The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR JAMES J. DAVIS, Secretary THE COUNTY AS A UNIT FOR AN ORGANIZED PROGRAM OF CHILD CARING AND PROTECTIVE WORK By EMMA O. LUNDBERG Bureau Publication N o. 169 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal 1 Reserve Bank of St. Louis SINGLE COPIES OF THIS PUBLICATION MAT BE OBTAINED FREE UPON APPLICATION TO THE CHILDREN'S B U REAU . ADDITIONAL COPIES MAT BE PROCURED FROM THE SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS, GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, ■WASHINGTON, D. C. AT 5 CEN T S PER COPY https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis be S S c $ Ik 2 CONTENTS 00 K> to 1-1 Page Purpose of the present study o f county social work________________________ W hat is meant by county organization for child care and protection?____ Changing programs of public social work__________________ _______________ Types of county organization_________________________________________________ Broad program of public-welfare or child-welfare work according to state-wide plan_________________________________________________________ Program of social work promoted by State department but not according to state-wide plan_____ ,___________________________ _ ________ Coordination of public and private relief promoted by State body____ Care and supervision of dependent, neglected, delinquent, or defective children, with or without the cooperation of State department____ Summary_________ _____________________________________________ ________ :_________ 5 12 19 20 23 ILLUSTRATIONS Map I.— State departments or bureaus dealing with dependent, neglected, defective, or delinquent children___________________________________________ Map II.— Organization of county public-welfare work authorized by law or developed by State boards_______________________________________________ https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 4 5 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis THE COUNTY AS A UNIT FOR AN ORGANIZED PROGRAM OF CHILD CARING AND PROTECTIVE WORK PURPOSE OF TH E PRESENT ST U D Y OF C O U N TY SOCIAL W O R K A publication by the Children’s Bureau, issued in 1922,1 contains descriptions o f the methods o f county-wide work for child care and protection in certain States and localities. A n attempt wa-s made to analyze the development and types o f county organization then existing in some 15 States, in 3 o f which the county work was developed under the auspices o f private agencies and in the others under a public department. The work in the following States or counties was described in detail by persons having intimate con tact with the plans and their development: Minnesota, North Caro lina, California, New York State, Westchester County, N. Y., and Monmouth County, N. J. In the introduction brief mention was made o f the methods employed in some of the other States, including Indiana, Missouri, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Arkansas, South Carolina, and Florida, and activities in Alabama which later were given the sanction of State law. The appendix contains the laws authorizing special county work in Arizona, Arkansas, Mis souri, Ohio, and Virginia. A field study on this subject was undertaken by the Children’s Bureau and completed in 1925, designed to show the methods that had been found desirable and to some extent the results obtained through organization o f county welfare work in Minnesota and North Carolina, and in Dutchess County, N. Y .2 These illustrate three forms o f county social work conducted by public agencies. The report furnishes interesting information in regard to the prob lems «iealt with in county work and the various methods used by the units studied. Since the first publication was issued a number o f changes have occurred through passage o f new legislation authorizing this form o f county activity and in two or three instances discontinuance o f plans under way at the time to which the earlier report applied. This report summarizes the information on the present situation obtained from the various State organizations in November, 1925. The aim is not to present the material according to a uniform plan, but to set forth important features o f the development in each State • as reported by persons having first-hand knowledge of the situation. 1 County Organization for Child Care and Protection. U . S. Children's Bureau Publicaion No. 107. Washington, 1922. 2 Public Child-Caring Work in Certain Counties of Minnesota, North Carolina, and New York, by H . Ida Curry. U. S. Children’s Bureau Publication. (In press.) ? I https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 2 COUNTY CHILD CARING AND PROTECTIVE WORK In discussing the work being done in the States included in the earlier report the same field will not be covered, but an effort will be made to give such supplementary information as will show the present status o f the work. Except where otherwise noted, this information was obtained through correspondence with State boards in the fall o f 1925. W H A T IS M E A N T B Y C O U N TY O R G A N IZATIO N FOR CHILD CARE A N D PROTECTION? County organization for child care and protection means pri marily the unification, or at least the coordination, in the county, o f the work undertaken by various public agencies for the care and protection o f the dependent, neglected, delinquent, physically handi capped, and mentally defective. Sometimes health activities and enforcement o f child labor and compulsory education laws are also united with the program for care o f dependent, neglected, and delin quent children, and the activities o f private agencies are coordinated in some counties with those o f the public agencies. It is probably unnecessary to point out that organization o f county social work is not an object in and o f itself but is simply a means to an end—the development o f the standards o f modern social work in the conduct o f family or child welfare work. Interest in county organization has developed from the same causes and often as a part o f the move ment to make more effective the work o f State boards or departments o f charities or welfare. The county is selected as the local adminis trative unit in carrying out this program because it is the local unit for taxation, poor relief, education, and other matters, and because through the county as a unit the needs o f both urban and rural children can be served.3 The form o f organization is based largely on the character o f the public or private agencies found in the county, and is to a consid erable extent dependent upon the character o f the population. Resources adequate for a county whose largest city has a population o f about 50,000, though the same general principles may hold, would not meet the needs o f an entirely rural county or one in which there is a large city. The basic laws o f the State and the agencies and institutions that have developed over a period o f years must be taken into account. No two States have exactly the same back ground, and methods fitting the needs o f one can not be applied in exactly the same way in a second State. There are equally great differences between counties in the same State. It is therefore necessary to follow the opportunist policy o f continually adapting a program to local needs and local resources in working out a pro gram o f this kind for a State. CHANGING PROGRAMS OF PUBLIC SO C IAL W O R K A ll States make some provision for certain classes o f handicapped persons, especially for those who require custodial care or special training, but only recently have public agencies entered the field o f 8 The Pennsylvania Department of W elfare (see p. 16) finds that the “ political bound aries of a county ” are not always the best for “ welfare administrative units.” https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis v /7 > COUNTY CHILD CAKING J^^-PROTI^CTIVE WORK . 3 O b . preventive social work with families or eniMremi^/Its development has sometimes been the result o f definite e ffe ts -on'tfie part o f pri vate organizations to enlist the State or other piÉolîc fioéK^Jp spécial forms o f child caring or protective work the d e s l ^ i l ï t ^ f ; which has been demonstrated by private agencies. Sometihiks jfehi^State, county, or municipality has undertaken to fill a need not <&^by^any existing agency, or to supplement an inadequate program. Tp §oihe< States ^and in some counties and municipalities public child-Ôar|ng activities are extensive ; in others the major part o f the field is covered by institutions and agencies conducted under private auspices. The effectiveness o f county organization must be judged not by the form or the auspices under which it is undertaken, but by the quality and the adequacy o f the work actually performed for the care o f those m need and by what is being done to prevent or reduce future needs through constructive social work that deals not only with the individual but with underlying conditions. County organization for child care and protection as it has been deveioped, though undertaken primarily to unify and make more effective the work o f the public authorities concerned with child welfare, is sometimes, as has been pointed out, a plan for harmonizing the work o f the various public and private organizations active in the county. While the complaint is sometimes heard that the extension o f public service discourages the development o f private effort through making agencies and institutions under private auspices unnecessary, the question that should be asked is whether in the absence o f the new form o f public county work the private agencies m these counties would on their own initiative have so extended their activities that the field o f preventive and protective service would be covered as well as it is under public auspices. I f such an inquiry were made it^ would doubtless be discovered that private organiza tions are finding greater opportunities for constructive service than were previously recognized, although their efforts may be directed into a different channel in order that the needs o f all the children in the county may be met. It is being recognized more and more that all relief for families or for children in need o f special^ care is or should be regarded as tem porary and that the elimination or prevention o f the problem o f dependency should always be sought. There is, as a consequence, little tendency on the part o f intelligent leaders in either public or private social work to feel that hard and fast programs are desirable or to try to secure permanency for the institutions or agencies establ^hed. JNor is there any present tendency toward the assumption by n1C . ® functions connected with the care and protection o f children m need. TY P E S OF C O U N TY O R G A N IZATIO N The following discussion will be limited to county public-welfare work authorized by special legislation or developed by State agencies without such laws. Special emphasis is thus placed on the work o f public agencies, though that o f private agencies is not necessarily excluded. J https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 4 COUNTY CHILD CARING AND PROTECTIVE WORK The types of organization for county public-welfare work, so defined, may be classified into four groups based on the type of activity undertaken: 1. Broad program of public-welfare or child-welfare work according to state-wide plan (North Carolina, Minnesota, Missouri} Virginia, Alabama). 2. Program o f social work promoted by State depart ment but not according to state-wide plan (California, Georgia, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, West Virginia). 3. Coordination o f public and private relief promoted by State body (Iow a). 4. Care and supervision o f dependent, neglected, de linquent, or defective children, with or without the co operation of State department (Arizona, Arkansas, In diana, Michigan, New York, Ohio). MAP i STA TE D E P A R T M E N T S O R B U R E A U S D E A L IN G W IT H D E P E N D E N T , N E G L E C T E D , D E F E C T IV E , O R D E L IN Q U E N T C H IL D R E N PSSfil Child-welfare division of aboard of charities or department of welfare Special child-welfare bureau and a board of control of State institutions IZ //A Board or department with special work for children without separate division Board of control or board of charities and separate board fo r care o f dependent children m h i iti Board of control or board of charities and separate bureau of child and animal protection HI III 111 (Colorado discontinued board in 1923) Board of control or board of ch a ritie s I I No b o a r d _____________________ In all the States included in the first three classes the development o f county organization has been stimulated and promoted by a State body, and in all but one of the States in the fourth class (New York) more or less close relationships between the State department and local organizations have been maintained. It is o f interest, therefore, to note the types of State bureaus or departments dealing https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 5 COUNTY CHILD CARING AND PROTECTIVE WORK with dependent, neglected, defective, or delinquent children. These are shown in Map I, and the different types o f county organization are shown in Map I I (see p. 5). BROAD PROGRAM OF PUBLIC-W ELFARE OR CH ILD-W ELFARE W O R K ACCORDING TO STATE-W IDE PLAN 4 Included in this group are five States—North Carolina, Minnesota, Missouri, Virginia, and Alabama—that have county boards o f child or public welfare carrying out broad programs according to a state wide plan specified by law. These boards or officials act as agents o f the State departments for certain types o f activities. The Minne sota system differs in some important respects from programs in the other States, especially in the limitation o f the activities o f the MAP it O R G A N IZ A T IO N O F C O U N T Y P U B L IC -W E L F A R E W O R K A U T H O R IZ E D D E V E L O P E D BY S T A T E B O A R D S BY L A W O R [County boards of visitors, juvenile advisory committees, etc., are not included] 7M bro ad p ro g ra m of public-welfare or child-w elfare w orK a cco rd ing to State-wide plan y iH Program of social w orK promoted by State department but not accordi ng to State-wideplan V/ / / 1Coordination of public and private relief promoted by State body pTTSra Care and su pe rvisio n of dependent,neglected,delinquent,or defective children,w ith or bOsooi w ithout cooperation of State department county boards to work performed for the State board of control. The laws defining the organization of boards and the powers and duties o f the boards and their executives are similar in the other four States, except that Alabama (as is the case in Minnesota) has childwelfare boards, whereas North Carolina and Virginia have publicwelfare boards, and Missouri has superintendents of public welfare but no boards. i The States are discussed in the order o f establishment of county work, 16592°—26----- 2 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 6 C O U N T Y C H IL D C A S IN G A N D PROTECTIVE W O R K North Carolina.5 The law enacted in North Carolina in 1917, amended in 1919 and 1921,£ provides for the appointment by the State board of charities and public welfare, o f county boards o f charities and public welfare consisting o f three members. The county board is to advise with and assist the State board in the work in the county and make such visits and reports as the State board may request. The board is also to act “ in a general advisory capacity to the county and municipal authorities in dealing with questions of dependency and delinquency, distribution o f the poor funds, and social conditions generally.” The members o f the county boards serve without pay. The act further provides that the county board o f education and the board o f commissioners o f each county shall elect a county super intendent o f public welfare, who shall be a person qualified by character, fitness, and experience to discharge the duties o f the office. No one can be so employed until he has received a certificate of approval o f his fitness from the State board o f charities and public welfare. In certain counties the county superintendent o f public instruction may act as superintendent o f public welfare. The first duty laid upon the county superintendent is to act as chief schoolattendance officer o f the county. Other functions delegated to him as a county official include: (a) The care and supervision o f the poor and administration o f the poor funds; (b) promotion of wholesome recreation in the county and enforcement o f laws regu lating commercial amusement; (c) supervision o f prisoners on parole; and (d) oversight o f dependent and delinquent children, especially those on probation or parole. As an agent o f the State board, and under its direction, the county superintendent performs the following duties: (a) Acts as agent o f the State board in relation to any work to be done by the State board within the county; (b) supervises adults and children discharged or paroled from State hospitals, penal, correctional, or other State institutions ; ( g) investigates the causes o f distress and makes such other inves tigations in the interest o f social welfare as the State board may direct. The State board o f public welfare has actively promoted the development o f county boards and the appointment o f well-qualified superintendents o f public welfare. A director o f county organi zation is included on the staff o f the State board. The status o f county organization was reported as follows on August 25, 1926 : Total counties in the State____________________________ _ 100 Whole-time superintendents of welfare with assistants_______ Whole-time superintendents of welfare without assistants__ Part-time superintendents of welfare__________________________ Superintendent of public instruction serves as superin tendent of welfare------------------------------------------------------------------- 7 T44 8 41 5 The North Carolina system of county public-welfare work has been described in more detail in tw o Children’s Bureau publications previously cited : County Organization for Child Care and Protection, pp. 4 3 -5 3 , 151—154, and Public Child-Caring W ork in Certain Counties of Minnesota, North Carolina, and New York (in press). 6 N. C., act of Mar. 6, 1917, Public Laws of 1917, p. 320, ch. 170, amended by act o f Feb. 13, 1919, Public Law s o f 1919, ch. 46, and by act o f Mar. 4, 1921, Public Law s o f 1921. p. 385, ch. 128 ; Consolidated Stat. 1919, secs. 5014—5018, amended by Public Laws of 1921, ch. 128. 7 Of these 12 have clerical assistants. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis COUNTY CHILD CARING AND PROTECTIVE WORK 7 An important feature of the development o f county social work in North Carolina has been the summer-training course for county superintendents o f welfare conducted by the State university in cooperation with the State board o f charities and public welfare. Minnesota.8 County child-welfare boards were authorized by statute in Minne sota in 1917 9 in accordance with the recommendation of the State child-welfare commission. The law provides that the State board o f control, when requested to do so by boards o f county commis sioners, may appoint in each county three persons (at" least two o f whom shall be women), who shall serve without compensation, and, together with a representative o f the county board o f com missioners and the county superintendent o f schools, shall constitute a child-welfare board for the county. In counties containing a city o f the first class the board membership shall include five persons appointed by the State board. The county child-welfare board is tied up directly to the State board, the law specifying that it shall perform such duties as may be required o f it by the State board o f control. A secretary and necessary assistants may be employed by the county child-welfare board, persons thus appointed acting as executive agents o f the county board. In counties where no child-welfare board exists the judge o f the juvenile court may ap point a local agent to cooperate with the State board of control. Salaries o f secretaries or agents and expenses o f board members and agents are to be paid from county funds. The relation between State and local administration in childwelfare work has been described by the first director o f the children’s bureau, Minnesota State Board o f Control, in County Organization for Child Care and Protection,10 and the development of the county units is discussed in detail in Public Child-Caring Work in Certain Counties o f Minnesota, North Carolina, and New York.11 In the latter report it is stated that the county boards in Minnesota are expected to perform the duties o f the State board o f control in protecting, establishing paternity, and securing the support o f chil dren born out o f wedlock; in investigating {a) boarding homes and maternity hospitals for licensing, ( b) homes in which dependent children have been placed, and (<?) prospective adoptions; and in supervising dependent children and feeble-minded persons who have been committed to the guardianship o f the State board o f control. On the request of the juvenile court o f the county, the county board may investigate applications for mothers’ allowances and supervise families receiving such grants. They may cooperate upon request with the public officials or boards charged with the relief of the poor. 8 The operation o f the Minnesota system is described more fully in the two Children’s Bureau reports previously cited. 9 M inn., act of Apr. 10, 1917, Law s of 1917, p. 279, ch. 194, secs. 4 -7 ; Gen. Stat. 1923, secs. 4457—4461. 10 Hodson, W illiam W . : “ Organization and development of county child-welfare boards in Minnesota.” County Organization for Child Care and Protection, pp. 19—42. U. S, Children’s Bureau Publication No. 107. Washington, 1922. 11 U. S. Children’s Bureau publication. (In press.) https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 8 COUNTY CHILD CAKING AND PROTECTIVE WOKK The staff employed in the child-welfare work o f the counties in the fall o f 1926 was as follow s: Total counties in the State____________________________ 87 Counties having child-welfare boards__________________________ 80 W ith full-time executive secretaries_____________________ W ith part-time executive secretaries____________________ W ith no paid workers______________________________________ Counties having no child-welfare boards______________ _______ 17 4 59 7 W ith agents appointed by juvenile courts_________________ W ith no special county service for children--------------------- 2 5 Missouri. The Missouri law passed in 192112 authorized county courts in counties of less than 50,000 to appoint county superintendents of pub lic welfare and such assistants as might be required. The duties of the county superintendent were defined as follow s: 1. Administration of funds devoted to outdoor relief and allowances to needy mothers. 2. Supervision o f patients discharged or paroled from the State hospital for the insane. 3. Supervision o f prisoners on parole from the State penitentiary and the Missouri reformatory, and boys and girls paroled from the training school for boys and the industrial home for girls. 4. Cooperation with State employment bureaus. 5. Investigation o f condition of the poor, sick, and delinquent in the county and enforcement of school attendance laws. 6. Acting as probation officer of the county. 7. Investigation of requests for charity and applica tions of blind persons for pensions. The county superintendent o f public welfare may be deputized or authorized and required by the State board of charities and correc tions to act as its agent in any work to be done by the board within the county, and to act as local representative of the children’s bureau of the State board in its work o f finding foster homes and supervising children placed in them. He may also be deputized as an agent of the State factory inspector. He serves as probation officer and attendance officer, administers all county funds devoted to outdoor relief and allowances to needy mothers, and is directed to investigate the condition of the poor, sick, and delinquent of the county.13 In a leaflet published by the Missouri State Board o f Charities and Corrections, the purpose of a county department of public welfare is stated as follow s: To furnish in the county government one department which is responsible for all the social work done by the county; as there is a county superintendent to handle the school business of the county, as there is a county farm agent to look after the advancing o f farm interests in the county, so should there be a superintendent of public welfare to advance and conserve the human « M o ., act of Mar. 31, 1921, Law s of 1921, pp. 5 8 6 -5 8 9 . 13 Biennial Report of the Missouri State Board of Charities and Corrections, 1 9 2 3 -19 2 4 , p. 43. Jefferson City, Mo., 1925, https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis COUNTY CHILD CARING AND PROTECTIVE WORK 0 interests of the county. As the other departments are conducted by trained men, so is it even more important that a trained worker administer the social work of the county.14 In the smaller counties it is found practicable to combine in the person o f superintendent o f public welfare the duties of juvenilecourt workers, compulsory-attendance officers, and other officials dealing with the dependent, delinquent, and defective. In no county has preexisting work in these fields been eliminated. In the larger counties the different branches of work may be divided among a staff under the supervision o f the county superintendent. In November, 1925, the secretary of the State board o f charities and corrections reported that there were in the State 23 countywelfare superintendents, 8 o f them employed on full time, the remainder on part time. Virginia. In 1922, following the recommendations o f the Children’s Code Commission o f Virginia, the legislature enacted a body o f new child-welfare laws, the central administering agency for which was the reorganized State board o f charities and corrections called the Virginia State Board of Public Welfare. In order to extend the work of the State board into the counties, county and city boards o f public welfare were provided for. This law made it mandatory upon the circuit court o f each county to appoint, not later than two years from the date o f passage o f the act, a county board o f public welfare o f three to seven members, from a list o f eligibles submitted by the State board •o f public welfare. The creation o f a city board o f public welfare was optional with the corporation or hustings courts o f cities.15 The duties o f these county and city boards are to inspect all institutions o f a charitable or penal nature within the county or city; to interest themselves in all matters pertaining to the social welfare o f the people of the county or city; to direct the activities o f the superintendents o f public welfare when there is one; and to cooperate with the juvenile and domestic-relations courts “ and all other agencies operating for the social betterment o f the county or city.” When the board “ may deem it advisable and expedient ” they shall elect from a list o f eligibles submitted by the State board a county or city superintendent o f public welfare—to serve as the executive officer o f the board— and such assistants as are deemed necessary. Two or more counties, or a city o f the first class and a county, may unite in providing for such service. Under the law every superintendent is vested with the powers o f a police officer or constable. The duties o f the superintendent of public welfare cover a broad field o f cooperation with the State board o f public welfare. He acts as an agent o f the State board o f public welfare in relation to any work undertaken by the board in the county or city. Under the direction o f the State board, he supervises persons discharged or paroled from State institutions o f any kind and dependent children laced in the county or city by the State board. He also assists the u Conserve Human Resources ; a county superintendent o f public welfare needed. board of charities and corrections. Jefferson City, Mo. 16 Va., act o f Feb. 2 7 , 1922, A cts o f 1922, p. 156, ch. 105, secs. 1 2 -1 4 . https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis State 10 COUNTY CHILD CARING AND PROTECTIVE WORK State board in finding employment for the unemployed and makes investigations into the causes o f distress or any other investigations the State board may direct. In relation to relief activities carried on by the county the super intendent of public welfare has the care and supervision o f the poor and administers the funds formerly administered by the over seers of the poor. He administers mothers’ aid funds, where such funds exist, in accordance with the provisions of the State law. In cooperation with the courts he acts as chief probation officer for county or city. In addition to these definite functions it is his duty to “ foster cooperation and intelligent division of work between all public and private charitable and social agencies in the county or city to the end that public resources and charitable donations may be conserved and the needs o f the county or city be adequately cared for.” The report o f the Virginia State Board o f Public Welfare, issued in 1925, in discussing some o f the child-welfare laws enacted in 1922, states: These laws are on the statute books, and, with the funds provided, are being administered as well as could be expected, but they have not received the support needed either financially or morally to make them as effective as they might easily be * * *. It is comparatively easy to write a law into the statute book, but another thing to administer it, and there has been greater support in doing the former than the latter.16 The agent o f the board in charge o f the development o f county work said in a letter to the Children’s Bureau that because o f this lack of support the bureau- o f county and city organization, planned for as an important division o f the State board, is for the most part a nominal one, never having been provided for in the budget. The director of the county work has at present several other functions o f the State board to perform. It is reported that in the fall o f 1925 boards had been appointed in about 40 counties, but owing to inadequate supervision had not really functioned in more than 10 or 12 counties—those on which the State board had concentrated its efforts—and in these their work was felt to have justified their existence. Seven counties had superintendents o f public welfare, in accordance with the act o f 1922, and in 10 or more counties a public-health nurse or a Red Cross worker was to all intents and purposes serving as superin tendent. As there are 100 counties in the State, this leaves most o f them unorganized. Alabama. County boards o f child welfare were authorized by an Alabama statute enacted in 1923.17 This act authorized the judge o f the juvenile court (the county judge o f probate), when the county board o f education and the board o f county commissioners declare by resolution that a county child-welfare board should be established in that county, to appoint three citizens at large, two o f whom shall be women. These three members, together with the judge o f the juvenile court, the chairman o f the county board of education, 16 Sixteenth. Annual Report o f the State Board of Public W elfare o f Virginia, year end-/ ing June 30, 1025, pp. 6, 7. Richmond, 1025. ® A la., act o f Sept. 26, 1023, A cts of 1023, p. 380, No. 3 6 0 ; Code 1023, secs. 1 4 3 -1 5 2 . https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis COUNTY CHILD CAKING AND PROTECTIVE WORK 11 the county superintendent o f education, and one member of the board o f county commissioners, constitute a county board o f child welfare. As defined by the State child-welfare department, the duties o f the county board o f child welfare will be to “ cooperate with the judge o f the juvenile court; with the county and city boards o f education, in the enforcement o f the compulsory school attendance law ; with the county board o f health in matters relating to welfare o f children; and * * * with all other educational and social agencies, public and private, in the county for the coordination o f all work pertaining to the well-being o f children.” 18 The State Child-Welfare Department o f Alabama helps the counties to survey conditions and inaugurate the service needed. The duties o f the county superintendent o f child welfare include the follow ing: 1. Serving as probation officer of the juvenile court. 2. Enforcing the compulsory school attendance law. 3. Cooperating with the State child-labor inspector in the enforcement o f the State child labor law. 4. Acting as parole officer for any child living in the county paroled from a State institution. 5. Cooperating with the State child-welfare depart ment and all other public or private agencies having to do with or giving relief to children. 6. Cooperating with county boards o f health in public programs for children. It will be seen that these functions are very similar to those o f county superintendents in North Carolina, Virginia, and Missouri. The salary o f the county superintendent o f child welfare and other expenses may be paid jointly by the county board of education and the board o f county commissioners. Special funds for this work may be appropriated by any municipality in the county. Four counties had been organized by the State child-welfare department prior to the passage of the law in 1923. The director o f the child-welfare department stated in November, 1925, that during 1925 six counties were organized “ with full-time, trained, and well-paid social workers.” The director described the organi zation in one county as follows: C----------- County is entirely rural, being the first county in the production of cotton this past year. A most unique organization has been put on here where all the county agents, such as the county health officer, health nurse, home demonstration agent, county supervisor, and the farm agent, together with the new probation and school-attendance officer made an educational campaign in the county, holding eight or nine meetings at the consolidated schools attended by great groups of farmers interested in knowing what “ the county as a unit for an organized program of social work ” meant. And in regard to another county: Perhaps the most progressive program that has been inaugurated is in X -----------County. The plan is to place on duty in this county a trained social https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 12 C O U N T Y C H IL D CARIN G A N D PROTECTIVE W O R K worker to supervise rural field and case social-welfare work in the county, and in addition, to conduct classes and supervise county rural field and case social-welfare work. A ll these counties have been organized by the State department. The director says, “ First, we go into the counties and make a study o f conditions; second, present this study before the people; and third, go before the boards of commissioners and boards o f education to help secure the appropriation.” A ll local workers must be certi fied as to training and experience by the department, and it is stated that every county so far has left the selection of the worker entirely to the department. After the work has been organized in a county the State department receives monthly reports on its progress and makes “ friendly visits ” to help in keeping the work up to standard. One o f the difficulties in county organization in Alabama, as in the other States undertaking similar work, is to find workers properly qualified by training and experience. The type o f extension work undertaken in North Carolina by the State university in coopera tion with the State board o f charities and public welfare (see p. 7) is an important feature in the development o f county organi zation. PROGRAM OF SOCIAL W ORK PROMOTED BY STATE DEPARTMENT BUT NOT ACCORDING TO STATE-W IDE PLAN California, Georgia, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, and West Virginia constitute a group o f States in which county programs o f social work are promoted by the State department with or without statutory authority but not according to a general state-wide plan, the organization in each county being adapted to local needs. In these States the State departments have put much emphasis on advising and helping the counties to develop whatever methods o f work and cooperation between public or private agencies seem practicable in view o f local conditions. There are certain advantages in this method, based as it must be on education o f the communities as to needs and methods and subsequent development from within the county of its own program. On the other hand, the State functions ox investigation and supervision can not be developed so readily under this form o f county organization, and the need o f developing private agencies is much greater than where the nucleus is public and cooperation between public and private agen cies may be more successfully organized. C aliforn ia. The executive secretary o f the California Department of Welfare, in November, 1925, stated that the activities o f the department in connection with the organization o f county social work have con tinued along the same lines as those that were described in the Children’s Bureau publication, County Organization for Child Care and Protection.19 Surveys have been made in various counties in order to interest them in creating public-welfare boards. The 1925 law creating the State department of public welfare authorizes it to utilize the serv ices o f an “ approved and accredited inspection service ” in the issu18 County Organization for Child Care and Protection, pp. 55-71. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis county c h il d c a r in g and p r o t e c t iv e WORK 13 ance o f permits or licenses for institutions, boarding homes * * * or to engage in the finding o f homes for children or placing children in homes.” 20 Although this law .does not apply specifically to county boards it may be so interpreted, .and local agencies and organiza tions, including county boards, may be given the right to act as rep resentatives o f the State department. Twenty of the 58 counties of the State are reported as having paid workers devoting full time to social-service work in the county welfare departments. Georgia. The Georgia State Department o f Public Welfare has undertaken the task o f promoting social work in the counties not according to any set program for organization, but by working out with the existing local organizations the needs and possibilities in each county and by helping them to coordinate and extend the work as required to make social service available to all those in need. The director o f the division o f county organization o f the State department o f public welfare reports that the counties in Georgia are rapidly coming to see “ that the fundamental need in the welfare program o f caring for the delinquent and dependent is the organi zation o f county forces under trained leadership, for the effective cooperation o f all interested groups and the coordination of efforts which have hitherto been dissipated by working blindly and at cross purposes.” 21 As there is no special legislation authorizing this type o f work, the State department has undertaken it as a necessary part o f its public-welfare work. The report cited goes on to say: A s the official investigatory and advisory agency, it is the duty of the State department of public welfare, through its division of county organization, to find out how each county is caring for its dependents and to discover if the methods are such as lead toward rehabilitation o f the socially handicapped, so that they may be returned as productive citizens * * *, Where methods are found to be wasteful or inefficient, it is the duty o f this division to show how the county may organize its forces to do the work as it should be done. The need for organized and county work was pointed out in the State department’s report, which states that the 161 counties in the State were spending on outdoor relief to dependent families approxi mately $400,000. “ This amount,” the report says, “ is usually handed out in pitiful doles in various haphazard, unbusinesslike ways to what is known as the pauper list, with no facilities for finding out the real needs o f those applying for aid.” One county commissioner is quoted as saying, “ The delinquent and dependent o f our county is the biggest thing we have to deal with. W e spend from $500 to $600 a month on the dependent and disorganized families. It increases every month and we are getting nowhere.” People are placed on the “ pauper list ” or in the county almshouse by the county commissioners, acting usually upon petitions circulated by family or friends and signed by a large number o f voters. No effort is made to discover the real conditions and needs. 20 Calif., act o f Mar. 27, 1925, Law s o f 192-5, pp. 2 9 -2 5 , ch. 18. a F ootprin ts; report of fifth year’s work of the State department o f public welfare, June 1, 1925, p. 6. Atlanta, Ga. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 14 COUNTY CHILD CARING AND PROTECTIVE WORK Thirty-six families on the pauper list in one county were visited by the department’s agent and an investigation made o f conditions. Twelve o f the families were reported as not requiring the aid given, and relief was discontinued by the county. Fifteen additional families could have been removed from the county’s list i f a welfare worker had been available to solve the problems which were handi capping them. In other cases on the list families were woefully neglected because they were in need o f services o f various kinds which the county did not supply. Other problems that make county social work necessary are de scribed in the State report, including the need o f probation officers to make investigations o f juvenile cases and supervise children placed on probation and enforcement o f the school attendance law by a trained family-welfare worker. The State department esti mates that “ in the average rural Georgia county one trained welfare worker can handle the work with the county’s poor, its juvenile court, and its school attendance, with the assistance o f the volunteer help o f churches and civic organizations.” It is further stated that according to studies made in several counties proper investigation o f the pauper list would save the county enough money to pay the salary o f a trained welfare worker, especially with the addition o f the money now being paid by the county for school-attendance work. The policy underlying the promotion o f county social-welfare work in Georgia is thus stated in the department’s report: In each county the problem has been approached by the State department o f public welfare open-mindedly, with no preconceived ideas. Each county situation is considered individually by the department and on its own merits, and advisory service as to organization is rendered in the spirit o f cooperation and helpfulness. There is no desire to dictate local policies, but only a desire to render trained advisory service toward a successful and happy working out of the county-wide program. A s the official State agency, with the duties and responsibilities of developing a State welfare program, the department has tried to study the social problems in each county which present them selves constantly to county officials and private citizens. It has tried to see these problems from the standpoint of the county official in his efforts to be systematic and save m oney; from the standpoint of the citizen who would like to see service rendered to unfortunate people; and from the standpoint of the individual to whom service is rendered.*2 Although, as has been pointed out, the State department holds that a “ stereotyped plan for county organization for welfare work ” is not desirable, it is stated in the report that “ there are three phases o f the problem, namely, the relief work, the juvenile delinquency, and the school attendance, which logically seem to tie up in the small county. The juvenile court law, section 900 o f the Code, makes legal provision for the appointment o f a probation officer. The school attendance law makes mandatory provision for attendance officer and a commissioner o f the poor may be appointed according to section 550. On the basis o f any one or all o f these laws and o f the potentialities o f the county’s private agencies, various plans may be worked out.” \ Outside the 5 counties containing large cities, 13 counties were reported as having social workers. In 3 o f these counties this worker is connected with the local Red Cross chapter. In 7 counties 22 Footprints, pp. 16, 17. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis COUNTY CHILD CARING AND PROTECTIVE WORK 15 he is the probation officer under the juvenile advisory board, and in 3 counties a part-time probation officer. North Dakota. The development o f county social work in North Dakota is o f recent origin, but a beginning has been made in several counties. The children’s bureau of the State board of administration has undertaken the organization of county child-welfare boards as a part o f its program o f constructive child caring and protective work throughout the State. Because the State children’s bureau has been very much occupied since its creation in 1923, and educational prep aration is required in the counties as a basis for coordinating social work and improving methods, the work has progressed slowly. There has been, however, a definite aim. The State bureau seeks to create a demand for county organization from the counties them selves. The director o f the North Dakota Children’s Bureau says: From several counties has come the request for the organization o f county child-welfare boards. In one county the juvenile commissioner, a trained social worker, serves as secretary of the county-welfare board, her salary being paid by the county * * *. Problems o f child care in the county are brought before the regular meetings of the board. This board also serves as the official representative of the State children’s bureau. In B_______ County the county and the Red Cross finance a full-time experienced worker to whom come all problems concerning children in need of care, as well as general family-welfare work. The officials and public generally appreciate the value of this work and for the past years have supported it whole heartedly. The worker in this county also serves as juvenile commissioner to the district. The child-welfare board in C----------- County has not seen its way clear to financing a secretary, and therefore acts only in an advisory capacity. It is only a matter of time before there will be a trained worker in the field. The full-time trained secretary in W ----------- County is paid by the county and the Red Cross. There is no official organization of a board, as the board of the Red Cross and the county and city officials actually serve in that capacity. It is further reported that several counties have begun to work out plans whereby several adjoining counties, each financially unable to meet the expense of a full-time worker, could unite in the joint employment o f a social worker for the administration o f mothers’ pensions. In North Dakota several organizations, including the women’s clubs and parent-teacher associations, are sponsoring legis lation to authorize the organization of county child-welfare boards, and it is stated that there is every likelihood that the next legis lative assembly will consider this subject. The director o f the State bureau sums up the situation as follow s: The children s bureau has been in operation two years and during that period has been overwhelmed with problems concerning handicapped children. It is evident that effective work can not be done without the aid of locai units such as county child-welfare boards through which to work. The grave danger will lie in the inability of the county to support a qualified executive and the tendency to depend upon inexperienced, untrained service. Pennsylvania.“ The act under which the Pennsylvania department o f welfare operates, as amended in 1923, contains the provision that “ the 23 Except where otherwise noted information was received from the Pennsylvania De partment of W elfare, November, 1925. See “ Pennsylvania welfare problem founded on prevention, by A . E. Howell, field representative, State department of welfare, in The Nation’s Health,, Vol. V II, No. 8 (August, 1 9 2 5 ), pp. 5 3 4 -5 3 5 . ’ e https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 16 ' COUNTY CHILD CAKING AND PKOTECTIVE WOEK department of welfare shall have the power to promote the organi zation o f county councils o f social agencies and county welfare boards, the purpose o f which shall be to coordinate the social-welfare activities o f the counties.” 24 _Since its organization the department has promoted such activities in the counties.25 Under the authority o f the present law, the department o f welfare has on its staff “ a special representative in community-welfare organization, to consult with officials, citizens, agencies, and groups interested in local or county welfare work, to help them to find the best organization to suit their needs, to promote a better cooperation within the counties and communities, and to work out with other public and private agencies a general plan for county welfare organization in the State.” In November, 1925, what are known in Pennsylvania as “ county councils o f social agencies ” were reported to be in active operation in four counties and in process o f development in several others. In five additional counties “ welfare federations ” had been estab lished on a county-wide basis and in three other counties on practi cally a county-wide basis. Under a plan adopted as a result of the earlier program o f the welfare department in cooperation with other State departments, “ county welfare boards ” had been organized in three counties. “ One o f these boards now operates to some extent, another operates jointly with the county council o f social agencies, and the third has established a social-service exchange, but as a board it is at present inactive. None of these county welfare boards employs a paid worker, but two are planning to do so in the near future.” In regard to the definite part played by the department in the organization o f these activities, the field representative in charge o f county work states: The welfare department took the initiative in organizing these three county welfare boards and some o f the councils. It also influenced the organization, o f a few federations, but it is difficult to say just what part the department played in the establishment of several councils of social agencies and welfare federations now in existence. Probably the latter came almost altogether from local initiative. There are said to be indications that welfare departments may be a more logical development in some counties than welfare boards, and “ a few such county departments o f welfare appear to be slowly coming into being.” In such instances an officer is employed by the county commissioners to administer poor funds, or by several public agencies such as the mothers’ assistance fund trustees, directors of the poor, juvenile court, superintendent of schools, or by private family or child welfare agencies. “ The important thing seems to be to administer closely related welfare work in a logical district under the close affiliation o f agencies involved, or from a single office. Since in some places such a ‘ logical district ’ is determined more by the topography o f the region, by population, or industrial areas, it seems possible that political boundaries will not always be the best determinant for welfare administrative units.” The department has recognized the desirability of inspiring local initiative and aiding in the development of county plans in accordf P a., act o f June 7, 1923, Law s o f 1923, P. L . 498, No. 274, sec. 2006. 26 County Organization for Child Care and Protection, pp. 9 -1 1 . https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis COUNTY CHILD CAKING AND PROTECTIVE WORK 17 ance with the needs and resources that may be developed in each community. The field representative says on this poin t: The department’s purpose and method is to act in an advisory capacity and* as a clearing house for information. It encourages local initiative and leadership. Each community or county is considered on its own merits the whoie situation studied, and an attempt made to plan the organization to suit its peculiar needs. Apparently this method must be used for some time ni Pennsylvania, with the possible exception o f smaller counties * * * The department of welfare is at present inclined to believe that the more scientific and in the end the more fruitful means of promoting social welfare Pennsylvania is through aiding individual counties and communities to study their situation and adapt their form o f organization to local needs. The department o f welfare has worked on plans to be incorpo rated m a proposed bill giving legislative authority to the establish ment or county welfare boards; but, as has been indicated, no one system has appeared adaptable to the situation in all counties. A. tentative draft o f such a bill authorizing the appointment o f county welfare boards m all but first-class counties provides that the countv commissioners, upon the recommendation o f the county welfare board, shall employ a “ competent person who shall be thoroughly qualified by training and experience in welfare work as county superintendent o f welfare and such other assistants as they may deem necessary.” The salaries are to be paid out of the funds o f the county, and the superintendent o f welfare is to be the secretary o f the board and perform such other duties as the board may determine. * } J Upon “ due request and written agreement” the county welfare board is to furnish the services o f the county superintendent o f welfare and his assistants to— (1 ) The mothers’ assistance fund trustees for investigation and supervision o f cases receiving assistance. . (2) The poor-relief authorities for investigation and supervi sion o f applicants for relief. (3 ) The courts of the county for investigation and probation o f individuals brought before them. (4 ) The school authorities for attendance work and social case work with such school children as may need it. (5 ) State mental clinics, public hospitals, and public institu tions for social investigation and cases applying to them. (6 ) Any other governmental agency, public or semipublic insti tution for such social investigation and supervision as m av be needed. Under this proposed legislation the countv welfare board would further be given authority to conduct, at the request of the county commissioners, any other activity that the county commissioners are by law empowered to conduct which has to do with the social welfare and health o f the residents o f the county, and to enter into financial arrangements with any public or private body, institution, or agency to receive services from any qualified private agency or institution or to render services to them. South Dakota. The Legislature o f South Dakota in 1921 passed a law 26 creating county child-welfare boards. The law provides that the State childwelfare commission (a continuing body) shall appoint in each S. Dak., act Of Mar, 12, 1921, Laws of 1921, eh, 142, p. 232, https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 18 COUNTY CHILD CARING AND PROTECTIVE WORK county o f the State two persons to serve without compensation and. to hold office for two years. These two appointees, together with the county judge, the county superintendent o f schools, and the county superintendent o f health, constitute under the South Dakota law a county child-welfare board. The board acts in a general advisory capacity to the county and municipal authorities in dealing with questions of dependency and delinquency and social conditions generally. The 1923 bulletin o f the commission states that the work will be “ mostly in cooperation with the county judge, who acts also as juvenile judge, with the county superintendent o f schools regarding school attendance o f children, with the county commis sioners, and with the county nurse, where there is one.” 27 The board may appoint a secretary who, with the approval o f the county commissioners, may be paid a salary. The 1924 report o f the State child-welfare commission says that “ a county welfare board has been created in 42 counties (o f the total 68 counties in the State) at a total cost o f $769.86. This amount covered the expenses o f a visit by the secretary to 46 counties. 28 This represents work done within the period of a year and a halt. There is no mention in the report o f activities undertaken by these boards other than “ surveys ” nor of the employment of a trained staff. W est Virginia. The child-welfare commission reporting in 1923 to the West V ir ginia Legislature recommended authorization o f the establishment o f county welfare boards, or employment of county welfare secre taries where a board was not thought desirable, and this plan was enacted into law.29 The duties o f the board of county welfare or o f the county welfare secretary, were defined by the statute as follows : To advise and cooperate with and assist the State board of children’s guardians in its work in the county and to make such visitations and reports as the State board of children’s guardians may request ; to act in a general advisory capacity to the county and municipal authorities in dealing with questions o f dependency and delinquency, distribution of poor funds and social conditions generally. The following information received from the executive secretary o f the State board of children’s guardians illustrates the methods pursued by the State board in developing social work in the counties : Early in 1924 the County of M----------- offered to pay a district agent o f the State board a small salary in addition to what she was receiving from the State if she would demonstrate to them the need and value o f such work. By the end of the year the demonstration was so conclusively proven that the county employed a woman on full time to go on with this program. This practically resulted in relieving the local county overseers of the poor from further service. The county also named a woman probation officer at the county seat. Beginning with 1925, M-----------County had a trained woman on salary available for fam ily investigations of all sorts, equipped to go to any part of the county and make any form of investigation desired by judge, county prosecutor, sheriff, or local society. 27 Bulletin of the State Child-Welfare Commission of South Dakota, 1923, p. 5. Pierre, S Dak ’ 28 Second Biennial Report of the State Child-W elfare Commission of South Dakota, for the period ending1 June 30, 1924, p. 5. Pierre, S. Dak. 29 W . Va., act of Apr. 13, 1923, A cts of 1923, ch. 60, p. 202, https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis C O U N T Y C H IL D CAR IN G A N D PROTECTIVE W O R K 19 Shortly after this demonstration had so successfully ended, a neishborimr g iv iJ fu n S e “ » t o ^ S t t e f n e i g S S i g ‘c o u r n y M ? i J S Meanwhile another agent of the State board offered stration in F— -------County, provided they would follow it ment of a welfare secretary. The county court named a salary of $200 a month, and appointed the district agent assistant secretary for a period of three months on a S ' “ ¡X T 1 to make a demon up by the appointman prom ptly^ t a of the State board nominal sala rv to worfc The progress has » « * Other district agents o f the State board o f children’s guardians are carrying out demonstrations in other counties under varying terms.” The secretary o f the State board states: - . ’ I t may be said now that the program o f a county welfare secretary at the county courthouse m every county is the most practical solution o f the poor relief problem o f the counties. In rural counties in the mountainous sections where families are isolated in the narrow valleys and remote nooks it may be necessary to continue the overseers o f the poor for immediate-relief work ^ Sef Studl,eP and fam ily adjustments will eventually fall to the work of the county welfare secretary, with headquarters at the county seat * * * When the county levies are made another year, a great many counties will be prepared to make provisions for a county welfare secretary. Stressing the absence o f any single program and the State board’s policy m interesting the counties in the development of social work the secretary o f the board says: „ ^ e r e is no legal restriction on this work, but the poor law gives plenty o« Yde* Tbe State board o f children’s guardians has no legal control and no legal supervision beyond the general provision in the law. The State board acts in a friendly and advisory capacity when called upon by any agent n i , i o ^ mberS/ f thf Sta.te board willingly respond to calls for assistance and advice, and go down in person to help in adjusting any particular ease This whole program o f county welfare work in W est Virginia is extremely ^ m ocratic in purpose and spirit, and the counties seem to like the independence o f this program and freedom from direction by any State bureau or agency. COORDINATION OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE RELIEF PROMOTED BY STATE BODY The Iowa plan, as it has come to be known, is based primarilv on the combination o f the administration o f public and private relief, usually on a county-jurisdiction basis. The executor o f this county work is a social worker trained in the field of. family welfare Ihe work o f organizing county social-service leagues is conducted by the extension division o f the State University of Iowa. The social worker in charge o f the county-organization work o f the extension division says: The Iowa plan involves the organization o f a group o f local people repre senting the entire county as a local board of directors. The county supervisors for t i i .^em bers of this board, since they are responsible by statute for the administration o f poor relief from public funds, and the board usually includes representatives o f the county medical society, board of education farm bureau, and the chamber of commerce. This board employs a trained aS^ exe.cu.tlve’ aad a stenographer; their salaries are met in part by the board and in part by the county. Usually an office in the court house can be obtained through the county.80 In Iowa the social worker is responsible to the board for the proper social treatment o f those who apply for relief. The worker i o t Cottr£ ^ IW O , p . O oJ( Louise: “A social-working State university.' https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis The Survey, February 15, 20 COUNTY CHILD CARING AND PROTECTIVE WORK is also helpful to courts, schools, public-health nurses, private-relief organizations, and individuals, in dealing with the handicapped. “ It [the Iowa plan] provides the local courts with a trained social worker for all cases involving children or helpless adults. It sup plies trained social service to the schools in dealing with problem children. It strengthens a public-health program where there is one and helps evolve one where there is none. I t insures a reliable information service about institutional care and proper means for using it. It affords help in filing applications properly for State benefits available to certain groups of handicapped^ people. It pro vides vocational training for those handicapped for industry.” 31 A s has been stated, the board of directors o f the county socialservice league employs a full-time trained family social worker and also a full-time stenographer. The county board o f supervisors appoints the same social worker as overseer o f the poor, who has all the powers and duties conferred by law and is the agent o f the county board in dealing with dependent families. Inasmuch as she is the executive secretary o f the county social-service league, she has charge o f the administration o f all public relief and o f all relief collected by the league from private sources.82 The social worker on the State university extension staff says: The university conceives of social work as fundamentally educational in character. It has worked for years, through its extension division, trying to throw so much light on the inadequacy and social waste of unstandardized service and irregular doles that citizens will become fully conscious of these inadequacies and will demand something more nearly adequate to the need than the old system of outdoor relief administered by people not trained for social work. In November, 1925, 20 counties had full-time paid workers who administered public relief, and another county had voted to employ such a worker. In 18 counties the jurisdiction is county-wide, in 8 it covers a part o f the county. Fifteen o f the counties are employ ing workers with special training in social work, most of whom had had experience as family case workers. CARE AND SUPERVISION OF DEPENDENT. NEGLECTED, DELINQUENT, OR DEFECTIVE CHILDREN, WITH OR WITHOUT THE COOPERATION OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT In six States»—Arizona, Arkansas, Michigan, Indiana, New York, and Ohio— county organization has been confined to the care and supervision o f dependent, neglected, delinquent, and defective chil dren. In the three States first named the county board or county agent acts as agent o f the State board in investigating and super vising cases o f this type. The Indiana and Ohio boards have a less close relationship to the State departments, and in New York county organizations have been developed independently o f the State department. The county work represented in this group o f States is much more limited than in the other groups representing organized pro grams of social work in counties. However, the work now done may be the nucleus o f more general county programs. 31 The Survey, February 15, 1925, p. 582. . . . 33 Cottrell, L ou ise: Iowa Flan, for Organization of a County Social-Service League. U ni versity of Iowa Extension Bulletin No. 100, February 1», 1924. Published by the uni versity, Iowa City, Iowa. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis COUNTY CHILD CARING AND PROTECTIVE WORK 21 Arizona. The law enacted in Arizona in 192133 provides that the superior court o f each county o f the State shall appoint four persons “ at least two o f whom shall be women, and all o f whom shall be expe rienced as to the requirements for the support and maintenance o f children,” who shall serve without compensation as members o f county child-welfare boards. The members o f the county board shall provide for the investigation o f li the conditions surrounding any child within the county reported to it as being an orphan, waif, neglected, or abandoned child.” Such cases may be brought to the attention o f the board by any citizen. The county boards cooperate with the Arizona State Child-Welfare Board. Cases are investigated by them for the State board, and no application for aid is granted by the State without approval by the county boards. The State board provides care for dependent children in family homes and aids children in their own homes. According to information received from the secretary o f the State child-welfare board, the work is well systematized in only 2 or 3 o f the 14 counties o f the State, because the boards are handicapped by lack o f funds and by the fact that all the work has to be done j L unPa^ members whose personal duties sometimes makes this difficult, not to say impossible. The county welfare boards have not undertaken any special work with the juvenile court. Arkansas. County boards o f public welfare were authorized in Arkansas by a law passed in 1917,34 the State commission o f charities and correc tion being given power to appoint five persons in each county as members o f such boards. These boards were given the power and duty o f inspection of institutions and agencies in their counties, simi lar to the inspection power o f the State commission, and were to work under the direction o f the commission and report to it. In 1923, when organization o f county boards had just begun, the appropriation for the State commission o f charities and correction was discontinued. Two county welfare boards had at that time been named by the commission, neither of which had a paid executive. Michigan. The Michigan law provides for the appointment in each county by the welfare commission o f the State welfare department of a county agent who holds office during the pleasure of the commis sion.35 In most o f the counties the agents are employed at $5 per day and expenses. In Wayne and Kent Counties the board o f super visors has fixed a salary basis for the county agent and assistant county agent. In smaller counties the State commission has often found it advis able to link up the work o f the county agent with the work of the county school commissioner, the friend o f the court, and the proba tion officer, and in some instances he also acts as secretary of the county superintendent o f the poor. 33 Arizona, act of Mar. 7, 1921, Laws o f 1921, p. 92, ch. 53, secs. 1 0 -1 2 , Mar.*2 ! - 191?> LawB o£ 1917> act No. 297, p. 1520, sec. 6'; Digest of Stat. 1921 (Crawford and M oses), sec. 1024. 35 Mich., Comp. Law s 1915, secs. 1 9 9 0 -1 9 9 6 ; act o f Sept. 25, 1919, P. A of 1919 (extra session), A ct 22, amended by act of May 24, 1923, P. A. 1923, Act 244, p. 391. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 22 COUNTY CHILD CARING AND PROTECTIVE WORK The county agent works under the direction o f the county probate judge and the State welfare department. The work of the county agent36 includes: Investigating petitions filed in the juvenile divi sion of the probate court; investigating applications for licenses to board children; investigating homes for licensed child-caring and child-placing agencies; investigating homes in which children are placed by maternity hospitals and supervising children so placed. In addition the county agents o f the State department investigate homes from which application is received for State wards and make subsequent visits to homes in which wards have been placed by licensed child-caring agencies. In most counties the* investigation of applicants for “ mothers’ pensions ” is done by county agents. In addition to the county agent the State welfare department has four district supervisors who devote their entire time to the super vision of wards placed out by the State school for dependent chil dren and the industrial schools for boys and girls. These supervisors work in close relationship with the county agents in their activities concerning State wards. County boards o f children’s guardians were established in Indiana in 1901.87 In 1925 there were 92 such boards.38 The boards o f chil dren’s guardians are appointed by the circuit and juvenile courts of the counties and serve as assistants to the courts. They exercise supervision over dependent and neglected children assigned to their guardianship by the court and may place such children in institu tions or in foster homes, or board them with their own mothers at a rate not exceeding 75 cents a day for each child. The county boards are required by law to make monthly reports to the board of state charities, which exercises general supervisory powers over placedout children and also carries on child-placing work. New York. . The child-welfare work that has been developed in certain coun ties in New York State as a public function is generally conceded to be the result of the activities carried on for 30 years by the State Charities A id Association, a private agency working in cooperation with public officials in the promotion of county child-carmg and pro tective work. The law under which one o f these counties operates, the methods employed, and the results attained are discussed in the United States Children’s Bureau publication Public Child-Caring Work in Certain Counties of Minnesota, North Carolina, and New York and reference is made to the somewhat similar public activi ties in two other counties. The work for children in these coun ties represents a broad field o f child-caring and child-protective work carried on by trained and experienced staffs under the control of boards o f county officials. In one o f the counties commitments a, Mich. Comp. Laws 1915, secs. 1991, 2 0 1 4 -2 0 1 5 (sec. 2015 being amended by act of June 15, 1921 (1st extra session), A ct No. 24, P -J7 9 j i t A ? % NTn iQß n 248 * Como Laws 1915, soc. 2 0 0 4 ; act o f May 18, 1913, P. A . II n S , A c t 2oo, p ° 4 9 0 , ’s e l 4 ? ’ C o m T l Ä 1 9 1 5 , ’ secs. 1 9 9 0 -1 9 9 6 , 722& -72& 0; Comp. Law s 1915, sec.. 9 0 1 7 amended bv act of June 15, 1921, P. A. 1921 (1st extra session). No. 16, p. 785 ^ fnd act of M tr 11 1901 Laws of 1901, p. 369, ch. 173 amended by act o f Mar. 3, 1Q23 Taws o f 1923 p 176 ch 6 1 : Burns’ Annotated Stat. 1926, secs. 4 3 4 4 -4 3 5 1 . 192 8* £ B u l P e t o V e r i t i e s and Correction, No. 141, j W , 1925, pp. 110, 219. The Board of State Charities, Indianapolis, Ind. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis COUNTY CHILD CARING AND PROTECTIVE WORK 23 can not be made by the county court to any private institution or agency; they can be made only to the board of child welfare or to State institutions. In the other counties the county boards have general oversight o f all wards of the county. In these three counties the boards provide for the care o f dependent children in foster homes or in institutions, and do general children’s aid and pro tective work. r Ohio. In 1921 the Ohio Legislature passed a la w 40 empowering counties to appoint county boards o f child welfare which should provide care for dependent children through placement in family homes or otherwise, in lieu o f maintaining county children’s homes. Such county child-welfare boards, consisting o f four members serving without compensation, may be appointed with the approval o f the State department o f public welfare when “ in the judgment o f the county commissioners the best interests o f the dependent wards o f the' county will be subserved thereby.” In March, 1925,41 three counties had appointed boards o f child welfare under the provisions of this law and were providing for dependent wards through the use o f boarding and free foster homes. In two o f these counties the former children’s homes had been aban doned; in the third, a remodeled residence was being used as a receiving home, pending placement. SUM M ARY The reports from the States make it evident that, important &s 8TG the terms o f the laws authorizing county welfare activities and the forms o f organization employed, the most vital factor is the underlying idea o f promoting social service, whether by public or by private agencies, based on the best modern principles, with prevention o f dependency and delinquency as its goal. The character o f the local work depends on what the superintendent and the county board make it. The law may enumerate the duties, but it can not fix the quality o f the service given. The supervisory authority o f the State board or department has proved to be o f the greatest importance in securing the appointment o f executive officers qualified for the work and in furnishing advice and assistance to county boards and encouraging high standards o f service. I* probable that, given the necessary appropriations, almost any board o f county commissioners which appreciated the need j inaugurate work for the protection o f dependent and neglected cnfidren on a constructive social-work basis, if they so desired, but the absence o f these two factors retards such activities. County work has been extensively developed only where there has developed throughout the State a general appreciation o f the problems to be dealt with and the value o f the proposed methods. It has been demonstrated that the cost o f administration is often more than compensated for by savings in poor relief or other 3 0 9 2 ° ^ ^ 2 - L Une 7 ’ 1 921’ LaWS ° f 1921, p‘ 5 3 3 ; Pa^e’s Annotated Code (1 9 2 6 ), secs. 41 Ohio Welfare" Bulletin, Vol. I, No. 3, M arch, 1925. Department o f Public W elfare, Columbus, Ohio. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Published quarterly by the Ohio 24 COUNTY CHILD CARING AND PROTECTIVE WORK expenditures that had been administered wastefully under the old system. The saving in other ways is demonstrated less easily but is far more important. Children who are kept in their own homes through assistance to the family, instead o f being removed to insti tutional or agency care; families who are helped to maintain a normal home; boys and girls who are saved from commitment to institutions for delinquents and given real probationary supervi sion; children who are removed from surroundings that are injuring them physically or morally; crippled children for whom hospital or clinical treatment is arranged; constructive service in a multitude of conditions— these are the real criteria o f the value o f making this service available to remote rural sections as well as to cities. Including only the States in which the county work is broadly inclusive, the various experiments may be divided into two main groups: ' . . 1. County organization in which the executive is an official repre sentative of the State department o f welfare or board of charities, performing certain State functions such as supervision o f boarding homes or other foster homes; supervision o f children on parole from State institutions; administration o f child labor and compulsory education laws, case work with unmarried mothers and children, investigation o f adoption cases, and the combining o f these State functions with duties in connection with local relief administration, probation work, and children’s aid and protective work. 2. The development of constructive social-service work which coordinates the work of public or private agencies through the activi ties o f a social worker employed jointly by several organizations or through a board representative o f the various forms o f service in the county. It is significant that this development of the county as a unit for social work has come about almost entirely through the instru mentality o f State departments o f welfare or boards of charities. This is an indication of the changing theory o f the functions o f a State department from that of a purely supervisory and lawenforcement authority to that of an agency which promotes social welfare through aiding in the development o f constructive service by public or private agencies in all parts o f the State, having as its objective the solution in accordance with present-day stand ards o f the problems o f dependency, delinquency, and mental and physical handicap. There has come in State work an increas ing recognition of the needs and rights o f the individual State wards. This individualization in treatment has led to a search for causes and to the institution o f preventive measures. Prevention and reconstruction are recognized primarily as the functions o f the local county and community. In child-caring work the emphasis is being placed increasingly on the value o f home care. This is true not only in regard to dependent children, but also to the delinquent, physically handicapped, and men tally defective children whose condition is such that with safety to themselves and the community they can be cared for at home. Child dependency is being prevented through temporary aid in preserving the child’s* own home. When it is necessary to place a child in the care of an agency or an institution efforts are directed toward mak ing the conditions in his own home such that he may be returned at https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis COUNTY CHILD CARING AND PROTECTIVE WORK 25 the earliest possible time. For children who have committed offenses against the law probationary supervision has largely taken the place o f commitment to institutions, and such children are being considered as in need o f special care and guidance, with custodial care as a final resort when home conditions require it or when the child is in need o f special training and supervision which can not be secured locally. Corrective treatment through clinics and equipment for training in local public schools are making it possible for deaf, blind, and crippled children to remain in their own communities while receiv ing medical care and education. Supervision in the community has been found to be a solution o f part o f the great problem of mental defect. Whether this work can best be done under public auspices or through a coordination o f the services o f public and private agencies and whether one worker or a corps o f workers is necessary depend often on local county conditions. O f fundamental impor tance is the application o f the principles o f social case work to each individual problem that presents itself, and the coordination of the work o f social agencies in the county, whether public or private, so that wasteful expenditure may be eliminated and that skilled service may be made available in all parts o f the county. It is not to be expected that any one form o f organization will be considered practical in all types o f communities. State and county conditions must be taken into account in planning what is likely to prove most successful in each case. It is not the organization o f county boards that is important but the social-service work that these boards make possible. Whether this is done after special legislative authorization o f such county service or whether it is developed through education o f county after county in the principles o f con structive social work, is comparatively unimportant if it is found that the same ends can be attained as speedily and as effectively by either method. It seems evident, however, that little progress has been made in the development o f such county work until a central State body, usually the State board or department o f charities or o f welfare, has undertaken a campaign of education and assistance to the counties. It is encouraging that in a period o f less than a decade 18 States, whose work is herein described, have definitely undertaken to develop the counties as units o f social service. 0 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis