1918, all but 10 States had State chairmen of child welfare already at work. At the official close of Children’s Year on April 6, 1919, all but 2 States were par ticipating in Children’s Year; 1 of these had dissolved its State Division of the Woman’s Committee, and the other was carrying on its own child-welfare program formulated before the war. Alaska, Hawaii, Porto Rico, and the Philippines joined in with the States and carried on some form of child-welfare work. The committees thus set up in the States were drawn from many women’s organizations of social, civic, economic, religious, or cul tural type. I t is estimated that at least 17,000 committees were organized with a total membership of 11,000,000 women. The gen erosity and effectiveness with which these women gave themselves, and the splendid unselfishness of the doctors, nurses, social workers, and others who gave freely expert services, can not be too highly praised. Two signal contributions different in character from these services and worthy of special mention were given by F. Luis Mora and Chester Beach. Early in Children’s Year Mr. Mora generously designed and gave a charming poster in color bearing the caption “The health of the child is the power of the nation.” This poster was widely distributed throughout the country. Commemorating the work of Children’s Year, Mr. Beach designed and executed a beautiful medal. At the end of Children’s Year a small bronze replica of this medal was distributed to each State chairman by the Child Conservation Section of the Council of National Defense, together with a letter expressing the gratitude of the council and the bureau for the “ high humanitarian and patriotic service rendered in the execution of the Children’s Year program.” LIBRARY COOPERATION. In addition to the other agencies cooperating with the Children’s Bureau particular mention should be made of the public libraries. The bureau conducted “ a library campaign for the nation’s children” for which a mailing list of over 4,000 libraries was prepared, and State agents, were appointed in 26 States. Libraries were supplied with bureau publications and special articles so that they might help acquaint the public with the best available material on the subject of child care and general child welfare. The cooperation given by the libraries was most gratifying. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis CHILDREN'S YEAR. 7 As an aid to the furtherance of this work cooperation was sought from and generously given by the States Relations Service of the United States Department of Agriculture, the State superintendents of public instruction in the 48 States and island possessions, and the home economic teachers throughout the country. WEIGHING AND MEASURING. As generously as the workers responded to the appeal of the Child Conservation Section and the Children’s Bureau did the country respond to the program outlined. The Weighing and Measuring Test of infants and children of preschool age was the opening drive of Children’s Year, and it aroused a swift and widespread interest. The first edition of 500,000 cards for this test was augmented within three months to over 6,000,000 cards. The final number distributed by the Children’s Bureau, all in response to local requests, was 7,606,303. Up to May 4, 1919, 16,811 cities and towns, villages, and rural communities had conducted weighing and measuring tests. These were for well children, and no medical advice, or treatment was given, but in many instances the presence of physical defects was disclosed which medical care might remove or lessen, and mothers were constantly advised to consult physicians for their children. In a vast number of instances the weighing and measuring was necessarily done by laymen; but in many cases it was done under the supervision of specialists. In many localities where local chair men could effectively organize their work much more was done, than simple weighing and measuring. Many thousands of children in such localities were given complete physical examination by physicians. In one far western State where 40,000 children had such examinations tabulations of the results showed 47 per cent correctable physical defects. Rural communities as well as urban benefited from the Weighing and Measuring Test. In three States extraordinary effort was made by means of “ Baby specials” to bring the message of child health to the country; thus, in Ohio the city of Cleveland sent a wellequipped truck to outlying districts around the city; Connecticut fitted up a truck; and Michigan an interurban car which touched all rural communities on the interurban lines of that State. RECREATION. The Recreation drive, second of the Children’s Year campaign, met a response from many communities. Programs were sent out in June and July, 1918, and committees all over the country organized to prepare and protect the play of older children. The Playground and Recreation Association of America and 16 other national societies and the Department of Agriculture club and demonstration directors https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis c h il d r e n ’s year . 8 cooperated with the Children’s Bureau and the Child Conservation Section in celebrating a patriotic play week in the autumn of 1918 and furthering the interest of healthy play. BACK TO SCHOOL. The third campaign of Children’s Year was the Back-to-School drive. This was a measure adopted to decrease child labor. The war conditions of abnormally high wages, relaxed parental control, and natural patriotic impulse had induced children in ever-increasing numbers to leave school for work. Forty-five States, New York City, the District of Columbia, and Hawaii undertook vigorously the campaign to get these children back into school. In general, the organization and work suggested by the Children’s Bureau were closely followed, with full cooperation from school and labor officials. As an instance of successful local effort: In one small town the teachers were able to furnish the child-welfare committee with a list of some 70 children who were at work on permits, and all but one of these children were persuaded to go back to school. Some of the methods and expedients found useful in coping with the situation were scholarships for children, visiting teachers, continuation and part-time schools, vocational training courses, and vocational guidance bureaus or placement committees. The Back-to-School drive was inaugurated on October 17, 1918; and the armistice a month later added another argument to its strength—an argument expressed by a popular poster issued by the bureau which reads, “ Children Back in School Means Soldiers Back in Jobs.” On February 11, 1919, a Stay-in-School campaign was started to clinch the work of the drive by persuading children who might be planning to leave school early to stay and increase their prospect of future usefulness and happiness by so doing. RESULTS OF CHILDREN'S YEAR. I t is obviously impossible to estimate the exact results of Children’s Year. The result of the effort to save the lives of 100,000 babies can not be known even partially at this time. What is certain is that the activities set in motion by that effort form a great permanent and growing protection for infant life and will in time reduce our child deaths by many more than 100,000 annually. Millions of adults in this country have learned through the Weighing and Measuring Tests alone that weight in relation to height and age gives a rough index of normal development; that hundreds of thousands of children are undernourished and suffering from other defects which are preventable or remediable; that child welfare is, in short, an important national problem. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis c h il d r e n ’s year . 9 NEW MEASURES FOR CHILD HEALTH. The awakening to the problem brought action, and many con crete results in public welfare may be ascribed to Children’s Year. I t is not an exaggeration to say that the following experience of California is typical of the good work done by many communities. In this State 53,462 children were weighed and measured and 40,000 of that number had complete physical examination by physicians. Subsequent examinations were provided for to reach a larger number of children and to demonstrate the value of periodic physical exami nations. As a result of the findings of the 40,000 examinations, 17 permanent county health centers were established; 10 county public-health nurses were employed; legislative action was taken to provide dental hygienists for children; 120,000 dietaries, besides 30,000 Children’s -Year bulletins, were distributed throughout the State; the State university inaugurated a correspondence extension course on scientific motherhood. The work culminated in the estab lishment of a division of child hygiene under the State board of health with an appropriation of $20,000. Legislation creating child-hygiene divisions was planned in a number of States as the climax to the State child-welfare program. Before the announcement of the Children’s Year campaign 9 States (New York, Kansas, Ohio, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Louisiana, Illinois, Indiana, and Montana) had child-hygiene divisions. During 1918 four additional States (Florida, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, and North Carolina) provided child-hygiene divisions; and, since January, 1919, 19 additional States (South Carolina, Kentucky, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Texas, California, New Mex ico, Missouri, Arizona, Colorado, Utah, Idaho, Nebraska, Virginia, Georgia, Maine, and Michigan) have secured such divisions, making a total of 32 States with child-hygiene divisions—May 1, 1920. New public-health nurses and children’s health centers have been reported from 24 States, with 137 nurses in 10 of these States and 134 health centers where mothers may be given advice and instruction concerning the care of their children. Other centers for child-welfare work, such as prenatal clinics, nutritional clinics, milk depots, etc., are logically developing around these health centers. The public-health nurse, the keystone of child-welfare work, is being called upon in ever-increasing numbers. To enlarge the inadequate numbers of nurses available special means have been taken by various communities. One State in New England has provided scholarships for nurses during their special training, on condition that the nurses fill for at least one year vacancies in their own State. I t is hoped that by these scholarships a public-health nurse may be placed in every town. Another New England State has a similar program of “ a health center and a public-health nurse 174643°—20----- 2 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 10 c h il d r e n ’s year . for every township. ” The American Red Cross has stimulated this movement by the distribution from national headquarters of $100,000 and an uncomputed sum from local chapters for scholarships for post-graduate courses in public-health training. In New Orleans the business men supported a campaign which raised $45,000 for child welfare during Children’s Year. With this money a trained supervisor was placed in charge of public-health nursing, and the nursing staff was increased from 8 to 33. Twentynine new health centers were established in the city during the year, through Which well organized intensive child-welfare work is being carried on. RECREATION A PUBLIC RESPONSIBILITY. Through Children’s Year clean amusement and vigorous outdoor play have been more widely understood as indispensable factors in giving children and young people their rightful chance, both physi cally and morally. To furnish suitable opportunities and to assume responsibility for the decency of commercial entertainment are recog nized increasingly as civic duties. The increased number of play grounds in many towns this year and the growing recognition that playgrounds and parks require skilled supervision and direction are indications of the growth of the movement to which Children’s Year has contributed. Many new playgrounds were reported in 16 different States as a result of the Recreation drive. The necessity for wholesome and supervised recreation for children has been emphasized throughout the country, especially in rural communities where, with the natural advantages and simplest of equipment, community and school play may be made a new and vital thing. HIGHER STANDARDS OF EDUCATION REQUIRED. The Back-to-School drive—and the Stay-in-School campaign, which was a part of it—have resulted in efforts to awaken a civic sense of the importance of thorough education. Typical of such efforts are some undertaken in Ohio, where all the sixth, seventh, and eighth grade school children in the entire State wrote essays on “ Why go to high school?” prizes being given by the State com mittee for the best essays, and where ministers in many communities set aside a Sunday on which to preach on the value of education. Another State utilized the motion-picture houses to present a slide giving the number of illiterates in the State and the number of children, 10,895 in all, who had failed to enroll in any school during the preceding year, and urging parents to send their children to school. In Texas, where the Parent-Teacher Association had charge of the Back-to-School drive, a school-welfare department was established in https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis CHILDREN’S YEAH. 11 the association to make the work permanent. “ No illiteracy in this State in 1920” is the slogan of this department. I t is encouraging that committees who have worked on this phase of child protection have found out that certain things are necessary for effective reforms and are continuing their work to accomplish them. Briefly they are as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Better enforcement of school-attendance laws. More attendance officers. (Some States are working for one for every county.) Richer and fuller type of education. More schoolhouses. (In one State the school superintendent did not favor a Back-to-School drive because there were not enough buildings: “ If all children of school age were sent to school 40 per cent of them would have to stand.” ) More and better trained teachers with higher salaries. A longer school term (for the benefit of rural children). Better child-labor laws and better enforcement of them. Provision for scholarships. Provision for visiting teachers. Provision for advising children and assisting them in finding suitable employ ment, vocational guidance, and placement. By such aids and the careful extension of educational work in continuation schools, part-time schools, and other devices, many States hope to destroy the illiteracy which is still alarmingly preva lent in certain rural districts and which is always found accompany ing rural child labor. CONFERENCE ON STANDARDS. As the concluding activity of Children’s Year it was decided to hold a conference on child-welfare standards, with the aim of setting forth by a consensus of expert opinion minimum standards of child welfare as suggested by President Wilson in his letter approving Children’s Year as a war activity. This conference was held under the auspices of the Children’s Bureau during May, 1919. Because of the extraordinary work for the protection of childhood carried on abroad under war conditions whose severity this country happily escaped, it was decided to invite a small numbfer of foreign experts to attend the conference, in the belief that no other authorities could afford us such incentive and inspiration. The following guests from abroad attended the conference at the invitation of the Secretary of Labor: Sir Arthur Newsholme, -late principal medical officer of the Local Government Board, England. Mrs. Eleanor Barton, of the Women’s Cooperative Guild, England, an organization of the wives of British wage earners. Mr. Roland C. Davison, director of the juvenile labor exchanges of England. Sir Cyril Jackson, board of education, England. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 12 c h il d r e n ’s year . Dr. Clothilde Mulon, war department, France, who has done special work in the supervision of industrial crèches during the war. Dr. René Sand, professor of social and industrial medicine at the University of Brussels, and adviser on medical inspection of the ministry of labor. Miss L. E. Carter, principal of High School C, Brussels. Mr. Isador Maus, director of the division of child protection, ministry of justice, Belgium. Mr. Takayuki Namaye, department of interior, Japan, in charge of reformatory and relief work and the protection of children. Dr. Radmila Milochevitch Lazarevitch, from Serbia, a physician and leader in social service activities. Dr. Fabio Frassetto, professor of anthropology at the University of Bologna, Italy. Their coming to this country to attend the conference gave signal proof of the new international sense of responsibility for child wel fare. The generosity and graciousness with which each individual assisted the conference is gratefully recognized. This conference consisted not of a single meeting but of a series of regional conferences, eight in number, beginning with one in Washington, May 5, 1919.. Following the Washington conference, meetings were held in New York, Cleveland, Boston, Chicago, Den ver, Minneapolis, San Francisco, and Seattle. Minimum standards for the health, education, and work of normal children and for the protection of children in need of special care in the United States were adopted at the Washington conference. They haye been considered by certain of the regional conferences and by many individuals, and have been revised by a special committee appointed for that purpose.2 CHILDREN’S YEAR FOLLOW-UP. The activities begun in Children’s Year are not at an end. On the contrary, many communities are continuing their work, sometimes at the request of public authorities, and are working for further legis lation and provision for children. That the country is alive to the need for continuing its vigilance in caring for its children is evidenced by the action taken at the close of the child-welfare conferences. Chairmen of Children’s Year committees have formed an advisory committee of the local chair men of Children’s Year, and 38 States (Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, s Minimum Standards for Child Welfare. Adopted by the Washington and Regional Conferences on Child Welfare, 1919, U. S. Children’s Bureau. Publication No. 62, Conference Series No. 2, Washing ton. 1919. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis c h il d r e n ’s year . 13 Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio;, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee; Texas, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming), the District of Columbia, and Hawaii are continuing their child-welfare efforts. pr o t e c t io n o f m a tern ity and in fan cy . Much interest has been shown in the child-welfare standards, and it is hoped that they may prove a strong influence in securing atten tion for further needed legal protection for children by the Federal and State Governments. The Children’s Bureau series of reports on infant and maternal mortality in urban and rural areas has for the last seven yearn steadily accumulated evidence of a high degree of annual wastage of life and vigor. The studies show that poverty and ignorance are yokefellows and that civic responsibility for decent conditions of living is only beginning to reach an expression which can help to ease the burden. More than 17,000 mothers die yearly from causes incident to child bearing, and ill health is suffered by a vast number of others from the same cause. These deaths and disabilities are now known to be needless in large measure, and among women who can command adequate care their proportions are already greatly reduced. Over 200,000 babies less than a year old die annually. These infant deaths are controllable almost without exception. Poverty is a constant condition of the highest infant mortality rates, and the rates steadily improve as income increases to a good living standard. In the interest of humanity and of sound national economy adequate care for maternity and infancy should be universally available. The lessening rates of infant mortality in the United States for the last few years are encouraging. They indicate the effect of many scat tered public and volunteer activities for infant welfare, but the reduction is far too slow. New Zealand still shows a much lower rate than our best States, and the United States is still eighth from the head of the list of countries judged by the favorable character of their infant mortality rates. The best available world figures for maternal mortality show that the life of the mother is safer in 14 other countries than in the United States. The neglect of maternity is shown by the fact that in a 13-year period during which deaths from communicable diseases have been reduced—typhoid fever deaths cut in half, croup and diphtheria reduced two-thirds—the deaths of mothers from causes incident to childbirth show no diminu tion, although these causes are also known to be in great measure controllable. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 14 c h il d r e n ’s year . Based upon American studies and upon the experience of various other countries, a measure was proposed in the sixth a n n u al report of the Children’s Bureau which it is believed offers a practicable plan for reducing the present losses of life and vigor. The essential feature of the proposed plan is that the United States Government shall cooperate with the States in providing a joint fund in each State to be used so as to afford effective means for the protection of maternity and infancy. Mothers and babies are the same in the rural community and the city areas. They need the same care. The rates of death are approximately the same. The proposition therefore is of general application. The principal features of such care are: 1. Public-health nurses. 2. Accessible hospital care and medical attention. 3. Teaching and practical demonstrations for mothers of the hygiene of maternity and infancy and of the household arts essential to the well-being of mother and child. 4. Accessible consultation centers or well-children’s clinics for the periodical examination of young children in order to secure their most vigorous development. I t will be seen that such a program involves more than medical and nursing care. For example, the State university extension divisions and departments of home economics are already doing excellent pioneer work and can greatly assist the plan. The public libraries, especially those in smaller towns and the traveling libraries, are already undertaking an educational function in the careful distribution of pamphlets and literature for mothers. Such a partnership between the Government and the States already serves agriculture through the Smith-Lever Law, already serves vocational training through the Smith-Hughes Law, is creating through the joint work of the Government and the States a new and cleansing knowledge of social hygiene, and is slowly removing the isolation of the remote ranch and farm family by the good-roads act. On exactly the same plan of Federal aid stimulating and standardiz ing State and local activities, the well-being of mother and child, a basic national economy, may be secured. In this connection Australian parliamentary reports of 1917 are of interest. For the last seven years the Australian Commonwealth has allowed for each living birth the sum of $25, and the acceptance of this allowance is general. Yet the report on infant mortality submitted to the Australian Parliament in June, 1917, by the com mittee concerning the causes of death and invalidity in the Com monwealth strongly urges the adoption of a general scheme of practical measures, such as are in force in New Zealand and else where, as a means of lessening the infant mortality rate. In August, https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis c h il d r e n 's year. 15 1917, the same committee submitted a report on maternal mortality in childbirth. Figures are given, to show that, although there was a decrease in the death rate after the introduction of the maternity bonuses, this decrease was not so great as it had been during the preceding years. The experience of England seems to show that a general measure of such character as that outlined above is absolutely essential in a countiy of modern standards of health and comfort even when health insurance with maternity benefits is in operation. In many other European countries such measures exist. In these countries, as in England, experience indicates the need of basic governmental responsi bility for maternity and infancy. The health-insurance law of the United Kingdom went into opera tion in 1911. I t provides a benefit of $7.50 upon the birth of a child for the wife of an insured man and double that sum if the wife her self is insured and the wife of an insured man. Yet since the insurance law went into effect two measures have been passed by Parliament permitting grants in aid to sanitary dis tricts for the protection of maternity and infancy. The second was passed in August, 1918, and sanctions increased expenditures. I t specifies the objects for which funds may be spent and is clearly an expression of a belief that no provision already in existence is adequate. As applied to the United States, it may be said with certainty that any public provision for safeguarding maternity and infancy must be universal. I t must afford a dignified service which can be utilized with the same self-respect with which the mother sends an older child to the public school. I t must not be compulsory. PROTECTION OF WORKING CHILDREN. The imperative need of physical tests for children about to enter employment and of continuous supervision over the health of children at work has received national recognition in the organization by the Children’s Bureau of a permanent committee to determine physical standards for working children. Little has been done up to the present time in the United States to prevent children from going into work for which they are physically unfit, and practically no study has been made of the effects of early labor on the growth of the body. Yet the children who begin work between the ages of 14 and 18, and in many instances as early as 12 or even younger, are the children of least resistance in the commu nity. They are in general the children of the poor , and, in consequence, are likely to be the ill nourished, the undersized, and the anemic. Already handicapped, their growing bodies can put up no resistance to the exacting demands of industry on muscle and nerves, ; During https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis CHILDREN'S YEAR. 10 these maturing years they are peculiarly liable to injury from over strain and peculiarly sensitive to all sorts of industrial hazards. A great deal of the work done by children is, moreover, totally unfit for them. I t often involves too much sitting or too much standing, the carrying of weights beyond the child’s strength, the overexercising of one set of muscles at the expense of another, and, in certain occupations, the loss of sleep. Foreign investigations have shown that the sickness rate among juvenile laborers is alarm ing, especially during the second year of working life when the injurious effects of early labor upon already undeveloped bodies have had time to make themselves felt. The “ physical minimum” for children entering employment adopted by the Child Welfare Conferences declared that “ A child shall not be allowed to go to work until he has had a physical exam ination by a public-school physician or other medical officer espe cially appointed for that purpose by the agency charged with the enforcement of the law, and has been found to be of normal devel opment for a child of his age and physically fit for the work at which he is to be employed.” I t provided also for annual physical examinations of all working children under 18 years of age. What constitutes normal development for boys and girls of differ ent ages, and what indicates that a child is “ physically fit” for the employment which he is about to enter can be determined only through exact observation and measurements. PROTECTION OF CHILDREN BORN OUT OF WEDLOCK. At least 32,000 white children are born out of wedlock in the United States each year, and probably not more than 70 per cent of these children survive the first year of life. The children who do survive infancy are likely to be deprived of normal home life and a mother’s care. Rarely do they receive from their father the support to which they should be entitled. In a large proportion of cases the public must assume the burden of the support of these children. The English common law, which regards the child born out of wedlock as the “ child of no one,” still prevails in some parts of the United States and deprives the child not only of a name but also of the substantial rights of inheritance and support. Advanced legis lation in some States has in recent years altered the common law by provisions more favorable to the child, but the need for uniform leg islation designed to protect rather than punish is evident. Legislation bearing on the father’s obligations has been particularly backward. In one State laws enacted as far back as 1793 have remained practically unaltered, and these in turn are modeled on the English bastardy law of 1575. Six States and Alaska still have no https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis c h il d r e n ’s year . 17 provision whatever for compelling the support of a child by its natural father. Where provision is made it is in many cases entirely inadequate, for when the payments are not too low, the period of support is too brief, extending sometimes only to the tenth or eleventh year. Minnesota, through legislation passed in 1917, affords a greater amount of protection to children born out of wedlock than does any other American State. In February, 1920, two regional conferences were held under the auspices of the Children’s Bureau to consider standards which should govern legislation for the protection of children born out of wedlock. In these conferences representatives from almost half the States participated. While the conferences were not a direct outcome of Children’s Year, they were suggested by the work of the Child-Welfare Conferences. Resolutions were adopted by the regional conferences, and a committee has been appointed to prepare a single statement of principles, based on the resolutions. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis CHILDREN7S YEAR, https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis PROGRAM OF CHILDREN’S YEAR FOLLOW-UP. Throughout almost the entire country there is an obvious need of the continuance of certain activities which may be said to constitute a Children’s Year follow-up program. The following measures are important: 1. Better .birth registration. The year has shown afresh the value to the child of prompt public record of birth.. Twenty-three States and the District of Columbia now keep records good enough to receive the sanction of the Bureau of the Census, and, hence, to be included in the birth-regbtration area. The States are California, Connecticut, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland,, Massachusetts, Michi gan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Khode Island., South Carolina, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin. Twenty-five States are not so recognized. They are Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Dela ware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, West Virginia, and Wyoming. Vigorous effort for one year would place all the States in the recognized list of the Bureau of the Census. The Children’s Bureau has prepared a simple test plan which can 1 ; bo used in any community in which there is a good law but where, because of nonenforcement, the State is not in the birth-registration area. In other States campaigns for adequate legislation should be waged.3 . 2. Establishment of health stations. (a) Prenatal and infant-welfare stations for keeping mothers and babies well and for securing proper care.4 ( b ) Well-children stations for children of preschool age. These are natural developments from inf ant-welfare stations and may he conducted with them or independently. 3. Protection of health and development of school children by weighing and measuring tests, open-air classes, nutritional clinics, and other measures.5 4. Protection of children from illiteracy and premature work by Back-to-School and Stay-in-School campaigns.6 3 See Bureau Publication No. 54. An Outline for a Birth Registration Test. 4 For desription of methods of conducting, see Bureau Publication No. 45, Children’s Health Centers. 5 See Bureau Publication No. 60, Standards of Child Welfare, p. 228, “ Nutrition Clinics,” by Dr. Wil liam R. P. Emerson. 6 See Bureau Publications Nos. 49,50, 51,53,55,56 on the Back-to-School and Stay-in-School campaigns. 19 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 1 20 c h il d r e n ’s year . 5. Public provision for wholesome play and recreation, under trained leadership, and supervision of commercial amusements.7 6. Continued study by each community of local needs and local resources, as related to the care of handicapped children, and the endeavor to bring the care of these children in line with the stand ards which have been found practicable in this field.8 7. Study of present laws and local needs in order to effect neces sary revision of existing laws and to further new legislation for the care and protection of children.9 8. Study of the standards adopted by the 1919 Child-Welfare Con ferences. These standards set forth the careful judgment of many experienced persons. Certain of these standards have been already attained in various communities; others are attainable by the ex pression of public opinion; others will require legal enactments. Study of local needs and present laws should precede, of course, any effort for new legislation.9 See Bureau Publication No. 44, Patriotic Play Week. s See Bureau Publication No. 60, Standards of Child Welfare, Section IV, “ Children ih Need of Speeial Care.” « See Bureau Publication No. 60, Standards of Child Welfare. i o https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
@FedFRASER