Full text of The Public Child-Welfare Program in the District of Columbia, Bureau Publication No. 240

View original document

The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.

LS.
Z4 o

Z ò:
v.

THE PUBLIC
CHILD-WELFARE PROGRAM
IN THE

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

CHILDREN’S BUREAU
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

1938

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
F rances P erkins, Secretary

CHILDREN'S BUREAU . . . K atharine F. L bnroot, Chief

THE PUBLIC CHILD-WELFARE
PROGRAM IN THE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA
BY

EMMA O. LUNDBERG

Bureau Publication N o. 240
(Revised and enlarged edition)

United States
Government Printing Office
Washington : 1938

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

f
CONTENTS

■

•

Letter of transmittal_______________________ '__________________
Progress toward adequate care and protection__________________ 1111”
Changes of the past 20 years____________________ I I IIIIH IIII
Scope and purpose of the present study__ _______________________
Conclusions and recommendations_________________ ”__ I .I I I I I ” ” ”
Archaic laws and inadequate funds handicap child welfare.I._I
Public care for dependent children should be available without court
commitment____________ ______________________ _____;___
Removal of children from their homes should be determined by
investigation and case work__________________________________
Types of care should be available to meet individual needs_______
Special attention is needed for the colored child_______ •__ ___8
Broken homes create child-welfare problems_________I . I I I I I I I I I I I
The rate of child dependency in the District is abnormally high!” ”
Child dependency, neglect, and delinquency can be prevented____ II
Next steps in developing a child-welfare program_________________
Legal background of child care and protection in the District of Columbia 11
Origin and jurisdiction of the public child-welfare agency_________
Institutions under the Board of Public Welfare_______________ 21
Home care of dependent children________________________ ___~
Organization and staff of the Child-Welfare Division_______ I I I I I I I I I ”
Responsibilities and personnel_____________________________ I ” ”
Investigation and temporary-care department________________
Permanent-care department____________________________
Home-finding department______________________________
Department of medical care and supervision___ ______________
Outstanding needs of the Child-Welfare Division__________ I _ . I I II
Intake and adjustment work of the Child-Welfare Division_______ I . I I I
Court commitment of dependent and neglected children_________ II
Investigation and intake work of the Child-Welfare D ivision.!” ” ”
Method of handling complaints of dependency and neglect_____
Advice and referral___________________________________ 33
Field service________________________________________ IIIII
Investigation for admission to the District Training SchooLlI 11
Dependent and neglected children before the juvenile court________
Sources of petitions_____ •_______________ _____________I I I ”
Types of commitment___________________ '________ I I I I I I I I I
Rehearing of temporary commitments_______ ,___________I I I ”
Delinquent children committed to the Board of Public Welfare.” ” "
Dependent and delinquent wards of the Board of Public Welfare_____ II
Number of children and care provided___________________ I I I I I I I I
Wards of the Board of Public Welfare___________________________
Sex, race, and reason for commitment____ I . I I . I I I I I I I I
Temporary and permanent commitments___________________ II
Types of care___________________________________ I I I I I I I I ”
Maintenance from public funds_____________________________
Public aid to dependent children in their own homes.IIIIIIII” ” ” ” ”
Prevention of child dependency through home care___ __
Aid under the Home-Care Act of the District of Columbia________ I
Families aided and annual expenditures_____________________
Average grants_______________________________________ I I I ”
Children aided______________________________________ IIIIII
Families on relief rolls eligible for aid to dependent children________
Aid to dependent children under the Social Security Act___________ I

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

v
1

4
4

g
6
7
10
11
12
15

19
19
23
24
24
25
26
27
27
27
31

31
33
33
34
35

36
36
36
37
39

42
42

43
43
44
45

49
49

50
50
51
52
52

CONTENTS
Page

Delinquent children before the juvenile court------- -------- ---------- ------Purpose and scope of study------------------------------------------------------Official and unofficial cases_____________________________________
Ages of the children--- ------------------------------------------------------------Offenses charged against boys---------------------------------------------------Offenses charged against girls----------------------------------------------------Record of previous offenses-------- ----------------------------------------------Home conditions as a cause of delinquency----------------------------------Whereabouts of the children. ----------------------------------- ----------------Parental status---------------------------------------- - — 7-------------- .-------Dependent children under the care of public and private agencies and
institutions-----------------------------------------------------------------------------Federal census of dependent and neglected children----------------------High rate of child dependency in the District------------------- -----------Public and private care------------------------------------------------------------Racial distribution------------------------------------------------------------------Ages of children under care-------------------------------------------------------Ages of children when received for care— -----------------------------------Length of time under care--------------------------------------------------------Status of parents of dependent children--------------------------------------Preventing removal from homes. _----- --------- -- - - ------------------------Child-caring agencies and institutions in the District---------------------Types of care given dependent children---------------------------------------Appendix tables-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

56
56
56
57
58
60
61
61
62
63
66
66

69
70
70
71
72
74
75
76
80

LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
U. S.

epartm ent of L abo r,
C h il d r e n ’s B u r e a u ,

Washington, January 27, 1938.
I transmit herewith a report of a study of the public childwelfare program of the District of Columbia by Emma 0. Lundberg
of the Children’s Bureau staff. The report is the result of a request
of the Board of Public Welfare of the District of Columbia that the
Children’s Bureau make a study with a view to working out the best
possible program for the care of dependent, neglected, delinquent,
and defective children in the District of Columbia. The entire report
was made available to the Board in manuscript form, and the first
part, which presents the conclusions and recommendations of the
study, was published separately in 1937.
Together with the study of public institutions for delinquent
children in the District by Ruth Bloodgood, published in mimeo
graphed form in 1937, and the study of private institutions and agen
cies and certain aspects of the public program in the District recently
completed by the Child Welfare League of America, this report makes
available information on which community planning for the needs of
dependent, neglected, and delinquent children may go forward. If
these studies are to bear fruit in improved provision for the children
for whom the District of Columbia must assume special responsibility,
certain changes in both legislation and administrative organization
are needed, as well as increased appropriations, to provide opportuni
ties for preventive work with children in their homes before their
problems become so acute that the children require long-continued
and expensive care as public wards. It will be impossible, however,
to provide a broadly comprehensive program for the welfare of the
needy children of the District of Columbia until adequate provision
is made for public assistance to all families in which children are in
need of shelter, food, and care that their parents are unable to provide.
Respectfully submitted.
M

adam:

K a t h a r in e F . L e n r o o t , Chief.

Hon.

F r a n c e s P e r k in s ,

Secretary of Labor.
T

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

'••o VSéi ;V.;a*: «J .o . >.

;i í í M K’ inrr..;;

q . í,{-ÍÍ4í»

5'
1

>Á<h
% vyiff

í í itv

i. ." ..i f
:jm

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

ï’\

iUUfi

1 14* '* Äffc , b * .
?. /!
’ ¡o

THE PUBLIC CHILD-WELFARE PROGRAM IN
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
PROGRESS TOWARD ADEQUATE CARE AND
PROTECTION
Changes of the Past Twenty Years

At intervals during the past 20 years studies have been made of
child-welfare activities in the District of Columbia.1 All these studies
have been undertaken at the request of official boards or committees
or local organizations concerned with social welfare, and the findings
and recommendations have been accorded careful consideration by
the sponsoring organizations as well as by the agencies concerned.
Certain changes have been effected, but progress on the whole has
been very slow.
Noteworthy gains have been achieved, however, within the past
few years. In 1924, after concerted efforts had been made by officials
and residents of the District for more than 10 years, an institution
for the care of the feeble-minded was established. Twelve years after
the first bill for the purpose was introduced in Congress, public aid to
dependent children in their own homes was authorized and an ap
propriation was made available in 1926. Recommendations of the
Commission on Public-Welfare Legislation resulted in 1926 in im
portant changes in the law relating to the organization and activities
of the public-welfare board, The relief emergency brought recogni
tion of public responsibility for family relief and service, and in August
1932 the Board of Public Welfare created an Emergency Relief Divi
sion, later reorganized into a Public-Assistance Division for administra
tion of general relief and the forms of assistance made available through
the Social Security Board. In the field of mental hygiene, progress has
been made through the establishment of various clinics under private
auspices, and there is awareness of the need for a mental-hygiene
clinic under the Board of Public Welfare. Activities for improvement
of housing conditions are under way. Many other reforms affecting
social welfare might be cited.
The problems confronting the Child-Welfare Division of the Board
of Public Welfare and the juvenile court are substantially the same
today as they were 15 or 20 years ago. Encouragement may be
gained from the continuous efforts that have been made to obtain
‘ Published reports of studies by the U. S. Children’s Bureau include: M ental Defectives in the D istrict
of Columbia (Publication No. 13, Washington, 1915): and Child Dependency in the District of Columbia,
by Emma O. Lundberg and M ary E. Milburn (Publication No. 140, Washington, 1924). Other reports on
studies of administration of public child care by the U. S. Children’s Bureau and similar studies by the
Child Welfare League of America have been made available in manuscript form. Studies of special phases
of child-welfare problems have been made from time to time under the auspices of the Washington
Council of Social'Agencies and other local organizations.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

THE PUBLIC CHILD-WELFARE PROGRAM

legislative changes and appropriations that will enable the Board of
Public Welfare to carry on its child-caring activities more humanely
and effectively. likewise, the effort to obtain a modem juvenilecourt law is a perennial activity in the District, which now seems
about to come to fruition. Aside from the gain that has been made
through the provision of public aid for dependent children in their own
homes and for general relief to families, little progress has been made
by public or private agencies in the prevention of child dependency,
neglect, and delinquency through constructive measures that will
tend to reduce the steady stream flowing into the juvenile court and
the Child-Welfare Division of the Board of Public Welfare. Under
the limitations that now exist, the work of the court and the public
child-caring agency must of necessity deal mainly with ameliorating
conditions that have developed through neglect of fundamental social
action in behalf of children who need protection and care.
Scope and Purpose of the Present Study

At the request of the Board of Public Welfare, the present study
was undertaken by the Children’s Bureau of the United States De
partment of Labor to assist the Board in planning its child-welfare
program. The report that follows is concerned with the legal and
administrative foundations of the public child-caring agency, the
types of problems that come to the Child-Welfare Division of the
Board of Public Welfare and through this Division to the Industrial
Home Schools, and the relationship between the Board and the juvenile
court, the two public agencies primarily concerned with children in
need of care, protection, or correction.
The juvenile court of the District of Columbia is the door through
which practically all child-welfare problems enter other public agen
cies. The policies and methods of the court, its legal limitations,
and its equipment are therefore of vital importance to the whole childwelfare program of the District. The present study relates to the
court only with respect to its policies and practices in committing
dependent, neglected, and delinquent children to the Board of Public
Welfare.
The Child-Welfare Division and the juvenile court gave the fullest
cooperation to the Children’s Bureau, and everything possible was
done to facilitate the study. Information was obtained in regard to
dependent, neglected, and delinquent children dealt with during
specified periods, through compilation and analysis of statistical data
and through reading and summarizing a large number of case records
in the files of the Child-Welfare Division and the juvenile court.
Policies and problems of relationship with other organizations and
methods of case treatment were discussed with representatives of the
agency and the court.
This report is presented in two parts. The first part gives conclu
sions and recommendations and suggests next steps in the public
child-welfare program. The second and more detailed part of the
report, in addition to a discussion of the work of the Child-Welfare
Division, includes a section on public aid to dependent children in
their own homes, dealing briefly with the “home care” provided by
two other Divisions of the Board of Public Welfare. The develop
ment of this form of assistance is of the greatest importance to child
welfare.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

There are also included in this report two statistical sections, one
showing the number and types of delinquency cases coming to the
attention of the juvenile court in a 4-month period, and the other
presenting data on dependent and neglected children under care of
public and private agencies and institutions in the District of Colum
bia. Analysis of the child-care problem dealt with by the public
agencies in relation to the whole volume of child care in the District
was facilitated by the cooperation of the United States Bureau of
the Census, which made available to the Children’s Bureau the original
reports of the census of dependent children on December 31, 1933,
covering all public and private child-caring institutions and agencies
in the District.
The study of child-welfare work in the District of Columbia was
begun in the fall of 1935, and the analyses of case records in the
juvenile court and the Child-Welfare Division, which formed the
basis for further inquiry into intake and interrelationships between
the two agencies, covered the 4 months, April through July 1935.
After an interruption of several months, during which only general
contact was maintained with child-welfare developments in the Dis
trict, the study of case treatment and agency relationships was
resumed, and an analysis was made of data relating to children
under care of the Board of Public Welfare on November 1, 1936.
Data through September 1937 are included in the sections of the
report dealing with dependent and delinquent children under care
of the Board and with aid to dependent children in their own homes.
Emphasis has been placed upon the nature and causes of childwelfare problems and the social policies and practices of the public
child-caring agency and the court in dealing with child dependency,
neglect, and delinquency, with the hope that the findings might be
of some definite help in planning services for the prevention and con
structive treatment of these problems. It has been the aim especially
to suggest steps that might be of immediate importance in connection
with the cooperation of the District of Columbia in the Federal socialsecurity program for child-welfare services.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

CONCLUSIONS A N D RECOMMENDATIONS
Archaic laws and inadequate funds handicap child welfare.
Child welfare in the District of Columbia is handi
capped by archaic laws that prevent the proper
functioning of the juvenile court and the Child-Welfare
Division of the Board of Public Welfare. The child
caring agency is seriously understaffed, and additional
funds are needed for the care of children in boarding
homes.

The juvenile court and the Board of Public Welfare, through its
Child-Welfare Division and the institutions under its control, com
prise interrelated parts of the public program of child protection,
correction, and care. The court provides legal controls and safeguards
and case-work services; the Board offers maintenance and service for
children who require care that cannot be given by their natural
guardians.
The assistance given by the District of Columbia to its children
who are in need of special care and protection has suffered because of
three major difficulties: (1) Archaic provisions in the law relating to
the juvenile court and to the powers and duties of the Board of Public
Welfare with reference to child care and protection; (2) failure to
provide for adequate staff in the Child-Welfare Division of the Board;
(3) maintenance funds that are not sufficient to provide for each child
the kind of care needed. Coordinate with these handicaps, and of
even greater importance from the point of view of preventing child
dependency, neglect, and delinquency, have been the lack of adequate
provision for maintenance of children in their own homes, especially
m families where the mother alone is responsible for their support,
and the insecurity of public funds for family relief.
4

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Public carefor dependent children should be available without court commitment.
The Board of Public Welfare should be given legal
authority and the necessary funds to give such protec
tive service as may be required, and to care for children
whose dependency or neglect is not caused by overt
misconduct of parents, without court action committing
the children to the guardianship of the Board.

The law relating to the public child-welfare agency in the District
of Columbia and madequate funds for care of children in their own
homes and for social service have placed the emphasis upon care of
children away from their own homes. Children can be received for
care only through court commitment to the Board of Public Welfare;
unless children are committed by the court, payment from public funds
for their maintenance is not allowed under the law for more than 7
days. This means that commitments are often made in order to pro
vide support for children who must be cared for temporarily but for
whom some other plan might be made within a short time. Tempo
rary commitments for a few months or a year are repeated, often over
a period of years, and many of the children are finally committed as
“permanent” or “minority” wards of the Board.
When there is overt parental neglect or mistreatment, or when chil
dren have no natural guardian, provision for their guardianship and
care must be made through court action, but there is no logic in a situa
tion that makes it impossible for the Board of Public Welfare to furnish
care for children who require temporary maintenance during an emer
gency in the family, just as aid is now given by the Board to families
under the Home-Care Act and through its general family-relief
administration.
I t has long been recognized by those concerned with child welfare
in the District of Columbia that the purposes of protection and care
of dependent children would be served better if the public agency
were enabled to do child-welfare work in its broadly constructive mean
ing. This requires: (1) Changes in the existing law to permit the
Board \>f Public Welfare to receive children for care without court
commitment, except in cases where neglect or mistreatment by par
ents or other guardians necessitates court action to remove children
from their legal custody; (2) expansion of the activities of the ChildWelfare Division so that thorough case-work service may be given
by an adequate staff of experienced workers in all cases coming to
the attention of the agency, without reference to the question whether
the children should be committed as wards of the Board.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

THE PUBLIC CHILD-WELFARE PROGRAM

Removal oj children jrom their homes should be determined by investigation
and case work.
Thorough investigation of family conditions and the
needs and characteristics of each child should be
made in every case in which there is a question of
removing the child from his home for care or training.
Many children have been committed to the Board for
placement in institutions or foster homes before the
necessary facts have been obtained, and case work
that might have removed the need for commitment has
not been available.

Removal of a child from his home, even for a short period, is a
major operation and should be resorted to only after a careful diagnosis
has been made of the conditions that affect his welfare and it has
been found that he cannot obtain the necessary care or discipline
without such action. This principle should be axiomatic, but it has
not been possible to apply it in all cases coming to the attention of
the public agencies in the District.
In order to prevent needless acceptance of children as public wards,
for either temporaiy or permanent care, and to insure for each child
the kind of care and treatment he needs, there must be thorough
investigation of family conditions and the characteristics of the indi
vidual children. In the past, lack of facilities for careful study before
court action has meant that many children have been placed in insti
tutions before their home conditions have been investigated suffi
ciently, and without case-work service to the home that might have
prevented the need for removal of the child.
If adequate case-work services were available, acceptance for place
ment in foster homes or in institutions would occur only when other
methods of providing for the children or of safeguarding them in
their own homes had failed. If the Board had legal authority to pay
for maintenance of children without court commitment, it would be
possible to provide temporarily for those who require immediate care
but for whom other plans could be made later through case-work
services.
§
With the present limitation imposed upon the Board, children are
in danger either of being neglected because the situation does not
warrant court action or of being committed to the Board and remain
ing public wards indefinitely in the absence of assistance needed by
the families or of definite action to enforce parental responsibility.
Because of its small staff it is not possible for the Child-Welfare
Division to maintain the necessary contacts with families of its wards
so that the children may be returned to their own homes if home
conditions change. Effective case work for children, other than that
involved in caring for them in foster homes or institutions, is not at
present a part of the child-welfare program of the Board of Public
Welfare.
Provision of constructive child-welfare service in the public agency
would inevitably result in increasing demands for service that is not
now supplied adequately by private or public agencies in the District.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

It would probably mean also a reduction in expenditures for main
taining dependent children away from their own homes. The restric
tions imposed by archaic laws and wasteful limitations of funds
should be replaced by real social service in behalf of children who
are in need of special care and safeguards. The Child-Welfare Divi
sion of the Board of Public Welfare should become a protective as
well as a child-caring agency, equipped to serve all children who need
help that is not available from their own families or from private
organizations.
Types of care should be available to meet individual needs.
The Child-Welfare Division of the Board of Public
Welfare should be enabled to provide for each child
who requires care away from his own home the type
of care that will best meet his needs. For children
who should have certain forms of training or discipline,
care in an institution may be desirable; for others,
foster-home care, free or with payment of board, may
be more suitable. Under present conditions in the
District, disposition must often depend upon what is
available rather than upon what the individual child
requires. The Child-Welfare Division is understaffed,
and boarding-home funds are insufficient to provide
the care and protection needed.
The Child-Welfare Division makes noteworthy use of foster homes
for the care of dependent and neglected children under its guardian
ship. I t also boards children in private institutions or places them
in the two Industrial Home Schools. But under present conditions
the type of care provided for wards of the Board must often be
determined by financial necessity rather than by the needs of each
child. This is due in part to lack of adequate funds for payment of
board, but even more to the insufficient staff for home finding, place
ment, and supervision.
For the proper care and training of children committed to the Board
because of delinquency, it is essential that funds be available so that
foster-family care may be provided whenever this is more desirable for
the child than placement in one of the Industrial Home Schools. Case
work and supervision for these children require a staff especially equipped
for this service. Under present circumstances it appears evident that
the public institutions are sometimes used for dependent as well as for
delinquent children because the institutions are readily available,
rather than because they are particularly suited to the individual
needs of the children who are placed there.
There is no magic in foster-home care as such. Unless the home and
the child are adjusted to each other, placement in a family home may
be as unfortunate as placement in the wrong kind of institution. Cer
tain children will be helped most by training that can be given in an
institution, but the institution must be equipped to give real training
and not merely custodial care. The only safe rule is to provide for each

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

THE PUBLIC CHILD-WELFARE PROGRAM
8
child the kind of care and training that is likely to furnish opportunities
for healthful development—physical, mental, and spiritual—and that
will correct bad habits and compensate in a measure for deprivation of
normal home life.
Limitations of staff, as well as insufficient funds for boarding care,
prevent the Child-Welfare Division from giving all its wards suitable
care. The recommendation has been made repeatedly in previous
studies of the work of the Division that the staff engaged in finding
boarding homes and free homes should be increased. Likewise there is
urgent need for larger child-placing and supervisory staff, so that
children requiring foster-home care may be placed in homes that will
assure the nght kind of care and training for each child.
Not only is a more adequate staff needed for the child-caring and
social-service activities of the Child-Welfare Division, but the office
force also is very inadequate. With the insufficient stenographic
service available at the time of this study, it was impossible to keep
the records up to date. Without complete and up-to-date records,
treatment and supervision cannot be carried on properly. The
Division is seriously handicapped in its efforts to give constructive
service to the children placed under its guardianship.

Special attention is needed for the colored child.
Because of economic conditions and resulting bad hous
ing and demoralizing environment, child dependency,
neglect, and delinquency are unduly high among the
colored population of the District. The care and train
ing of colored children are made more difficult by the
absence of necessary facilities, particularly for girls.
Work for the prevention of delinquency, dependency,
and neglect among colored children must concern
itself with fundamental reforms in living conditions
and provision of special safeguards for the children.
According to the last Federal census 27 percent of the population
of the District of Columbia are colored. Of the children coming before
the juvenile court because of delinquency during the period covered
by this study, 68 percent were colored; of the children brought before
the court as “destitute of a suitable home”, 31 percent were colored.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

On October 1, 1937, colored children comprised 77 percent of the
wards of the Board of Public Welfare who were committed because of
delinquency, and 52 percent of those committed because of depend
ency or neglect.
Case histories in the court and the Child-Welfare Division tell the
story for a large number of these children. Mothers who must
support the family often go to their places of employment early in
the morning and return home late at night, leaving the children to
shift for themselves. Lack of opportunities for wholesome activities
leads the children into forbidden forms of recreation or into law
breaking—playing ball in alleys, begging, selling without a license,
unauthorized use of an automobile which has been left conveniently
unlocked, or serious forms of theft or burglary. Nothing, apparently,
can be done for the children except to remove them from their homes
and place them under the guardianship of the public agency for care
in other homes or in institutions. It becomes a never-ending circle
of commitments and recommitments.
The solution lies much deeper than in bringing the children before
the court and temporarily removing them from poor homes or bad
neighborhood influences. Positive action is needed: Removal from
insanitary, overcrowded quarters or better still, as the District has
long recognized, elimination of the alley dwellings that endanger
health and morals; provision of opportunities for wholesome recreation
and for the development of interests; and, for children whose mothers
must be away from home during the day, special provision for super
vised activities during the hours when schools are not in session. A
constructive program for the prevention of neglect and delinquency
would cost far less than the amount that is now being expended for the
ameliorative service given the children who come to the attention of
the public agencies in ever-increasing numbers.
Insofar as possible colored wards of the Board of Public Welfare
are given the same kind of care as white children. But there is_ a
serious gap in the provision made for colored girls. The Industrial
Home School for Colored Children receives only boys. As there is
no institution in the District for colored girls, a number of them are
boarded in a private institution in Maryland. Other girls who should
be given opportunities for training and who need special discipline
or supervision are boarded in family homes that are not suited for this
responsibility, and “absconding” is prevalent. Another alternative
has been commitment to the National Training School for Girls,
which, as a result, has had under care about six times as many colored
girls as white girls. In connection with the changes contemplated for
this institution, consideration may well be given to the whole problem
of the care, training, and discipline of delinquent colored girls, safe
forms of care for dependent girls, and methods by which the need for
institutional care could be decreased.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

THE PUBLIC CHILD-WELFARE PROGRAM

Broken homes create child-welfare problems.
Instability of home life is the cause of a large part of
the burden that society now bears through its child
caring and correctional activities. Next to the death
of one or both of the parents, illegitimate birth is the
largest factor in child dependency in the District of
Columbia. Divorce, desertion, and separation account
for a considerable part of the child care assumed by
public and private agencies and institutions. More
than two-fifths of the children who come before the
juvenile court because of delinquency are from broken
homes. Some of this dependency and delinquency
could be prevented if adequate funds were available
for relief and constructive service to families.
Illegitimate birth is a large factor in creating child dependency.
Of the children included in the United States census of dependent
children in the District of Columbia as of December 31, 1933, at least
21 percent were born out of wedlock. Of the white children dependent
upon agency and institution care, 13 percent were of illegitimate
birth, and of the colored children 35 percent. In contrast to the usual
conception of “orphanages”, only 9 percent of the children in institu
tions and foster homes were whole orphans; 12 percent were halforphans through the death of the father and 16 percent through the
death of the mother. The fathers of 5 percent of the children were
in penal or other institutions. Including the mothers of children born
out of wedlock for whom there were reports, the mothers of 6 percent
of the children were in institutions, a considerable number in the
District institution for the feeble-minded. The census reports did not
show the prevalence of divorce, separation, and desertion.
The background of delinquency is somewhat different from that of
dependency, as far as parental status and whereabouts are concerned.
Of the children brought before the court because of delinquency, 56
percent came from homes in which parents were living together; 42
percent came from broken homes. There is a significant difference
also in the number of cases in which the father was dead—15 percent
of the delinquent children were in this group. Two percent were
whole orphans. The mother was dead in 7 percent of the cases.
Three percent were of illegitimate birth. Two percent were children
of divorced parents; the fathers of 6 percent and the mothers of 1
percent had deserted their families. The parents of 8 percent of the
children were living apart for other reasons.
These figures on parental status are indications of conditions that
lie behind dependency, neglect, and delinquency. The presence of
both parents in a home by no means indicates a normal home, as case
histories amply testify. But homes broken by the death of a parent,
by desertion, divorce, or separation, with the accompanying financial
insecurity of mothers left alone to provide for the children, are sources
of a large part of the burden that the public is now assuming through
its child-caring and correctional activities.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

The rate of child dependency in the District is abnormally high.
The number of dependent children in the District of
Columbia in comparison with the number of children
under 18 years of age in the general population is
unduly high. Measures for the prevention of needless
child dependency would undoubtedly reduce the
burden to the public and, more important, would
greatly benefit the children. Aid to dependent children
in their own homes and other forms of family relief and
service are especially important.
Data obtained by the Bureau of the Census in its latest census of
dependent children, December 31, 1933, showed that 1,966 children
whose residence was the District of Columbia were cared for in
institutions or foster homes on the date given. This means that
because of dependency or neglect 16 in every 1,000 children under 18
years of age in the population of the District are cared for away from
their own homes by public and private organizations.
Approximately 52 percent of the dependent or neglected children
belonging in the District of Columbia were cared for at public expense,
and 48 percent were cared for by private organizations. Many of
these children were not totally dependent upon public or private
support, but the number of those under public care for whose main
tenance some contribution is made by relatives is comparatively
small, and in all cases some part of the cost must be borne by the
agencies.
Care had been provided for 33 percent of the children for 5 years
or more. Some of them had been in institutions or foster homes for
15 years or more.
In the entire number of dependent and neglected children the racial
distribution did not differ greatly from the racial distribution in the
general population. Two-thirds of the dependent and neglected chil
dren were white and one-third were colored. Maintenance for colored
children is provided chiefly by the Board of Public Welfare; compara
tively little provision is made for them by private organizations. Of
the wards of the Board of Public Welfare 58 percent were colored,
whereas only 9 percent of the children provided for by private organi
zations were colored.
Forty-seven percent of the dependent children cared for by the 20
public and private agencies and institutions located in the District of
Columbia were in institutions; 43 percent were in family homes in
which board was paid; 8 percent were in free homes; and 2 percent
were in wage or work homes.
The Child-Welfare Division uses boarding-home care extensively;
75 percent of its wards were boarded in family homes; 8 percent were
in institutions; and 17 percent were in free, wage, or work homes.
Private organizations, on the other hand, cared for 92 percent of their
children in institutions, only 7 percent in boarding homes, and 1 percent
in free homes.
As a result of this difference in methods of care used by public and
private organizations, 65 percent of all dependent and neglected white
14788— 38------ 2

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

THE PUBLIC CHILD-WELFARE PROGRAM

children were in institutions, 29 percent in boarding homes, and 6
percent in free or work homes. Of the colored children, on the other
hand, only 11 percent were in institutions, 72 percent were in boarding
homes, and 17 percent were in free or work homes. The care provided
for each dependent child should meet his individual needs. The study
indicated that the availability of certain types of provision often
determines the kind of care a child receives. This is true particularly
of the private organizations, although financial considerations and
the existence of institutions also determine the type of care given by
the public agency.
In its rate of dependent children, Washington ranks second among
the 31 city or county areas in the United States whose populations,
according to the last census, range from 250,000 to a million. This
record emphasizes the need for measures that would assist in elimi
nating causes of child dependency. Aid to dependent children in
their own homes is one method whose effectiveness has been demon
strated, in the District as elsewhere. On the basis of data reported
to the Bureau of the Census for cases in which the mother was in the
home and the father absent, it is estimated that at least 300 of the
children who were in institutions or foster homes might have been
eligible for public aid in their own homes.
Family relief and service are means of preventing child dependency
and neglect. It is of the greatest importance to child welfare in all
its phases that adequate funds be provided for general public assist
ance to needy families and that the present development of aid to
dependent children in their own homes continue along lines that will
insure adequate aid and constructive service.
Child dependency, neglect, and delinquency can be prevented.
Prevention of child dependency or neglect and of
juvenile delinquency is concerned largely with the same
basic problems. Detrimental conditions in the home or
in the environment lie at the root of most of the difficul
ties that bring children to the attention of courts and
protective and child-caring agencies. Individual mal
adjustment can usually be traced to this origin. Pre
vention must deal with sources.
Child dependency, neglect, and delinquency can be prevented.
Constructive action for the reduction of these problems must deal
with conditions in the home, the neighborhood, and the community,
as well as with causes of individual maladjustment. Absence of
healthy family life, because of social or economic conditions in the
home, deprivation of the interests and activities needed for normal
development, mental subnormality or abnormality of the individual—
these are the sources of most of the difficulties that necessitate inter
vention for the care, protection, or discipline of children. Neglect

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

of preventive measures places an ever-increasing burden upon the
public child-caring and correctional agencies.
There is no doubt much truth in the agencies’ assertion that the
majority of the children committed to public care in the District of
Columbia as dependent, neglected, or delinquent require this drastic
action because of home conditions detrimental to their welfare. At
the point where most cases now come to the attention of the public
agencies foster care appears usually to be a logical conclusion. At an
earlier stage, case work with families and with individual children,
accompanied by maintenance aid where required, might have pre
vented the necessity for removal of children from their homes. More
over, there are many children who because of poverty or other demor
alizing conditions in their homes need assistance or safeguards that
they are not now receiving, and many potential delinquents who
could be saved from careers of delinquency if they were given greater
security at home, protected from degrading influences, and provided
with the proper outlets for their natural love of adventure.
When a child has been removed from his home, for whatever
reason, restoration to the home is much more difficult than prevention
of the family break-up would have been. To avoid removing children
from homes in which they might be cared for properly or to make it
possible to return them to homes from which they must be removed
temporarily, it is necessary to have available adequate aid to families
who cannot maintain good home conditions without assistance. The
mothers’ aid or Home-Care Act of the District of Columbia has made
it possible for many homes to be kept intact when the father is dead,
absent from the home, or incapacitated. It is not possible to measure
statistically the effect upon the volume of child dependency, neglect,
and delinquency, but there can be no question that such aid plays a
vital part in all phases of child welfare. Much more than has been
possible in the past needs to be done by the Board of Public Welfare
in general family relief and service as well as in the special form of
assistance to children dependent upon the mother for support, for
which funds are available under the Social Security Act.
Prevention of delinquency has two aspects: (1) Correcting condi
tions likely to lead to delinquency and helping boys and girls to over
come tendencies and practices that get them into trouble; (2) saving
those who have committed delinquencies from the necessity for legal
action in court. Both these aspects require early and definite case
work with the child and his environment. Qf great importance in
the reduction of juvenile delinquency and affecting a much larger
number of children than those coming to the attention of the court is
the preventive work that may be done by the schools and by public
and private social agencies through effective treatment of behavior
problems of children and rehabilitative service for families. Moderniz
ing the Juvenile-Court Act will make it possible for the court to deal
with delinquency more constructively and to cooperate more effec
tively with public and private child-welfare agencies for the prevention
of juvenile delinquency.
Sufficient recognition has not been given to the importance of mental
defect as a cause of dependency, neglect, and delinquency. Institu
tional care and training of mentally defective children have been made
available within recent years to a much greater extent than formerly.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

THE PUBLIC CHILD-WELF ARE PROGRAM

But even if the District Training School were equipped to receive all
those who are known to require custody or training, it by no means
represents the entire program needed for protection of the mentally
defective children of the District. Supervision of feeble-minded
persons in the community, including those paroled from the institution,
should be provided for by the Board of Public Welfare, in addition to
the care and training provided by the District Training School and the
special classes in the public schools. Adequate provision for mental
examination and psychiatric study and treatment is an essential part
of a program of prevention of social maladjustment.
The legal and financial handicaps now imposed upon the juvenile
court and upon the child-welfare activities of the Board of Public
Welfare stand in the way of constructive work by these agencies. The
work of private child-caring and protective agencies and institutions,
which care for almost half the dependent or partly dependent children
in the District, is no less vital than the public child-welfare program.
The intake policies of institutions and the extent to which institutions
apply or fail to apply social-work principles are important factors in
the control of child dependency.
For the prevention of dependency, neglect, and delinquency there
must be greater coordination of the services of public and private
child-welfare organizations in the District and integration of the work
of child-welfare and family-relief and service agencies so that preserva
tion of the home may be the primary consideration whenever possible.
Not only the maintenance and protection that public and private
welfare agencies can give, but the other fundamental needs of children
must be supplied, by utilizing community resources for health con
servation, spiritual and moral development, education, and recreation.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

NEXT STEPS IN DEVELOPING A CHILD-WELFARE
PROGRAM
The juvenile court and the Child-Welfare Division of the Board of
Public Welfare, together with the institutions under the jurisdiction
of the Board, constitute the public agencies maintained by the Dis
trict of Columbia for the care, protection, and correction of dependent,
neglected, and delinquent children whose needs are not met by the
provision for home care of dependent children and for general family
relief. In addition, the National Training School for Boys receives
delinquent boys committed by the juvenile court of the District of
Columbia. The services of the Board of Public Welfare and the
juvenile court should be so developed as to afford a coordinated and
complete program of care and protection for all children in need of
assistance by public agencies.
In order to develop such a program certain changes in the laws
relating to the juvenile court and the Board of Public Welfare are
necessary. They include:
1. Complete revision of the juvenile-court law to provide
procedure in accordance with modern and generally
accepted juvenile-court standards.2
2. Revision of the law relating to the Board of Public Wel
fare, so that the Board may provide protective service
for any child who is neglected, dependent, or mentally
defective, or who is in danger of becoming delinquent;
and so that the Board may, at the request of parents,
guardians, or social agencies having custody of a child,
provide such care as may be needed without commit
ment by the court, except in cases where court adjudi
cation of custody or guardianship is necessary.
3. Provision for admitting girls to the National Training
School for Girls without court commitment, so that the
Board of Public Welfare may use this institution on the
same basis as the Industrial Home Schools; removal of
the restrictions on funds of the National Training School
for Girls and on the “board and care” appropriations of
the Child-Welfare Division, so that foster care may be
provided for girls on parole from the school.
Until these changes are made in the law governing public child care
and protection in the District and until adequate funds are appropri
ated by Congress, the Child-Welfare Division of the Board of Public
Welfare cannot provide the services needed for dependent, neglected,
and delinquent children. In addition to legal authority to provide
■care for dependent children without court commitment and without
* A bill (H. R. 4276), which would provide for juvenile-court work in the District of Columbia a legal
.foundation in accordance with the best standards of juvenile-court procedure, was passed by the House on
Mar. 1, 1937, and amended and passed by the Senate on Aug. 14, 1937. It was sent to conference on Aug.
17,1937, and may be acted on at any time before the close of the Seventy-fifth Congress.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

THE PUBLIC CHILD-WELFARE PROGRAM

the present limit of 7 days, outstanding needs of the Child-Welfare
Division include:
1. A staff of social workers, clerks, and stenographers large
enough to permit adequate investigation and case-work
services, to provide suitable foster homes for all children
under its care who require such homes, and to give to
all children for whom it is responsible the degree of super
vision and the kind of assistance demanded by modem
standards of child care.
2. Provision for covering the cost to the United States Civil
Service Commission of setting up examinations for socialwork positions in the District of Columbia government
for which examinations for Federal departments are
not appropriate. Reallocation of civil-service grades
for case workers and supervisors in order to make it
possible to employ persons with the requisite training
and experience in social case work and to raise the salary
scale throughout the Division.
3. A greatly expanded department of intake and social
service to provide protective services for neglected
children and such case work as will obviate the necessity
of foster-home and institutional care for dependent
children whenever possible.
4. Reorganization of child-placing activities, eliminating the
present classification according to the presumable length
of time children will remain under care, and assuring
continuity of work with individual children.
5. Development of a department with especially equipped
workers for care and supervision of children committed
to the Board by the juvenile court because of de
linquency and those for whom the court may, by
informal arrangement, request temporary care or
supervision.
6. Increased funds for boarding-home care so that children
who are not in need of the types of care and training
provided by public or private institutions may be
placed in carefully selected family homes.
7. Practical coordination with the Divisions of Public
Assistance and Home Care for Dependent Children of
the Board of Public Welfare with respect to applications
and intake, and such interchange of services as will give
to these two Divisions the benefit of special childwelfare services in families receiving public aid and will
place primary emphasis upon maintenance of a child’s
own home whenever possible through assistance and
supervision.
8. Provision of a public mental-hygiene clinic which can
serve the schools, the court, and the Board of Public
Welfare, making psychological and psychiatric service
available to all children under supervision or care of the
Child-Welfare Division.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

For the prevention of child dependency, neglect, and delinquency
there is need not only for constructive services by the child-caring and
correctional agencies, but for community action that will affect the
sources of dependency and maladjustment, including—
1. Rehabilitation of homes whenever possible, instead of the
easier, but from all points of view more expensive,,
maintenance of children away from their own homes by
public or private agencies.
2. Adequate funds and maintenance of proper standards for
public aid to children in their own homes.
3. Provision of adequate relief and service to needy families
not in the categories for which Federal funds are
granted.
4. Coordinated planning for the activities of private and
public child-caring agencies and institutions, so th at
every child may be assured of the kind of care he needs
instead of the care given being dependent upon the type
of provision that happens to be available.
5. A comprehensive program for the care, training, and pro
tection of the mentally defective, including adequate
facilities for care and training both in the District
Training School and in special classes of the public
schools, and provision by the Board of Public Welfare
for supervision of feeble-minded children in the com
munity, including those on parole from the District
Training School.
6. Development of adequate facilities for the care and
training of colored dependent, neglected, and delin
quent children, especially girls!
7. Study of the relation of bad housing, d e m o r a li z in g environ
ment, and lack of recreational facilities to the high
dependency and delinquency rates among colored
children.
8. Study of the whole problem of illegitimacy; inauguration
of constructive legal and social measures for assistance
of unmarried mothers; protection of the rights of mother
and child; enforcement of parental obligations for sup
port; and protection of children from the exploitation
that results from unsupervised placements and transfers
of custody.
9. Enactment of laws regulating transfer of guardianship
and providing legal and social safeguards for adoption.
10. Further development of coordinated planning and action
on a neighborhood or district basis for constructive rec
reational opportunities, wholesome neighborhood condi
tions, and methods of early discovery and treatment of
problems of child neglect and delinquency.
Under title 5, part 3, of the Social Security Act, Child-Welfare
Services, an annual allotment of $10,000 to the District of Columbia
Board of Public Welfare is authorized on the basis of a plan formu
lated jointly by the Board and the United States Children’s Bureau
for services to children who are dependent, neglected, or in danger of
becoming delinquent. A program for child-welfare services under a
plan approved by the Children’s Bureau on May 8, 1936, was inaugu
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

THE PUBLIC CHILD-WELFARE PROGRAM

rated by the Board of Public Welfare, with the cooperation of repre
sentatives of other public and private agencies. The main objective
is to demonstrate the need for adequate case-work services and the
practical results that may be attained in the prevention of child
dependency, neglect, and delinquency. With the limited funds avail
able, this work will necessarily be restricted, but it should afford a
means of showing the types of services that must be made available
throughout the District for the protection of its socially handicapped
children. [A brief report of child-welfare services in the District of
Columbia was written by A. Madorah Donahue, Director of the ChildWelfare Demonstration Unit, Board of Public Welfare, and published
in the Children’s Bureau monthly periodical, The Child, for September
1937.]

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

LEGAL BACKGROUND OF CHILD CARE AND PROTEC
T IO N IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Origin and Jurisdiction of the Public Child-Welfare Agency
In 1890 Congress created the office of Superintendent of Charities for
the District of Columbia, which was superseded in 1900 by the Board
of Charities. In 1892 the Board of Children’s Guardians was created.
Under an act of 1926, reorganizing the public-welfare activities of the
District, both these Boards were abolished and their powers and duties
were vested in a Board of Public Welfare.3 A Child-Welfare Division
was established in the new Board of Public Welfare to continue the
work of the Board of Children’s Guardians.
The Public-Welfare Act of 1926 includes the following provisions:
(a) The Board may make temporary provision for the care of children pending
investigation of their status; (6) to have the care and legal guardianship of children
who may be committed by courts of competent jurisdiction and to make such
provision for their care and maintenance, either temporarily or permanently, in
private homes or in public or private institutions, as the welfare of the child may
require. The Board shall cause all of its wards placed out under care to be visited
as- often as may be required to safeguard their welfare and when children are
placed in family homes or private institutions, so far as practicable such homes or
institutions shall be in control of persons of like faith with the parents of such
children: * * * (c) to provide care and maintenance for feeble-minded
children who may be received upon application or court commitment, in institu
tions equipped to receive them, within or without the District of Columbia.

The act provides that “the foregoing enumeration shall not be in
derogation of any further powers or duties now vested by law in the
Board of Children’s Guardians, and such powers and duties are
hereby vested in the Board.”
. . .
.
Hence the law governing the public child-caring and protective work
of the District of Columbia is found not only in the Public-Welfare Act
of 1926 but in measures enacted during the past 50 years. It needs
clarification and amendment with reference to powers and duties of
the child-caring agency and of the courts.
Prior to the creation of the Board of Children’s Guardians an act
of 1885 “for the protection of children in the District of Columbia”
reestablished the Association for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
for the District of Columbia as the Washington Humane Society and
authorized it to extend its operations to the protection of children as
well as animals from cruelty and abuse. The act provided that any
child “subjected to cruel treatment, willful abuse, or neglect, or any
child under 16 years of age found in a house of ill fame” could be
brought before the police court, and this court was empowered to
commit such children to an orphan asylum or other public charitable
institution.4 When the Board of Children’s Guardians was created
in 1892 it was given the care and supervision of children of the followJ 26 Stat. 308; 27 Stat. 268; 31 Stat. 664; 44 Stat. 208.
«23 Stat. 302.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

THE PUBLIC CHILD-WELFARE PROGRAM

ing classes: All children committed under the act of 1885; and all
children under 16 years of age “destitute of suitable homes and
adequate means of earning an honest living, all children abandoned
by their parents or guardians, all children of habitually drunken or
vicious or unfit parents, all children habitually begging on the streets
or from door to door, all children kept in vicious or immoral associa
tions, all children known by their language or life to be vicious or
incorrigible,” whenever such children were committed to the Board by
the ponce court or the criminal court of the District.
The Board was empowered to make temporary provision for the
care of children, pending investigation or judgment of the court.
Legal guardianship of all the children committed to it was given to
the Board, and it was authorized to board children in private families
or in institutions willing to receive them, to bind them out or to ap
prentice them, or to give them in adoption to foster parents.
The reform schools for boys and for girls 5 were authorized to com
mit children in those institutions to the Board, which was authorized
to place such children at work, to bind them out or to apprentice
them, also to return them to the school from which they came, at
any time before their majority. The law specified that children
received temporarily should not be kept longer than 1 week, except
by court order.
In 1893 authority for placing feeble-minded children was trans
ferred from the Secretary of the Interior to the Board of Children’s
Guardians.8
In 1901 Congress provided that children under 17 years of £ige
“convicted of a petty crime or misdemeanor” might be committed
temporarily or permanently by the judges of criminal and police
courts to the custody and care of the Board of Children’s Guardians.
The Board was authorized to “place, under contract, such children in
such suitable homes, institutions, or training schools for the care of
children as it may deem wise and proper.” For the purpose of aid
ing the court in a proper disposition of children, the Board was directed
to designate one of its employees as probation officer to make such
investigations as the court might direct and to represent the interests
of the child when the case was heard.7
An act to create a juvenile court in the District of Columbia was
passed in 1906;8 it vested in this court original and exclusive jurisdic
tion (with certain exceptions) “of all crimes and offenses of persons
under 17 years of age” committed against the United States within
the District of Columbia, and of all offenses committed by such per
sons against the laws, ordinances, and regulations of the District.
The powers and jurisdiction conferred on the police court by the law
of 1885 for the protection of children were transferred to the juvenile
court. Jurisdiction concurrent with the criminal court was given to
the juvenile court over parents or guardians refusing or neglecting to
provide food, clothing, and shelter for any child under 14 years of age.
The juvenile court was given power to deal with cases of children
under 17 years of age charged with habitual truancy and, at its discre
tion, to commit them to the Board of Children’s Guardians. In 1912
authority to hear cases involving determination of paternity of illegiti* Later called the National Training School for Boys and the National Training School for Girls.
• 27 Stat. 552.
' 31 Stat. 1905.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

mate children and orders for their support was given to the juvenile
court.®
The juvenile-court law provides that “all children of the class now
liable to be committed to the reform school for boys and the reform
school for girls shall hereafter be committed by the juvenile court to
said schools respectively. All other children delinquent, neglected,
or dependent * * * shall hereafter be committed by the juve
nile court to the care of the Board of Children’s Guardians, either for
a limited period on probation or during minority, as circumstances
may require, and no child once committed to any public institution
by the order of the juvenile court shall be discharged or paroled there
from or transferred to another institution without the consent and
approval of the said court.”
The juvenile-court law defines a dependent or neglected child as
“any child who is destitute or homeless or abandoned or dependent
upon the public for support, or who has not the proper parental care
or guardianship, or who habitually begs or receives alms, or whose
home, by reason of neglect or cruelty or depravity of the parents, is
an unfit place for such a child, or any child under 8 years of age
found peddling on the streets.” The term “delinquent child” includes
“any child who has been convicted more than once of violating any
law of the United States, or any laws, ordinances, or regulations in
force in the District of Columbia.”
A law of 1906 declared nonsupport of wife or of children under 16
a misdemeanor punishable by fine or by imprisonment in the workhouse at hard labor or by both such fine and imprisonment. Juris
diction in such cases was vested in the juvenile court by laws of 1910
and 1912.10 In 1922 the United States Supreme Court held that the
penalty of imprisonment “at hard labor” made violation of the act
an infamous crime. As the juvenile court does not have jurisdiction
over infamous crimes, it could not assume jurisdiction over nonsup
port under this law.11 In 1926 Congress corrected the difficulty by
striking from the 1906 law on nonsupport the words “at hard labor.” u
Legal authority with respect to its powers and functions has been
given to the Board of Children’s Guardians not only through direct
legislation by Congress but also in annual appropriation acts. Thus
the appropriation act for the year ended June 30, 1922, provided that
no part of the moneys appropriated should be used for the purpose of
visiting any ward of the Board of Children’s Guardians placed out
side the District of Columbia and the States of Virginia and Maryland,
and a ward so placed must be visited not less than once a year by a
voluntary agent or correspondent of the Board. It also provided that
the Board “shall have power, upon proper showing, in its discretion,
to discharge from guardianship any child committed to its care.”
These provisions, unchanged except as to the name of the Board,
have been repeated in the appropriation acts for each subsequent
year.13
Institutions Under the Board of Public Welfare
When the District of Columbia public-welfare activities were reor
ganized in 1926 the two Industrial Home Schools for children were
placed under the management of the Board of Public Welfare. The
»37 Stat. 134.
i" 34 Stat. 86; 36 Stat. 403; 37 Stat. 134.
11 United States v. Moreland, 258 U. S. 253.
i* 44 Stat. 716.
J* 41 Stat. 1137 and later appropriation acts.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

THE PUBLIC CHILD-WELFARE PROGRAM

Industrial Home School receives white boys and girls, delinquent,
dependent, and neglected. The Industrial Home School for Colored
Children receives delinquent, dependent, and neglected boys.14
The Industrial Home School was organized as a private institution
in 1879 and was transferred to the Commissioners of the District of
Columbia in 1896. It was placed under the Board of Children’s
Guardians in 1923.
In 1907 the District opened a separate institution for colored chil
dren. Congressional appropriations had been made in 1904 and 1905
for plans and the erection of buildings for the Industrial Home School
for Colored Children and in 1906 for completion of the buildings and
salaries of the staff.16
In the early years children were admitted to the Industrial Home
School independently of the Board of Children’s Guardians as well as
through the Board. Since 1913 both institutions have received chil
dren only through the Board of Public Welfare. Delinquent or
dependent children committed to the Board of Public Welfare by the
juvenile court may be placed in these institutions at the discretion of
the Child-Welfare Division of the Board. I t was formerly the
practice of the juvenile court to specify at the time of commitment the
mstitution in which children were to be placed by the agency; its
practice in recent years has been to leave the type of placement to the
discretion of the Board.
In October 1928 the Board of Public Welfare opened the Receiving
Home for Children, described in the act of Congress making appropria
tion for it as a place for the reception and detention of children under
17 years of age pending hearing or otherwise.16 This institution has a
capacity of 50 and is used to some extent by the Child-Welfare
Division for temporary care of children, mainly children committed
because of delinquency, pending placement in the Industrial Home
Schools or elsewhere, and for other emergencies. It is also used by
the juvenile court and the police for all types of children needing
temporary care or safekeeping.
In the 1926 reorganization of District of Columbia welfare activities
the National Training School for Girls was placed under the Board of
Public Welfare. This institution is authorized to receive colored girls
under 17 years of age through commitment by the juvenile court or
other court of the District.17
The National Training Schoolfor Boys, which is under the control of
a board of trustees appointed by the President of the United States
upon the recommendation of the Attorney General, is authorized to
receive boys under 17 committed by the District juvenile court and
other courts, also boys from the various States committed for violation
of Federal laws. Maintenance of boys committed from the District
is paid for under contract by the Board of Public Welfare.18
The Board of Children’s Guardians, which in 1893 was made re
sponsible for placement of feeble-minded children, furnished a limited
amount of care in institutions in nearby States and in private instituh In 1935-36 the Children's Bureau made a study of the two Industrial Home Schools and of the National
Training School for Girls and the National Training School for Boys. (Public Institutions for Delinquent
Children in the District of Columbia, by R uth Bloodgood. U. S. Children’s Bureau, Washington, 1937.
M imeographed.)
i* 29 Stat. 410; 33 Stat. 388; 34 Stat. 511; 42 Stat. 1361.
w 45 Stat. 672. This institution was not included in the study made by the Children’s Bureau in 1935-36
because a committee had already undertaken a comprehensive inquiry with reference especially to intake.
» 25 Stat. 245; 34 Stat. 73; 37 Stat. 171; 47 Stat. 301; D. C. Code, title 8, sec. 218.
»19 Stat. 49; 34 Stat. 73; 35 Stat. 380; 44 Stat. 210; 47 Stat. 301; D. C. Code, title 8, sec. 185.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

DISTRICT OP COLUMBIA

tions and boarding homes. The District Training School, established
under an act of 1923 “for the custody, care, education, training, and
treatment of feeble-minded persons”, is under the control and super
vision of the Board of Public Welfare. Subject to provisions of the
law and rules and regulations of the Board, any feeble-minded person
not over 45 years of age may be received into this institution.19 The
Child-Welfare Division of the Board of Public Welfare investigates
applications for admission to the District Training School. Commit
ments are made by the District Court of the United States for the
District of Columbia.20
Home Care of Dependent Children
After many years of effort on the part of the District of Columbia to
obtain provisions similar to those in the mothers’ aid or mothers’
pension laws in force in most of the States, Congress in 1926 enacted a
law providing for public aid to children in their own homes and vested
its administration in the Board of Public Welfare, which established a
Home-Care Division. The development of tins form of aid and the
present provision for aid to dependent children in their own homes
under the Social Security Act are discussed in a later section of this
report. (See p. 49.)
«• 42 Stat. 1360; 43 Stat. 1135; 44 Stat. 210.
* Formerly the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia (43 Stat. 1135; 49 Stat. 1921).

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

ORGANIZATION AND STAFF OF THE CHILD-WELFARE
DIVISION
Responsibilities and Personnel
The responsibilities and authority of the Child-Welfare Division of
the Board of Public Welfare have been described in the foregoing
discussion of laws covering child care and protection in the District
of Columbia. It has been shown that the Board may receive depend
ent, neglected, and delinquent children on commitment by the juve
nile court, for temporary or permanent care, assuming legal guardian
ship of all children so committed. Children may be boarded in
private families or in institutions, or placed with foster families for
tree care or for adoption. According to the law, children may be
bound out or indentured; but this practice was discontinued in 1914,
and no wards of the Board remained in apprenticeship or on indenture
after December 1922.
The Board is authorized to care for children pending investigation.
Appropriation acts include funds for “temporary care of children
pending investigation,,, as well as for children committed to guardian
ship of the Board. The Child-Welfare Division of the Board investi
gates cases of dependency or neglect referred to it by other agencies
or individuals, and, insofar as its small staff permits, it gives case-work
service and adjusts difficulties without receiving the children as wards.
The Board is enjoined from using its funds for maintenance of children
for more than 7 days unless the children are committed to its guardian
ship. If investigation shows the need for commitment, the facts are
presented to the Corporation Counsel, and a petition is prepared for
the juvenile court asking that the children be committed to the
Board of Public Welfare. The parents are summoned to bring the
children to court, and the case is heard with witnesses for both sides.
The Chief of the Child-Welfare Division is subject to the general
supervision of the Director of Public Welfare. Three members of
the Board of Public Welfare comprise the children’s committee,
which considers all matters relating to the care of wards, appoint
ment and dismissal of staff, and specific cases requiring formal action
by the Board.
As it is at present constituted,21 the Child-Welfare Division has
the following five departments: Administration; investigation and
temporary care; permanent care; home finding; and medical care and
supervision. In addition to the Chief of the Child-Welfare Division,
the department of administration includes seven employees: secre
tary, financial clerk, reception clerk, clothing clerk, assistant clothing
clerk, record clerk, and a chauffeur who drives a District car for case
workers taking children to clinics and to foster homes.
si March 15,1937. Description of duties and data regarding staff and case loads are based on information
furnished by the Chief of the Child-Welfare Division.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Investigation and temporary-care department.
All applications to the Board for care of dependent children and
complaints alleging neglect, cruel treatment, or immoral surroundings
are dealt with by the investigation and temporary-care department.
The staff of this department determines whether the request or com
plaint is justified, and the case workers study the situation in the
home and assemble social data in regard to the family and the child.
When it is possible, cases are referred to other public or private
organizations or action is taken to adjust difficulties without having
the children committed to the Board. If court action is necessary,
the department must be prepared to prove culpability of parents in
neglect cases.
The investigation and temporary-care department makes social
investigations, arranges for examination by the court alienist, and
presents cases to the District Court of the United States for the Dis
trict of Columbia for commitment of feeble-minded persons to the
District Training School. At the request of the Court the depart
ment makes social investigations in cases involving custody of children
and in adoption cases.
The staff of this department places and supervises wards committed
to the guardianship of the Board for temporary care. At the expira
tion of temporary commitments the department again investigates
conditions in the families from which the children were removed and
presents the findings at court hearings for discharge or recommitment
of temporary wards. The department files nonsupport information
against parents or wards when investigation shows that a parent has
an earning capacity.
Following is a list of the staff of the investigation and temporarycare department, with brief summaries of their duties as of March
15, 1937:
S u p e r v is o r .— Directs the work . of social investigation of dependency and
neglect cases and case-work service in the family home; makes recommendation
to the Chief of the Child-Welfare Division in regard to court action; determines
the type of care and the program for children committed as temporary wards;
passes on problems to be accepted for service; assigns cases for field investigation;
has direct supervision of four case workers assigned to these investigations; and
passes on all institutional placements.
A s s is ta n t s u p e r v is o r .— Handles all applications for care at the District Training
School and is the legal representative of the Corporation Counsel’s office a t
hearings on these cases in the District Court of the United States for the District of
Columbia; represents the Board at juvenile-court hearings on dependency and
neglect cases known to the Division; has direct supervision of three case workers
who place and supervise children committed for temporary care and who make
the social investigations and report to the court at the expiration of temporary
commitments.
Six senior case workers and one junior case worker (women unless otherwise
indicated), as follows:
C ase w o rk er N o . 1 : Makes social investigations of all cases of colored chil
dren referred for investigation and report without commitment by the
court; supervises 30 children in foster homes who have histories of behavior
difficulties and 10 children under guardianship who are placed in homes of
pareiits or relatives; serves as contact worker with the Industrial Home
School for Colored Children; handles emergency problems.
C a se w o rk e r N o . 2 : Makes investigations of cases of dependent and neg
lected colored children reported directly to the Board; does continuing <iase
work for children not committed to the Board; presents an average of 4
cases a month to the juvenile court; supervises about 35 temporary wards
in boarding homes or homes of relatives.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

THE PUBLIO CHILD-WELFARE PROGRAM

C a se w o rk e r N o . S : Supervises 109 temporary wards, 64 of whom are in
boarding homes, 30 in institutions, and 15 in their own homes; is responsible
for case work in the parental homes for children committed as dependent or
neglected; prepares reports for the juvenile court on these homes and on
the needs of the children at expiration of commitments.
C ase w o rk e r N o . 4 (m a n ) : Makes social investigation of cases of dependent
and neglected white children reported directly to the Board; does continuing
case work for children not committed to the Board; presents cases to juvenile
court; supervises 21 wards committed without advance information to the
Board, 13 of whom are in institutions and 8 in foster homes; handles an
average of 12 new cases a month.
C a se w o rk er N o . 5 : Supervises 93 temporary wards committed as dependent
or neglected, 60 of whom are in foster homes, 23 in institutions, and 10 in
homes of relatives; is responsible for service in parental homes during com
mitment period of children; at expiration of commitment prepares informa
tion for the court on the home and the needs of the child.
C a se w o rk er N o . 6 : Makes investigations in cases of dependent and neg
lected children reported directly to the Child-Welfare Division; averages
10 new cases a month; supervises 33 children in foster homes.
C a se w o rk er N o . 7: Supervises 100 colored wards, particularly older girls
committed as delinquent or haying a history of sex delinquencies or other
behavior problems (65 in boarding homes and 35 in institutions) ; is respon
sible for case-work service and court reports.
The department has two clerical-stenographic workers.

Permanent-care department.
The permanent-care department is responsible for placement and
supervision of all children committed to the permanent guardianship
of the Board, in boarding homes, free homes, private institutions, and
institutions under the Board of Public Welfare. The department has
a staff of 14, as follows: 1 supervisor; 1 assistant supervisor; 5 senior
case workers; 5 junior case workers; and 2 clerical-stenographic
workers who transcribe from the dictaphone. The responsibilities
and case loads of the workers are described as follows:
S u p e r v is o r . — Has general supervision over reception of children by department;
makes assignments to case workers and assists them in planning for the care and
training of the children; holds case conferences with workers; gives general ap
proval of placements, removals, unusual expenditures, adoptions, discharge from
guardianship, and transfer to inactive file.
A s s is ta n t su p e r v iso r . — Has direct supervision over 2 case workers; supervises an
average of 64 children, about 43 of them in foster homes, 8 in institutions, and
13 in the homes of parents or relatives.
Ten senior and junior case workers (women unless otherwise indicated), as
follows:
C a se w o rk e r N o . 1 : Has a case load averaging 114 children, about 75 of
them in boarding, wage, and free homes; makes placements in city and
suburban areas; supervises white children in large family groups.
C ase w o rk er N o . 2 : Has an average of 129 cases, undifferentiated as to race
of child and type of problem, mainly children in outlying territory in Mary
land, about 94 of the children in foster homes, mainly boarding homes.
C a se w o rk er N o . S : Has an average case load of 133, undifferentiated as to
race of child and type of problem, mainly children in outlying territory in
Virginia, 110 of the children in foster homes, 10 in institutions, and 13 in own
homes.
C a se w o rk e r N o . 4 (m a n ): Supervises 117 colored boys, 38 in boarding,
free, and wage homes, 30 in own homes, and 49 in public and private institu
tions and the Civilian Conservation Corps.
C a se w o rk er N o . 5 : Has an average case load of 114 children and older
girls in foster homes who have no unusual needs; makes placements mainly
m city or suburban areas.
C ase w o rk er N o . 6 : Has a case load of 100, all colored children, 74 in foster
homes, 8 in institutions, and 18 in own homes.
C a se w o rk er N o . 7: Has a case load of 105, mainly older white girls and
children who have marked emotional problems, 68 in foster homes, 26 in own
homes, and 11 in institutions.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

C ase w o rk er N o . 8 (m a n ): Has a case load of 94, mainly older white boys,
about 36 in boarding, free, and wage homes, 25 in institutions, and 33 in
homes of parents.
C a se w o rk e r N o . 9 : Has a case load of 109 colored children, especially
older girls, about 70 in foster homes, 12 in institutions, and the rest mainly
in homes of parents or other relatives.
C a se w o rk er N o . 10 (n e w w o rk e r): Supervises approximately 20 children
under 3 years of age, all in foster homes.

Home-finding department.
Recruiting, studying, and selecting foster homes for boarding or
free care and having them available for placement of children are
the responsibility of the home-finding department. This department
has four employees: the supervisor, two senior case workers, and one
clerical and stenographic worker. The two case workers investigate
applications from persons wishing to have children placed with them
for board or for free care. One of these workers is assigned especially
to investigation of applications for the care of Catholic children.
Department oj medical care and supervision.
The health-supervision program for all wards is provided by the
department of medical care and supervision. Three physicians
employed part time by the Board of Public Welfare hold clinics 3
days a week in quarters provided by the Children’s Hospital. All
children received for care, with the exception of the boys at the
Industrial Home School for Colored Children, for whom there is
special provision, are given complete physical examination on the
days they are received or as soon thereafter as possible. They are
listed for a reexamination in 6 months or for more frequent observa
tion if special conditions require it. Children unable to come to the
clinic are visited in their foster homes by the head physician. A
senior nurse and two assistant nurses assist the clinic physicians and
do follow-up work for children in foster homes.
In addition to the three assistant physicians serving with the clinic,
a pediatrician, classified as senior physician and employed part time,
is responsible for the standard of health protection provided for wards
of the Board, organization of the general clinical program, and coop
erative relationships with treatment clinics. This physician examines
all children under 7 years of age. A dentist employed part time works
under the direction of the Chief of the Child-Welfare Division, in
cooperation with the medical service. He conducts dental clinics
for wards of the Board 4 half days a week. The part-time salaries
of the physicians and the dentist and the salaries of the nurses are
paid from the Division’s appropriation for “board and care.”
Outstanding Needs of the Child-Welfare Division
The foregoing data in regard to responsibilities of the staff and the
case loads of the workers in the department of investigation and tem
porary care and the department of permanent care speak for them
selves. They show graphically the task that the Child-Welfare
Division must assume with a staff far too small. It is generally con
ceded that no worker charged with placement and supervision of
children in boarding homes or other types of foster-family care should
handle a case load of more than 50 children. This is especially true
if his work includes, as it should, case work with the child’s own
family.
14788— 38------ 3

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

THE PUBLIO CHILD-WELFARE PROGRAM

In the department of investigation and temporary care the case
workers have a large field of responsibility, including initial investiga
tion, preparation of reports for presentation to the court at the
expiration of temporary commitments, and such case-work service
as they can give to families of children who are not accepted for foster
care and to children committed temporarily. In addition, some of
the workers of this department are responsible for placement and
supervision of more children in foster homes than would normally be
assigned to them if they had no other duties. These children are
especially in need of constructive case work, which might make it un
necessary for them to become public wards. A staff at least as large
as the present one in this department should be available for preven
tive and protective service, without the work of child placement.
The case loads of nearly all the workers in the department of perma
nent care average over 100. The majority of the children under super
vision are in boarding homes. The staff should have more opportu
nity than it can possibly have under existing circumstances to work with
the entire situation, including the child’s own home and his adjust
ment in the community. It is probable that a detailed study of the
placement work of the Division would point to the desirability of
uniting “temporary” and “permanent” placement work, especially
for continued supervision of children. Under the present arrangement,
which is necessitated by the practice of recommitment hearings at the
expiration of short temporary commitments of dependent and neg
lected children, temporary wards are transferred to the permanentcare department if, as frequently happens, the term of commitment
is changed. This problem of organization must, of course, be con
sidered in connection with certain other radical changes that should
be made, especially in the method of receiving dependent children for
service or care, and in the expansion of work for the prevention of
dependency and neglect.
In the fiscal year ended June 30, 1937, the Board of Public Welfare
received 263 children on dependency and neglect commitments and
214 on delinquency commitments. On July 1, 1937, the Board had
under care 1,866 children who had been committed to its guardian
ship by the juvenile court. The theory is that a child is to be placed
in a foster-family home unless the institutional care that is available
is better suited to his needs. For various reasons this cannot be the
practice in all cases. One outstanding reason is that the staff re
sponsible for finding and passing on the desirability of boarding and
free homes comprises only two “home finders.” It should be remem
bered that in a group as large as the number of wards of the Board
there is constant need for new homes for replacements and readjust
ments, in addition to the work resulting from new cases. It would
appear that the home-finding staff should be at least three times as
large as it is at present.
Civil-service grades assigned to case workers and supervisors should
be reallocated in order to make it possible to employ competent per
sons with training in social case work for new positions and to do justice
to workers who have been long in the service. The minimum salary
for a children’s case worker should be $1,800 a year, and a consider
able number of the staff should be persons with special training in
children’s case work and psychiatric social work, who should receive
salaries ranging from $2,000 to $2,600. The position of Director of

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

29>

the Child-Welfare Division should be classified in at least grade 4
of the professional and scientific service, and other supervisory posi
tions should be classified correspondingly. In recruiting new workersthe Civil Service Commission should be requested to give special
examinations, inasmuch as no other agency in Washington subject tocivil service has exactly comparable functions and requirements for
personnel.
In all the departments there is serious lack of clerical and steno
graphic service. This is especially detrimental, because it means that
the already overburdened case-work staff must spend an undue amount
of time and energy in writing reports that should be dictated, and i t
necessarily results in inadequate records. Case work and super
vision are seriously handicapped by long delay in making information,
available.
No attempt was made in this study to go into the question of the
adequacy of the medical service provided by the Board for its wards>
This is a field for experts in child care and health protection. But
there is an obvious deficiency in the provision for psychiatric examina
tion of children and for social work in relation to mental condition,
and behavior problems. Examinations at the Gallinger Hospitalare available for children considered for commitment to the District
Training School, but there is constant need for examination of ward»
of the Board.
The District of Columbia urgently needs a public mental-hygiene?
clinic that can serve the schools, the courts, and the Board of Public
Welfare. At present only a minimum amount of service from pri
vately supported organizations is available to children under public
supervision and care. In building up the staff of the Child-Welfare
Division effort should be made to increase the number of worker»
that have training and experience in psychiatric social work. This,
background is especially important for workers who are to place and
supervise delinquent children.
Another study made by the Children's Bureau has covered the
question of equipment and methods of care and training in institu
tions under the Board of Public Welfare.22 If, according to the plan
suggested in the following section of the present study,23 the ChildWelfare Division is equipped to provide adequate intake and adjust
ment service, so that children may be maintained and supervised in
their own homes whenever possible, and if adequate funds and thé
necessary staff are made available to place children in boarding homes,
these changes would undoubtedly affect the present institutional pro
gram of the Board of Public Welfare. Without these measures for
preventing child dependency, neglect, and delinquency, and for mak
ing available to each child who comes under the care of the Board the
kind of care and treatment he needs, the institutional program cannot
be developed on a sound basis.
It is coming to be generally recognized that far too little attention
has been given to child-welfare problems in families receiving relief
and family service, largely because the pressure of the relief work is
such that workers, even if they were trained to see and deal with
special problems of the individual child, do not have time to do so;
a Public Institutions for Delinquent Children in the District of Columbia, by R uth Bloodgood. U. S .
Children’s Bureau, Washington, 1937. 141 pp. (Mimeographed.)
* See the section on Intake and Adjustment Work of the Child-Welfare Division, p. 31.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

THE PUBLIC CHILD-WELFARE PROGRAM

this is certainly true in the District of Columbia. Every family relief
and service worker should have training and experience in dealing
with child-welfare problems, and every child-welfare worker should
have training and experience in family relief and service. Until this
ideal becomes a fact some form of practical cooperation on problems
requiring special skill needs to be worked out.
Unfortunately comparatively few family-service workers have the
specialized training required for these problems, even if they had time
to give the necessary attention to them. This has been true even in
some of the best-equipped private family agencies. The consequence
is that child-welfare problems grow up in relief families right under
the eyes of the workers. It has frequently been said that every family
agency should have on its staff at least a consultant on child-welfare
problems whose experience would be at the service of the other
workers.
There is, of course, also the problem of the occasional need for
temporary care away from their own homes of children in families on
Telief (and in other families) when the mother must go to a hospital
or during some other temporary emergency. This form of service,
Again, requires extension of authority and staff in the Child-Welfare
Division. Provision of housekeeper service to families that would
otherwise be scattered during an emergency is another type of service
that might profit by the coordination of the departments concerned;
for example, the housekeeper service might be supplied by the Division
of Public Assistance and used on occasion by the Child-Welfare
Division, or vice versa.
In order to make the work for children more effective there is need
for some reorganization of the Child-Welfare Division. The present
division of child-placing activities into those dealing with “temporary”
and those dealing with “permanent” wards is illogical and is likely
to be detrimental to children who are changed from the first to the
second category and are transferred, in consequence, to another super
visor. In the interest of continuity of work for the children who come
into the care of the Division, the child-placing activities should be
unified. When reorganization becomes practicable, consideration
should be given to the desirability of setting up in the Child-Welfare
Division a department with a staff especially equipped to do con
structive work with delinquent children received from the court
informally or by commitment.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

INTAKE AND ADJUSTMENT WORK OF THE CHILDWELFARE DIVISION
Court Commitment of Dependent and Neglected Children
From the earliest years the Board of Children’s Guardians empha
sized the undesirability of paying for maintenance from public funds
unless there had been court action committing the children to the
guardianship of the Board. Amos G. Warner, the first Superintendent
of Charities in the District of Columbia, in a letter to the Commis
sioners of the District in February 1892, explaining the purposes of the
bill he had prepared authorizing the establishment of the Board of
Children’s Guardians, pointed out the undesirability of the existing
system of public subsidies to private institutions that claimed public
funds “in a general way” on the basis of the number of children cared
for. He held that if public aid is given, there should be some control
of intake policies and adequate investigation of destitution of children
for whom the public was asked to furnish maintenance. He defined
“public work” as follows, in distinction to “private or church work” :
By public work I mean the care of children who are absolutely destitute and
properly chargeable to the District, for whom no relative, or friend, or church,
or private charitable association is willing to provide, and for whom the District
taxpayers can therefore properly be asked to provide, both as a matter of humanity
and as a defense against the propagation of pauperism.24

A joint congressional committee of 1896 reported that—
The duty of the Government toward dependent children being established,
the Government itself should determine what children are to be classed as objects
of its care in the various aspects in which that care is to be given. No children
should be regarded as dependent without careful and authoritative determination of
the question of their status, which determination is impracticable in its most ade
quate sense without recourse to judicial inquiry and decision. The courts alone
have power to elicit that full information which is requisite to a proper determina
tion of the status of the citizen. In all cases, therefore, in which the dependency
of the children is in question, the question should be determined by the courts.25

When the Board of Children’s Guardians began its activities in 1893,
dependent children in the District were being cared for only by private
institutions, many of which were granted lump-sum subsidies by
Congress. The Board was created mainly in order to provide care for
dependent children in foster-family homes. The direct appropriations
to child-caring institutions were reduced by 40 percent, and the funds
so withheld from them were placed at the disposal of the Board of
Public Guardians. A letter was sent to the institutions suggesting
that they might apply to the courts to have the Board declared the
legal guardian of any children for whose support they wished to trans
fer responsibility. From the beginning the plan was to compensate
24 Letter from Amos Q. Warner to the Commissioners of the District of Columbia, Feb. 9, 1892. See
Child Dependency in the District of Columbia, by Emma O. Lundberg and M ary E. Milburn, p. 119,
U. S. Children’s Bureau Publication No. 140. Washington, 1924.
25 Joint Select Committee to Investigate the Charities and Reformatory Institutions in the D istrict
of Columbia, Part I, p. 92. 55th Cong., 1st sess., S. Docs., vol. 8 , Doc. 185. Washington, 1898.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

THE PUBLIC CHILD-WELFARE PROGRAM

institutions for the care of children for whom the District of Columbia
■was properly chargeable. Efforts to discontinue subsidies to institu
tions and to pay for care on a per-capita basis were unsuccessful until
si few years ago.
.
_
The reasons for insisting upon court commitment of children who
were to be supported at public expense are indicated in the foregoing
excerpts. The emphasis upon this phase of the care of dependent
children appears to have overshadowed another feature of the develop
ing program of child care. Under the law creating the Board of
Children’s Guardians, children received temporarily may not be kept
longer than 1 week except by order of the juvenile court.26 This sec
tion was construed to mean that under the authority of the court
children might be given temporary care for any length of time. Thus
there grew up a constantly increasing use of temporary care and the
custom of recommitting children for short periods.
I t is indicative of the slow progress in methods of dealing with social
problems that for over 30 years court action remained the only method
By which dependent children could receive care at public expense in
th e District of Columbia. In 1926 the Home-Care Act provided that
=aid could be given to dependent children in their own homes by a divi
sion of the Board of Public Welfare, but temporary aid away from their
homes is still a matter for court action.
#
Although the pauper’s oath is still required in some parts of the
country for obtaining poor relief, it is usually taken for granted that
aid to dependent families should be provided from public funds
without formalities other than social investigation of needs and
resources. But in the District of Columbia and in many other locali
ties provision for care of children away from their own homes is still,
by force of habit, decided by the court with the object of protecting
public funds, instead of by a social agency with the object of providing
lor the needs of the children.
One source of confusion in the District is the failure of the present
law to make a distinction between children who are dependent and
"those who are neglected. In general, children of both classes are
committed as “destitute of a suitable home.” In cases in which
there is culpable neglect or mistreatment by parents, or in which it
is desirable for the welfare of the child that guardianship shall be
changed, there should, of course, be judicial action. The _public
child-caring agency has been active long enough and its relationship
to private institutions and agencies has been well enough established
■so that it could safely be allowed to provide care for dependent chil
dren, especially in so-called temporary cases, in the same way that
the Board of Public Welfare now provides through its other Divisions
.aid to children in their own homes and to families receiving relief
from public funds.
Within the past few years various commissions and committees m
the District have made recommendations on this subject, and a pro
posal is under consideration 27 for a bill authorizing the Board of
iPublic Welfare to provide for the care of dependent children without
court commitment and assumption of guardianship, unless judicial
action is needed for change of custody. Enactment of such a measxire, accompanied by appropriation of adequate funds for constructive
-service, would enable the Child-Welfare Division of the Board to
* 27 Stat. 269; D. O. Code, title 8 , sec. 17.
■»June 1937.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

reconstruct its activities along lines that are now held to be essential
to protective and child-caring activities, whether under public or
private auspices.
Investigation and Intake Work of the Child-Welfare Division
Method oj handling complaints of dependency and neglect.
Through an arrangement between the juvenile court and the ChildWelfare Division petitions for commitment of dependent or neglected
children are brought before the court by the Division, preliminary
investigation having been made by the Division. This is not, how
ever, an invariable rule. Petitions in behalf of children alleged to be
neglected or “destitute of a suitable home” are also filed in the court
by the Woman’s Bureau, social-welfare agencies, and probation officers,
in addition to the Child-Welfare Division. Unless the disposition is
dismissal, continuance subject to call, or, in rare instances, probation,
the children are committed to the Board of Public Welfare for care
by the Child-Welfare Division.
The Child-Welfare Division receives and investigates applications
for commitment of feeble-minded children and adults to the District
Training School but has no further responsibility for these cases.
Dependency and neglect cases that come to the attention of the
Child-Welfare Division before commitment by the court are referred
to the Division by other public or private organizations or by parents
or other relatives or individuals. When complaints or requests for
information or advice are received by the Division, the circumstances
of the case are heard and recorded by a complaint clerk. Many of
the complaints or inquiries are taken care of by advice or information,
referral to another agency, or correspondence with officials or agencies.
Complaints of a serious nature are referred for “field service.” The
law prohibits payment for the maintenance of children for a period
longer than 7 days without court commitment. Therefore, when
investigation indicates the need of caring for children away from their
own homes, a petition is filed in the juvenile court, and the children
may be committed to the Board of Public Welfare for temporary or
permanent care.
In order to obtain a picture of the complaints dealt with by the
Child-Welfare Division, the study was divided into two parts: (1)
Cases in which advice, information, or referral service only was given;
(2) cases in which field service was given. It is recognized that the
2 months 28 selected for this analysis may not be entirely representa
tive of the activities of the investigation department over a long
period, but the following data are presented because of the light they
throw on the types of problems that come to the Child-Welfare Divi
sion under the present arrangement. They illustrate the need for
expansion of case-work service without direct relation to possible
commitment.
Advice and referral.
During the 2 months a total of 56 “advice and referral” cases,
involving 102 children, were recorded. There were also two cases of
mentally deficient adults, who were referred for commitment to the
n April and M ay 1935.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

THE PUBLIC CHILD-WELFARE PROGRAM

District Training School. Of the cases involving children, 28 families
(with 43 children) were white and 28 (with 59 children) were colored.
The sources of the complaints or inquiries that resulted in advice or
referral service are shown below:
Source of complaint or inquiry

Number of cases

Total cases______________ ________________________

Parent________________________'____________________ ______

Foster parent or caretaker_______________________________
Relative__ ________
Neighbor, friend, or other person_________________________
Public agencies:
Public-Assistance Division of the Board of Public Welfare.
Woman’s Bureau.__________________________________
Other police officers___________________________
Gallinger Hospital__________________________
Bureau of Rehabilitation. ____________________________
Health Department_________________________________
St. Ann’s Infant Asylum___________________
Out-of-town inquiries________________________

5
8

11
1
2

2
2
1

1
1
8

The problems in the 56 cases included neglect or nonsupport,
dependency, domestic difficulties, need for housekeepers, permanent
or temporary care for children, mental defect, behavior difficulties,
and out-of-town requests for information. The department gave
minor service, advice, and information, or referred cases to the
Public-Assistance Division of the Board of Public Welfare and to
other agencies equipped to deal with the problems reported.
Field service.
Field-service cases are defined as cases necessitating a call and
probably case work by the Child-Welfare Division. They include
cases of feeble-minded children and adults investigated for admission
to the District Training School, but for the purpose of this discussion
the following data pertain only to dependency and neglect cases.
The cases of feeble-minded children will be dealt with separately.
During the 2 months 78 cases, involving 137 children presumably
dependent or neglected, were accepted for field service. The sources
of complaints in cases accepted for field service by the Child-W elfare
Division are shown below:
Source of complaint

Number
of cases

Total.
Parent_________________
Foster parent or caretaker_________________ :______
Relative_______________.__________________________
Neighbor, friend, or other person__________________
Public agencies:
Public-Assistance Division of the Board of Public
Welfare_______ . . . _________________________
Juvenile court__ . . . ________i_____________»_____
District Training School_______________
Woman’s Bureau_____________________________
Gallinger Hospital____________________________
School-attendance office_______________________
Transient Bureau.__________________ t.__ ______
Private agencies_____________________ ______ ___. . .
Anonymous_____ ______ ____________________..._____
Out-of-town inquiries 1____

Number
of children

137

10
2
4
14

2
3
3
17
10
9
3

1
6
1
14

1
12

2
2

9
3
4
3
1

The private agencies referring cases during the period studied
included: Instructive Visiting Nurse Association, Council of Social

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Agencies, Hillcrest, Jewish Social Service Association, and the
Juvenile Protective Association.
Analysis of the problems shows that 30 of the complaints alleged
neglect and nonsupport; 27 were classified as dependency; and 7
were complaints of behavior. Dependency cases included 17 children
of unmarried mothers, 9 of whom were referred by the District Train
ing School for the feeble-minded.
Out-of-town inquiries or requests for assistance related to placement
of children in the District of Columbia, nonsupport by relatives
residing in the District, and determination of legal residence.
The problems involved in cases accepted for field service by the
Child-Welfare Division were as follows:
number
of eases

Number of
children

Total cases______________________________

137

Neglect and nonsupport___________
Dependency:
Unmarried mother_________________________
All other cases_____________________________
Behavior______________________________________
Out-of-town inquiry____________________________

17
10
7
14

17
19
7
24

Problem involved

Of the 137 children accepted by the Child-Welfare Division for
field service, 24 were living with both parents; 30 were with the
mother; and 12 were with the father. Relatives or friends were
caring for 41, and 23 were in foster homes or institutions. Where
abouts was not recorded for 7 children.
Excluding out-of-town inquiries, an average of about 50 children a
month come to the attention of the Child-Welfare Division through
complaints that appear to be serious enough to require investigation
and adjustment service. It may be assumed that most of these cases
are referred to the Child-Welfare Division on the assumption that
the children need to be under the care of the public agency. One
can only conjecture as to the number of such cases that would be
brought to the Division if it were not known that the only way the
Division can assume care of children is through court commitment.
In most of the cases it was decided after investigation that the
children were not proper wards of the Board of Public Welfare. In
the course of the inquiries many adjustments were made by referring
children to other child-welfare or family-relief agencies, or by per
suading parents and other relatives to face the responsibility of
providing maintenance. It is not possible for the small staff of the
Child-Welfare Division to keep in touch with conditions in the
homes of children brought to its attention but not accepted for care
and to make sure that the children are not being neglected.
Investigation for admission to the District Training School.
The cases of feeble-minded children and adults included in the
field-service records were segregated from the foregoing data because
this group involves a distinct problem. During the 2 months covered
by the study of intake, 14 cases, involving 10 children and 4 adults,
were referred to the Child-Welfare Division for investigation to deter
mine admission to the District Training School. Pour children and
two adults were white; six children and two adults were colored. ^
The whole question of intake service for the District Training
School and the extra-institutional supervision of the feeble-minded

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

THE PUBLIC CHILD-WELFARE PROGRAM

should be given careful consideration. The limitations of the present
study did not permit more than a very brief inquiry into existing
conditions. It is undoubtedly desirable that investigation for ad
mission to the institution shall be made by the Board of Public
Welfare, but it seems illogical to assign this activity to the ChildWelfare Division without providing special staff for the work.
Dependent and Neglected Children Before the Juvenile Court
Sources oj petitions.
Investigation of home conditions and in some cases a period of care
by family-welfare or child-welfare agencies have usually preceded the
filing of petitions in the juvenile court in behalf of dependent and neg
lected children, referred to as D. S. H. cases (destitute of a suitable
home), and agencies bring to the attention of the court only children
whom they believe to be in need of removal from their homes or for
whom proper provision cannot be made by their natural guardians.
The sources of petitions to the juvenile court in dependency and
neglect cases that resulted in commitment of children to the Board of
Public Welfare are shown in table 1 for the 7 fiscal years 1931 through
1937. It is seen that the cases in which the Child-Welfare Division
filed the petition ranged from 22 percent in 1931 to 63 percent in 1935,
with almost half the total number originating with the Child-Welfare
Division in the year ended June 30, 1937. It has been shown in the
preceding section that the Child-Welfare Division also receives com
plaints from public and private organizations and individuals, which
after investigation may result in a petition's being entered by the
Division. The table shows a decided decrease in petitions received
by the court from individuals, including parents and other relatives;
presumably these cases are now being directed to the Child-Welfare
Division.
T able 1.— S o u rce o f p e titio n i n d e p e n d e n c y a n d neglect cases o f c h ild ren c o m m itte d
to the B o a r d o f P u b lic W e lfa re ; y e a r s e n d ed J u n e SO, 19S 1—S 7
Children committed because of dependency and neglect
Source of petition
Year ended June 30
Total

1931..........................
1932____ _
1933..........................
1934..........................
1935..........................
193(5..........................
1937..........................

241
277
242
192
241
216
263

Child-Welfare
Division

Juvenilecourt
proba
tion offi
Number Percent
cers
52
117
92
69
152
106
124

42
38
36
63
49
47

35
37

Private
Wo
child
m an’s
caring
agencies Bureau

21
8
21

20
10

30
45

12
21

43
37
52
40
42
46
71

Police

7
8
6

5
2
2

School
attend Individ
uals
ance
officer
31
11
1
8
6
1
0

62
62
31
17
14
7
0

Types of commitment.
Of the 263 children committed to the Board of Public Welfare in the
fiscal year ended June 30, 1937, because of dependency or neglect, 29
were committed permanently and 234 were originally committed tem
porarily. As will be shown in the following pages, temporary com
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

mitment has little relation to the length of time the child eventually
remains under the guardianship of the Board, even in temporary cases
that are not later made permanent. It may be presumed the children
committed for permanent care are those who have been deprived of
parents, or those whom it is desirable to remove from the legal custody
of their natural guardians.
Rehearing of temporary commitments.
At the expiration of the period of commitment, children who are
temporary wards of the Board of Public Welfare are brought before
the court for rehearing and disposition. Data on these cases were
obtained for 2 months.29
Fifty-three children were involved in the 33 cases called for rehear
ing during the period. In 19 cases, involving 34 children, there had
been from 2 to 7 previous commitments to the Board of Public Wel
fare. In 14 cases, involving 19 children, there had been 1 temporary
commitment before the rehearing in the 2 months.
In order to understand the meaning of temporary commitments, an
analysis should be made of the histories of children who have been
under temporary commitments during the whole time they were
wards of the Board of Public Welfare. In the “active” group—53
children whose commitments were reconsidered during the 2 months—
many had been under care only a short time, but 31 had been wards
of the Board from 2 to 6 years prior to the rehearings, which in most
cases resulted in further temporary commitment. The total time
covered by temporary commitments, including the last one, is
shown below:
Total time for which child was committed
to Board of Public Welfare

Number of
children

Total________________________________________________ 53
Less than 6 months________________________________________ 3
6 months, less than 1 year__________________________________ 1
1 year, less than 2 years____________________________________ 15
2 years, less than 3 years___________________________________ 8
3 years, less than 4 years___________________________________ 7
4 years, less than 5 years___________________________________ 10
5 years, less than 6 years___________________________________ 4
6 years____________________________________________________ 2
8 years____________________________________________________ 3

Details are given on page 38 for each dependency and neglect case
under supervision of the Board of Public Welfare that was in court
for rehearing in the 2 months.
® April and M ay 1935.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

THE PUBLIC CHILD-WELFARE PROGRAM

1
2

3
4
5
«
7
8

9
10
11
12

13
14
15
16
17
18

Number of com
mitments to Board

Date of first com
mitment to Board

$€B
o

1 Number of chil
dren

W h ite c h ild ren

4-20-30
10- 3-30
3 4-15-31
3
5- 6-31
1
2-12-35
2
10-21-31
2
10-21-31
3 11- 4-31
4-20-32
2
3
5- 4-32
1
9-20-33
1
1- 4-33
1
5-16-34
1
4-28-34
2
5-16-34
1
7-18-34
4 10-17-34
1
3-27-35
2
1

Total
length of
temporary
commit
ments

Length of each commitment to Board of Public
Welfare
Type of last
commit
ment
1

Yr». Mos.
1 yr.
6
ly r.
6
5
6 mos.
ly r.
4
1 yr.
1 yr.
5
6
6 mos.
ly r .
2
3 mos.
4
6
ly r .
ly r.
4
5 1 mo. 4 mos.
3
7 ly r .
6 mos.
1 vr.
3
1 yr.
4
1 yr.
1 jrr.
1
8
1 ÿr.
1 mo.
1
6
6 mos. 6 mos.
2
1 yr.
1 yr.
1
6
1 ÿr.
1
1 jrr.
6
9
1
6
6 mos.
1 yr.
4

6
6

4
6

3
6
6
6

4
4
4
4
2
2
2
*2
2
2

ly r .
ly r.
ly r.
ly r.
1 yr.
1 yr.
1 yr.
ly r .
2 wks.
6 mos.
ly r.
ly r.
ly r.
ly r.
1 mo.
1 ÿr.
* 20 yrs.
1 yr.
1 jrr.
7 mos. 1 8 yrs.
6 mos. 1 9 yrs.

ly r.
ly r .

ly r.
ly r.

yr.

ly r .

mos. 6 mos.
ly r .
ly r.
116 yrs.
1 yr.

Temporary.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Minority.
Do.
D o.'
Do.
Do.
(i).

Minimum.
* One additional court hearing, resulting in dismissal of case.

3
4
5
6

7
8

9
10
11
12

13
14
15

3
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1

Num ber of com
mitments to Board

Date of first com
mitment to Board

Case
1
2

1 Number of chil
dren

C olored c h ild ren

5-18-28
8
1-30-34
4
4-27-32 3 3
5-21-33
2
5-17-33
3
5- 9-33
3
1-10-34 » 2
1-31-34
3
4-25-34
3
5- 2-34
2
4-11-34 > 1
5- 9-34
2
5-22-34
2
4-12-34 » 1
3-27-35
2

Length of each commitment to Board of Public Welfare
Total
length
of tem
porary
commit
ments

Yrs Mos.
8
1

3
2
2

3
1
2
2
2
1
2
1
1
—

lyr.

mos.
ly r.
ly r.
1 yr.
ly r.
3 3 mos.
3 3 mos.
6
6 mos.
ly r .
1 yr.
ly r.
ly r .
1 yr.
4 2 mos.
6

ly r.
1 yr.
mos. 3 mos.
ly r.
yr.
ly r.
ly r .
* 14 yrs.
ly r.
ly r .
ly r.
ly r .
1 yr.
ly r.
ly r .
1 yr.
6
1

ly r .
mos.

Type of last
commit
ment

(').
(»).
M
;
Minority.

Temporary.

(»).

Temporary.
Do.
Do.

(*).

1 yr.
4 5 yrs.

Temporary.
Minority.

mos.

Temporary.

(*).

1 The case of one child was dismissed; the other two children were committed temporarily.
1 One additional court hearing, resulting in dismissal of case.
3 Committed to District Training School.
4 Minimum.

An important consideration in connection with the present procedure
in recommitting temporary wards is the time consumed by these court
hearings. A record was kept of the time that case workers and the
supervisor of the department of investigation and temporary care
spent at the regular Wednesday sessions of the juvenile court in wait
ing for and in attending hearings at the expiration of temporary
commitments in dependency and neglect cases only. During the 2
months in which a record was kept, the total time spent in court by

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

these workers was 77 hours each month. Thus the total time con
sumed in attending recommitment hearings each month was equal
to 11 working days of one staff member.
The practice of making temporary commitments to the Board of
Public Welfare should be considered with due regard to its historical
and legal background. It cannot be explained or condoned on any
grounds other than legal limitations of social procedure. It is an
undesirable way of dealing with dependency and neglect cases, but
until certain legal restrictions are removed and ingrained practices
are abandoned, the juvenile court appears to have no alternative to
this wasteful method of dealing with children who must have the care
and protection of the public child-caring agency.
Classification of cases as permanent and temporary, and temporary
commitment for definite periods of time, usually 1 year or 6 months,
imply a finality that should not exist in the treatment of social prob
lems. The length of care should be determined by the results of case
work with the child and with his family. Changing home conditions
cannot be regulated on a time-clock basis. If dependency and neglect
cases that do not involve removal of children from the legal custody of
parents are to continue to be subject to court commitment, the court
should be empowered to make commitments to the Board of Public
Welfare without setting a definite term or requiring the cases to be
heard again at the expiration of each temporary commitment.
Delinquent Children Committed to the Board of Public Welfare
The law provides that the juvenile court may commit delinquent
children to the National Training Schools or to the Board of Public
Welfare. As in cases of dependent and neglected children, the Board
assumes legal guardianship of children committed as delinquent, and
they are cared for by the Child-Welfare Division. They may be
placed in boarding or other foster homes, in private institutions where
their board is paid, or in the two Industrial Home Schools maintained
by the Board of Public Welfare.
Of the 1,846 children who were wards of the Board of Public Welfare
on October 1, 1937, 252 had been committed because of delinquency.
Children so committed included 40 white boys, 132 colored boys, 18
white girls, and 62 colored girls. Ten percent of the delinquent
children as compared with 53 percent of the dependent children were
being maintained in boarding homes, and 48 percent of the delinquent
children as compared with 11 percent of the dependent children were
in the two Industrial Home Schools on the given date.30
During the 6 months, July to December 1936, 94 delinquent children
were committed to the Board of Public Welfare; 21 were committed
for the period of minority, and 73 were committed for temporary
periods. The charges on which these children were committed were
as follows: Truancy, 9; incorrigibility, 23; taking property of another,
42; unlawful entry, 6; destroying private property, 2; discharging
firearms, 1; indecent exposure, 1; violation of probation, 10.
In the past the care of delinquent children by the Child-Welfare
Division involved many problems. During the past 2 years the
juvenile court has become better equipped to do constructive case
work through its probation staff, and as a result many serious diffi30 See the

section on Dependent and Delinquent Wards of the Board of Public Welfare, p. 42.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

the

PUBLIC CHILD-WELFARE PROGRAM

culties between the court and the Board have been overcome. The
situation is still complicated by the limitations that the archaic law
imposes upon the court. Not until the law is modernized can logical
treatment be given to children who come before the court because of
offenses against laws and regulations. #
..
The study of records in the court and in the Child-Welfare Division
brought to light many questionable practices that affected the children
under care of the Board. For example, it was formerly a common
practice of the court to commit children to the Board “for investiga
t i o n . O b v i o u s l y the reason for this was that the court was too
understaffed to make a study of each case before it seemed necessary
to make some disposition of the child. Commitment for investiga
tion by a Board that was also understaffed would seem to be a wasteful
method, especially in cases where study might have disclosed the
possibility of giving the child adequate care and supervision without
committing him to the public agency. The greater use of institution
placement for delinquent children is in large measure attributable to
the fact that the Board received many children for whom it had no
social and personality information, such as is necessary for intelligent
placement. Boarding-home placement cannot be used so extensively
as it should be for children with behavior problems because the staff
of the Child-Welfare Division is overloaded and these cases demand
especially careful placement and supervision.31
The juvenile court has continually improved the quality of its
investigation and probation service during the past 2 or 3 years and is
overcoming many of the problems that have complicated the work of
the Child-Welfare Division. Commitment policies and problems of
relationship between the two agencies are now being worked out on a
cooperative basis, and difficulties are being overcome. An evidence
of the trend is that of the 94 children committed to the Board because
of delinquency during the last 6 months of 1936, 55 (including 10 for
whom the charge was “violation of probation”) were on probation at
the time of the last offense and had thus had the benefit of social service
from the court. The practice for some months has been to continue
cases for investigation by the probation staff instead of committing
children to the Board for investigation.
The question of the responsibility of the court and of the ChildWelfare Division for children committed to the Board for temporary
periods appears still to be a problem. Among the points that need
definition are the following: Does commitment of a delinquent child
to the Board imply that it is the intention of the court that the child
shall be removed from his home for the period of the commitment; or
may the Board at its discretion leave the child in his own home, doing
the necessary case work with the family and the child? To what
extent is it the policy of the court to specify the type of care or the
institution in which a child is to be placed? Is the Board solely
responsible for contact with the child and the family while he is under
the care or supervision of the Board, or does the probation officer also
deal with the child and the family? Does the relationship of the
Board to the child and the family in cases of permanent commit
ment differ from that in temporary commitments? Does the Board
have power to discharge from care and supervision a child committed
to it because of delinquency, in temporary as well as in permanent
commitments?
» See pp. 25-27 for case loads of staff.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

The care and supervision of delinquent children by the public
agency cannot be planned and carried on successfully until certain
technical and practical questions have been worked out between the
court and the Child-Welfare Division. There has been much im
provement in the standards of the court’s work, and many of the
madequacies of its social service have been eliminated. The pro
bation staff is giving increasingly better service, but it still needs
more workers.
The task of dealing constructively with the delinquency problem
cannot be accomplished until the Child-Welfare Division has an
adequate staff and increased funds for boarding-home care, and no
fundamental change can be made in the Board’s method of handling
delinquency cases until there is such provision. When it becomes
practicable to do so, consideration may well be given by the Board
of Public Welfare to the desirability of establishing in the ChildWelfare Division a special department adequately equipped to deal
with delinquency problems coming to the attention of the Division
either through referral by the court or through commitment. The
court should be legally empowered, if it does not already have this
power, to refer cases informally to the Child-Welfare Division for
investigation and case work, and to receive from the public agency,
as well as from private organizations, such assistance as a social
agency should be in a position to give in the interest of prevention
and control of delinquency. Emphasis should also be given to the
need in the District of Columbia for adequate psychological and
psychiatric service, without which it is impossible to deal intelligently
with children who get into difficulties or who have wayward tendencies.
It may well be that an expert in the field of juvenile delinquency
should be appointed with the rank of Assistant Director of the Board
of Public Welfare for the purpose of giving general guidance in the
coordination of the case work and mstitutional activities of the
Board in the care of its delinquent wards. The Board could thus, in
conjunction with the juvenile court, give leadership in the develop
ment of a broad program of public treatment of juvenile delinquency.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

DEPENDENT AND DELINQUENT WARDS OF THE
BOARD OF PUBLIC WELFARE
Number of Children and Care Provided
On July 1, 1937, a total of 1,866 childrenwho had been committed
by the juvenile court because of dependency, neglect, or delinquency
were wards of the Board of Public Welfare of the District of Columbia.
There have been variations in racial distribution and commitment
classification, as well as in the types of disposition during different
periods of time, but there has been no significant change in the total
number of public wards. Index numbers for children under care of
the Board of Public Welfare on July 1 of each year from 1915 to 1937,
with 1915 as the base, show the unvarying burden of child care and
training borne by the public agencies of the District of Columbia
(table 2).
T able 2.— N u m b e r o f ch ild ren u n d e r care o f the B o a rd o f P u b lic W e lfa re on J u l y 1
o f each y e a r , a n d in d e x n u m b ers, w ith 1 9 1 5 a s the base; 191 5 —8 7

Year

Number of
children
under care

Index num
bers (with
1915 as the
base)

1915.........................
1916.........................
1917.........................
1918.........................
1919.........................

1,860
1,928
1,997
2,053
2,026

100

1920........................
1921........... ......... .
1922.........................
1923.......................
1924........................

1,988
1,796
1,809
1,556
1,508

107
97
97
84
81

1925........................
1926.........................
1927.......................
1928....................... .
1929.................. ......

1,597
1,693
1,612
1, 764
1,785

1930.........................
1931.........................
1932.........................
1933____________
1934................ ........

1, 758
1,737
1,839
1,822
1,760

95
93
99
98
95

1935.........................
1936.................. .
1937.........................

1,768
1, 775

95
95

1,8 6 6

100

104
107
110

109

91
87
95
96

Children become wards of the Board of Public Welfare only through
commitment by the juvenile court.32 Dependent or neglected children
are received by the Board either for minority or on temporary com* The National Training Schools receive commitments directly from the juvenile court. All other com
mitments of dependent, neglected, and delinquent children are made to the Board of Public Welfare, which,
through its Child-Welfare Division, places the children in family homes, in the two Industrial Home
Schools under its jurisdiction, or in other institutions.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

mitment. Delinquent children are usually received on temporary
commitment, but in some cases when the children are near the age
limit of the court’s jurisdiction a “straight commitment” places them
in the Board’s custody for the remaining time. At the expiration of
temporary commitments the children are again brought before the
court for disposition.
Of the 1,846 children who were wards of the Board of Public Welfare
on October 1, 1937, 1,594 were committed as dependent and neglected
and 252 as delinquent. These children included 819 white children
and 1,027 colored children. (Detailed figures on race and types of care
provided for children committed because of dependency and neglect
and because of delinquency are given in appendix tables I and II,
pp. 80-81, for the first day of each month, January to October 1937.)
Wards of the Board of Public Welfare
A detailed analysis was made of data supplied by the Child-Welfare
Division for children under care on November 1, 1936, which is dis
cussed in the following pages.
Sex, race, and reason for commitment.
.
The Child-Welfare Division of the Board of Public Welfare had
under care on November 1, 1936, a total of 1,778 children who had
been committed to the Board by the juvenile court (table 3). This
total comprised 1,007 boys and 771 girls. Forty-four percent (781
children) were white; 56 percent (997 children) were colored.
Of the children under care on the given date, 83 percent had been
committed because of dependency or neglect and 17 percent because
of delinquency. There is a striking difference in the racial distribu
tion in the two groups. Forty-eight percent of the dependent chil
dren were white and 52 percent were colored. In the group committed
because of delinquency, on the other band, 23 percent were white and
77 percent were colored.
.
Case studies would be required in order to determine the reasons tor
the disproportionately large number of colored children committed to
the Board as delinquent (table 3). The number of dependent and
neglected colored children made public wards is explained in large
part by the small number of private agencies and institutions caring
for these children.
.
*
Undoubtedly the large number of commitments of colored children
of both classifications may be attributed to the greater economic
insecurity of the colored population in general and to the prevalence
of poor housing and family instability among colored people. It
would be desirable to know whether the supervision of colored children
in their own homes instead of commitment to institutions is imprac
ticable in the District to the extent indicated by the figures for the
delinquent group and whether the number of commitments could be
reduced if adequate case-work service were available.

14788— 38-

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

THE PUBLIC CHILD-WELFARE PROGRAM

T able 3.— R e a so n f o r c o m m itm e n t o f w h ite a n d colored b o ys a n d g ir ls u n d e r care o f
th e B o a r d o f P u b lic W e lfa re on N o v . 1, 1 9 3 6
Children under care
Reason for commitment
Sex and color of child
Total

Dependency or neglect
Percent
distribution

Number
Total______ _________ ___________
Boys:
White.......................................................
Colored.....................................................
Girls:
White_______________________ ____
Colored____________________ _____-

Delinquency
Number

Percent
distribution

1,778

1,474

100

304

100

446
561

399
393

27
27

47
168

15
55

335
436

313
369

7
22

Temporary and permanent commitments.
One-third of the children under care on the given date were tem
porary wards of the Board, and two-thirds had been committed
during minority (table 4). Of the dependent wards 72 percent were
on minority commitments, and of those committed for delinquency
42 percent were on minority commitments.33
Rechmmitments for minority change the status of many of the
temporary wards to permanent, and through successive temporary
recommitments a considerable number of the so-called temporary
wards remain under care for several years. Children originally com
mitted because of delinquency are sometimes recommitted as “desti
tute of a suitable home”, becoming permanent wards. Therefore
neither the cross-section data on children under care on a given date
nor those relating to monthly commitments furnish reliable evidence
in regard to the “temporary” or “permanent” status of the children
who become wards of the Board.
T able 4.— T y p e o f c o m m itm e n t a n d re a so n f o r c o m m itm e n t o f w h ite a n d colored
c h ild ren u n d er care o f the B o a r d o f P u b lic W e lfa re on N o v. 1, 1 9 3 6
Children under care
Color of child and reason for
commitment

Type of commitment
Total

Num ber

Percent

Temporary

Permanent

Temporary

Permanent

Total__________________

1,778

697

1,181

W hite............................
Colored________ ____
Dependency or neglect:
W hite......................................
Colored_________________
Delinquency:
W hite___________________
Colored_____- ___________

781
997

280
317

501
680

36
32

712
762

244
176

468
586

34
23

69
235

36
141

33
94

52
60

48
40

33 if these figures are compared with those given in the section relating to current commitments, it m ust
be remembered that the wards of the Board on a given date include children who were received as temporary
wards and later recommitted for minority, and that the proportionate number of “permanent” wards
under care at any time is necessarily larger than the proportionate number of such commitments made
within a certain period.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

The inability of the Child-Welfare Division, because of lack of funds
and staff, to do constructive case work with children and families
before children are committed or after children have become wards
of the Board results in much needless removal of children from their
own homes. No amount of case work with the families can make it
desirable for some children to remain in the custody of their parents
or other relatives. But from the financial as well as from the social
point of view, public interest demands the elimination of child depend
ency, insofar as it is possible, by means of constructive service to fam
ilies, support for children in their own homes, and the enforcement
of parental obligations.
Types of care.
Of the 1,778 children who were wards of the Board of Public Welfare
on November 1,1936,67 percent were cared for in foster-family homes,
and 5 percent were in their parental homes. Seventeen percent were
in institutions under the jurisdiction of the Board. Four percent
were in child-caring institutions conducted under private auspices.
Three percent were in other places, one-third of them enrolled in the
Civilian Conservation Corps, and the remainder in hospitals, schools,
the United States Army, and penal institutions. On the given date 4
percent of the Board's wards were “absconders”, or children whose
whereabouts was not known.
The types of care given children who were wards of the Board of
Public Welfare on November 1, 1936, were as follows:
Type of care

Percent dietribution1

Total............................................ ......................................

100. 0

Foster-family home____ ________________________________

67. 3

Boarding home____________________________________
Relatives’ home___________________________________

46. 8
10. 2

Free__________________________________________
Board paid___________

6. 4
3. 8

Free home________________________________
Wage home or “wage board” home-------------------------Trial adoption home_______________________________

6. 4
3. 2
.7

Parent’s home______________ :---------------------------------------Institution under Board of Public Welfare_______________

5. 0
16. 6

Industrial Home School for Colored Children________
Industrial Home School (for white children)_________
Receiving Home for Children_______________________

9. 6
6. 6
.4

Private child-caring institution________;___________ ^_____

4 3

Board paid by Board of Public Welfare_____________
Board not paid by Board of Public Welfare__________

3. 8
.5

Hospital______________________________________________
Other type____________________________________________

•6
2. 0

Civilian Conservation Corps________________________
Penal institution__________________________________
United States Army_______________________________
Nurses’ training school___________________________
“Absconders” , or children whose whereabouts was not
known____________________________

.8
.7
.4
.1

i See also appendix table III, p. 82.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

4 2

THE PUBLIC CHILD-WELFARE PROGRAM

For dependent and for delinquent wards.—Of the 1,474 children
under the care of the Child-Welfare Division because of dependency
and neglect, 77 percent were in foster-family homes; of the total
number (1,474 children) 54 percent were in boarding homes. Fosterfamily care was provided for only 20 percent of the children committed
to the Board because of delinquency; care in boarding homes was
provided for 11 percent. Nine percent of the dependent and neglected
children and 55 percent of the delinquent children were in the two
Industrial Home Schools or in the Receiving Home for Children.
Private institutions provided for 4 percent of the dependent and
neglected children and 5 percent of the delinquent children.
The types of care given dependent and neglected wards of the Board
of Public Welfare on November 1, 1936, are compared below with
the types given delinquent wards:
Depend
ent and
neglected
children

Type of care
.

Total........................................ .............................................. ..

Delinquent
children,

Percent distribution1

100.0

Foster-family hom e_______________________________________

77. 0

Boarding home_______________________________________
Relatives’ home______________________________________

54 2
11. 3

Free................ ............ _l'u_.......... : ........ ........ .......................
Board paid______________________________________

6. 8
4. 5

4 6
.7

Free home and trial adoption h o m e ..__________________
Wage home or “wage board” home______ ______________

8. 2
3. 4

2. 0
2. 3

Parents’ home______
Institution under Board of Public Welfare__________________

4. 3
8. 8

8. 2
54. 9

Industrial Home School for Colored Children___________
Industrial Home School (for white children)____________
Receiving Home for Children_____________________ ■___

3. 4
5. 0
.4

39.8
14.5
.7

Private child-caring institution_____________________________

4 2

4.6

Board paid by Board of Public Welfare________________
Board not paid by Board of Public Welfare_______ _____

3. 7
.5

4 3
.3

Hospital______ ___________________________________________
Other type______________________________ ________________

.7
1. 5

______
4 3

Civilian Conservation Corps___________________________
Penal institution_____________________________________
United States Army__________________________________
Nurses’ training’school________________________________

.7
.4
.3
.1

1. 0
2. 0
1. 3
______

“Absconders”, or children whose whereabouts was not k now n..

3. 5

7. 6

1 See

20. 4
10. 9
, 5. 3

also appendix table III, p. 82.

For white and for colored children.—Board was being paid in family
homes or in private institutions for 65 percent of the dependent white
children and for 60 percent of the colored children. None of the delin
quent white children, but 20 percent of the delinquent colored children
were boarded in family homes, with relatives, or in private institu
tions.34
MSee appendix table III, p. 82.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Mention has been made of the small amount of care available for
colored children in institutions under private auspices. Of the 1,778
wards of the Board of Public Welfare on November 1, 1936, 76
children were cared for by private child-caring institutions (table 5).
Of this number 47 were white children; board was paid from public
funds for 39 of them, and 8 were earning their maintenance or were
cared for without expense to the public agency. Twenty-nine
colored wards were in a private institution, 28 of them with board
paid from public funds.
T able 5.— T y p e o f care o f w h ite a n d colored c h ild ren u n d e r care o f the B o a r d o f
P u b lic W elfa re on N o v. 1, 1 9 3 6
Children under care
Type of care
Total

White

Colored

1,778

781

1,197

631

666

832
182

389
74

443
108

114
68

41
33

73
36

Wage home or “ wage board” hom e--.......................................................
Trial adoption home............................................... .................... ...............

113
67
13

41
18
9

72
39
4

Institution under Board of Public W elfare.......................................- ...........

89
296

49
117

40
179

171
117

117

Private child-caring in s titu tio n _________ _________ ________________
Board paid by Board of Public Welfare.................... ..............................

Civilian Conservation Corps......................................... ...... .....................
Lorton Reformatory......... .........................................................................
United States Arm y.'............ .....................................................................
“ Absconders”, or children whose whereabouts was not known...................

8
6

Hospital________________________________________________________

171

Board not paid by Board of Public Welfare................... .........................

997

1
2

1
8

9
2
1
1
1

2
1

4
11

36
14
11
1
8
1

2
7
1
22

7
24
13
9
1
1
62

On the given date 11 percent of the white boys and 13 percent of
the colored boys who had been committed because of dependency
and neglect were in the Industrial Home Schools. Seventy percent

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

THE PUBLIC CHILD-WELFARE PROGRAM

of the white boys committed because of delinquency and 72 percent
of the colored boys were in the Industrial Home Schools.
The Industrial Home School for Colored Children accepts only
boys. Because there is no intermediate institution for delinquent
colored girls they are more frequently committed by the juvenile
court to the National Training School for Girls than delinquent
white girls are. Moreover, on November 1, 1936, the Board of Public
Welfare was paying for the care of 13 delinquent and 15 dependent
or neglected colored girls in a private institution, the Croome Settle
ment School in Maryland.
Maintenance from public funds.
Detailed study not within the scope of the present inquiry would
be necessary in order to ascertain the number of children whose main
tenance was paid for entirely by the Board of Public Welfare, those
supported in part by other agencies and institutions, and those for
whom parents or other relatives paid all or part of the cost of care.
The data given in table 6 show that 1,263 children, 71 percent of the
wards for whom place of care was reported on the given date, were
maintained in full or in part from public funds in boarding homes, in
homes of relatives, in private institutions, or in public institutions.
T

able

6 .— S o u rce o f m a in te n a n c e a n d ty p e o f care o f c h ild ren u n d e r care o f the
B o a r d o f P u b lic W e lfa re on N o v. l t 1 9 8 6
Children under care
Source of maintenance and type of care

Percent
Number distribu
tion

Total...................................................................................
Maintenance paid in full or in part by Board of Public Welfare__________________

1,778

100.0

1,263

71.0

832
i 68
296

62
5

46.8
3.8
16.6
3.5
.3

Maintenance not paid by Board of Public Welfare____ ___________________ _____

441

24.8

Free foster h om e._____________________________________________________
Home of parents or other relative_________ ____________ __________________
Private institution___________________________ _______ _________________
Children self-supporting:
Wage or “wage board” home.............................................. .................................
Institution (not elsewhere classified)... ....... ....................................
Civilian Conservation Corps_____1______ ______________ ____ _________
United States Army____ ___________________________________________
Nurses’ training school___________________ __________________________

126
203
6

7.1
11.4
J1

57
3
14
8
1

3.2
.2
.8
.4
.1

Hospital_________ _____________________ ____________________________
Penal institution................ .............................................................................

11
12

.6
.7

"Absconders”, or children whose whereabouts was not known................ ............ ........

4.2

Boarding home________________________________________________________
Relatives’ home_______________________________________________________
Institutions under Board of Public Welfare_______________ ________________ .
Private institution_____________________________________________________
School or academy . _____ ..... ...................... ..

1 Includes 50 children whose board was paid by means of grants of "aid to dependent children".

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

PUBLIC AID TO DEPENDENT CHILDREN IN THEIR
OW N HOMES
Prevention of Child Dependency Through Home Care
In the preceding sections of this report much has been said about
keeping dependent children in their own homes through such means
as aid to needy families, investigation of needs, and case-work service
to families and children. According to the United States census of
dependent children approximately one-fourth of the children under
the care of public and private institutions or agencies in the District
of Columbia in 1933 36 were children whose mothers were responsible
for their maintenance because of the death or absence of the fathers.
Similarly, the present study shows that one-fourth of the children
who came before the juvenile court charged with delinquency were
from homes in which the mother was the head of the household
(p. 62).
There will always be need for institutional or foster-home care for
children who have no homes or whose natural guardians are unfit to
retain their custody, and many children require care away from their
own homes during temporary emergencies in the families. But a
considerable part of the burden of child dependency now accepted
by public and private institutions and agencies could be prevented
if the necessary funds were available for aid and service to dependent
families.
In 1909 the first White House Conference on the Care of Depend
ent Children embodied in its resolutions the much-quoted statement
regarding home care:
Home life is the highest and finest product of civilization. It is the great
molding force of mind and character. Children should not be deprived of it
except for urgent and compelling reasons. Children of parents of worthy charac
ter, suffering from temporary misfortune, and children of reasonably efficient
and deserving mothers who are without the support of the normal breadwinner,
should, as a rule, be kept with their parents, such aid being given as may be
necessary to maintain suitable homes for the rearing of the children * * * Ex
cept in unusual circumstances, the home should not be broken up for reasons
of poverty, but only for considerations of inefficiency or immorality.

The first laws authorizing public aid to dependent children in their
own homes were enacted in 1911. The law in Illinois was State-wide
in application and the law in Missouri was at first limited to one
county. In both these States the provision was designed specifically
to make it possible for the juvenile court to grant aid to needy parents
instead of committing dependent children to institutions 'at public
expense. The “mothers’ pension” movement spread rapidly through
out the United. States. It represented in large measure a reaction
against the existing poor-relief methods and a desire to assure more
adequate assistance for families deprived of a father’s support.
»» See the section on Dependent Children Under the Care of Public and Private Agencies and Institutions,
p. 66.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

THE PUBLIC CHILD-WELFARE PROGRAM

Although the first bill designed to provide home care for depend
ent children in the District of Columbia was introduced in Congress
in 1916,36 it was not until 1926 that the District of Columbia was
enabled to provide public funds for the care of dependent children
in their own homes. During the intervening 10 years, “mothers’
pension” bills were introduced in the House of Representatives
eight times and in the Senate eight times before a measure sub
stantially in the form proposed by the Commission on Child-Welfare
Laws was enacted in June 1926, and an appropriation was made by
Congress for this purpose. This act is usually called the Home-Care
Act.
Aid Under the Home-Care Act of the District of Columbia
Families aided and annual expenditures.
The Division of Home Care of the Board of Public Welfare began
its work in October 1926, and the first allowances to families were
effective November 1, 1926. On June 30, 1927, 102 families were re
ceiving assistance toward the maintenance of 362 children (table 7).
At the end of the fiscal year ended June 30, 1935, 211 families with
712 children were beneficiaries.
Appropriations to the Division of Home Care have ranged from
$74,500 for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1928, to $160,000 made
available for each of the 2 fiscal years ended June 30, 1934, and June
30, 1935. Expenditures were only 59 percent higher in 1935 than in
1929, when the act had been in operation only 2 years.
T able 7.— A p p r o p r ia tio n s 1 a n d e x p e n d itu r e s each y e a r u n d er the H om e*C are A c t
f o r ca re o f d e p en d en t w h ite a n d colored c h ild ren in th e ir o w n h om es a n d n u m b er o f
f a m il i e s o n a llo w a n ce a n d n u m b er o f c h ild ren elig ib le f o r a i d in th ese f a m il i e s on
la st d a y o f y e a r ; y e a r s e n d e d J u n e SO, 1 9 2 7 - 8 5

Year ended
June 30

Index Number of families on
number
allowance, June 30
of ex
Appro Expend pendi
tures
priation 1 itures
(with
1929 as Total White Colored
the
base)

1927................... $75,000
1928....................
74,500
1929...................
112; 820
1930...................
119,920
1931................... 3 124,920
1932................... 140,000
1933...................
150,000
1934..............
160,000
1935................... 160,000

$41,186

2 89j 672

IOO; 452
110,378
124,906
139,323
143, 687
141,437
159,280

100
110
124
139
143
141
159

102
124
135
142
161
176
206
194
211

58
80
87
80
87
93
106
92
99

44
44
48
62
74
83
100
102
112

Number of children in
Index
families on allowance,
number
June 30
of fam
ilies
(with
1929 as
the
Total White Colored
base)

100
105
119
130
153
144
156

362
434
473
516
595
640
719
669
712

196
265
279
263
292
295
332
284
314

166
169
194
253
303
345
387
385
398

1 Exclusive of appropriations for administrative purposes.
1 The Board of Public Welfare was authorized to use the unexpended balance from the preceding year’s
appropriation.'
3 Includes a deficiency appropriation of $5,000 granted during the year.

The implications of the data on expenditures and on families given
aid each year appear to be that sufficient effort was not made to ex
tend home care to a larger number of families in need of such assist
ance. It is true that increased appropriations are not obtained
easily, but with respect to home care of dependent children Congress
33 A bill providing for pensions for needy mothers was introduced in the House of Representatives in
1914, but it applied to the whole United States.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

has shown a ready interest. This is evidenced by the number of
attempts made to obtain the enactment of a mothers’ aid law for the
District of Columbia during the 10 years before the act was passed.
Residents of the District who were actively interested in this law know
that delay in enactment was due in large part to lack of agreement
among various groups in Washington. Congress accepted the esti
mate of $100,000 recommended as necessary in the early years 37 and
included this amount in the original act, but the appropriations for
the following 2 years were less because evidence presented as to needs
did not convince the appropriations committee that this amount was
required. In subsequent years appropriations were increased, until
expenditures in 1933 and 1934 showed that the amount made available
was not used. It is difficult to understand the failure to use the entire
appropriation, especially during the years of economic stress.
Average grants.
Although the number of families and children receiving aid through
the Division of Home Care has apparently been unduly limited, the
Division has maintained an excellent record with respect to the
amount of aid per family. Table 8 shows the expenditure for aid
each month from January 1935 through January 1936. The average
monthly grant of approximately $61 per family compares very
favorably with similar grants in other communities. I t is obvious
that such averages give only a rough idea of the aid received by
each family. In order to obtain an accurate picture the data should
be worked out by computing “case days” rather than by dividing
the monthly expenditures by the total number of families receiving
aid throughout the month or for part of the month. The actual
amounts received by many families aided throughout the month are
considerably higher than the average amount shown.
T

8 .— A m o u n t p a id each m o n th u n d e r the H o m e -C a re A c t to f a m ilie s w ith de
p e n d e n t c h ild ren , n u m b er o f f a m il i e s on a llo w a n ce, a n d n u m b er o f c h ild ren i n
f a m il i e s elig ib le f o r a id on la st d a y o f each m on th , J a n u a r y 1 9 3 5 to J a n u a r y 1 9 3 6

able

Y ear and m o n th

1936

J a n u a ry .....................................................
F eb ru ary —. ............................................
M arch ....... ...............................................
A pril..................... ......................... ...........
M a y ...........................................................
J u n e ....................................... ....................
J u ly ...........................- ...............................
A u g u st......................................................
S ep tem b er................... ...........................
O ctober........................... ....... ..................
N ovem ber........... ....................................
D ecem ber.................................................

N u m b er of
families on
allowance
a t end of
m o n th 1

N u m b er of
children in
families eli
gible for aid
a t end of
m o n th 1

Average
am o u n t of
aid per
fam ily *

$13,797.00
13,782.00
13,698.00
13,643.00
13,658.00
13,509.00
12, 229. 30
11,725.90
11,532.65
11, 240. 70
11, 252.75
11,788.70

219
217
215
214
214
211
197
192
192
192
190
197

743
735
727
727
720
712
666
653
651
644
640
652

$63.00
63.51
63.71
63.75
63.82
63.13
62.08
61.07
60.07
58.55
59,23
59.84

$18.57
18.75
18.84
18.77
18.97
18.97
18. 36
17.96
17.72
17.45
17.58
18.08

13, 214.55

216

702

61.18

18.97

A m ount
paid to
families
during
m o n th

1936

J a n u a r y ...........

—_______________

Average
am ount of
aid per
child 1

i The number of families on allowance at the end of the month was slightly larger or smaller, in most
instances, than the number receiving aid during the month; therefore, the effect of using in this table the
number on allowance at the end of the m onth is slightly to understate or to overstate the average amount
of aid per family.
37 This amount was first proposed in bills presented in 1922 on the basis of recommendations contained in
the United States Children’s Bureau report, Child Dependency in the District of Columbia (Publication
140,1924); see pp. 100-101 for method-of arriving at the estimate for the first year’s needs.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

the public child -welfare program

Children aided.
At the end of the first 8 months of operation of the Division of
Home Care, 362 children were beneficiaries of public aid in their own
homes. On June 30, 1935, 712 children were beneficiaries. The
numbers of children in families receiving assistance on June 30 of each
fiscal year were as follows:
Number of children

1927
........... - .............................................
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933 .................................................................
__________________ ;______
1934
1935 ..............................................................

Total

White

Colored

362
434
473
616
595
640
719
669
712

196
265
279
263
292
295
332
284
314

166
169
194
253
303
345
387
385
398

In contrast with some other communities in which there is a large
colored population, the figures for the District of Columbia indicate
that home care has been given to about equal numbers of white and
of colored families and children, but it is recognized that the need for
aid is proportionately much greater among colored families.
The number of children for whom aid has been granted has aver
aged approximately 3.5 per family. This average is higher than that
found m many other localities. I t would appear to reflect a general
policy of excluding from aid families with only one or two children.
With the limited expenditures it has obviously been necessary to
restrict the types of families given aid, but there has been much con
cern among social agencies in Washington because the regulations of
the Division of Home Care apparently excluded some families who
were in great need.
Families on Relief Rolls Eligible for Aid to Dependent Children
Even in thfe cities with greater provision for aid to dependent chil
dren in their own homes, only a small proportion of the families that
should be given this form of aid have received it. Estimates presented
in Congressional hearings on the Federal Social Security Bill indicated
that for the United States as a whole about three and one-third times
as many families of approximately comparable status received emer
gency relief as received aid to dependent children.38
A study of so-called unemployables on the rolls of the Public-Assist
ance Division of the District of Columbia Board of Public Welfare,
made by the Research Bureau of that Division, showed that families
with no employable members receiving relief on December 31, 1934,
included the following:
Number

Total_________________________________
Families of widows, women divorced or separated
from their husbands, and unmarried mothers
with dependent children under 16 years of age_
Families of married women with young children
but with no employable member------------------

Number
of fami
lies

of chil
dren un
der 16
years ot
age

894

3, 771

621

2, 303

273

1, 468

si Hearings on 8. 1130 before the Committee on Finance, U. 8. Senate, 74th Cong., 1st Sess., part 6, Feb. 4
and 5,1935, p. 337 (revised edition).

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Under the Home-Care Act of the District, aid was given to 194 fami
lies with 669 children on June 30, 1934, and to 211 families with 712
children on June 30, 1935.
^
*.
A larger proportion of colored mothers is found among the families
receiving emergency relief than among the families receiving aid from
the Division of Home Care. The figures are as follows:
Total

Families receiving aid under the Home-Care
Act on June 30, 1935......................................
Families of dependent mothers and children,
with no employable member, receiving
relief on December 31, 1934_____________

White

Colored

211

112

894

234

660

Investigation would undoubtedly show that some of the families
receiving relief were not sufficiently stable to warrant bringing them
under the home-care plan. On the other hand, other families with
employable members (for example, one minor child over the age of 16
years) would probably be found eligible for aid to dependent children.
On December 31, 1934, 2,813 such families headed by mothers were
receiving relief from the Public-Assistance Division.
For the 894 families of widows or other mothers haying no employ
able member of the family, relief from the Public-Assistance Division
averaged $26.24 a month, an amount far below an average for a standand of living, maintained over a long period of time, that would be safe
for the rearing of children in health and decency, with opportunities
for normal growth and development.
Aid to Dependent Children Under the Social Security Act
When funds became available under the Social Security Act for
reimbursement to the District of one-third of the expenditures for aid
to dependent children in their own homes or in homes of other rela
tives, the Board of Public Welfare segregated for this form of aid
the general relief cases that came under the definition specified in the
act. Under this plan the number increased from 216 families given
assistance under the Home-Care Act of the District in January 1936
to 1,867 families receiving aid under the Home-Care Act and the Social
Security Act in February 1936. The number of children benefited
was increased from 702 to 4,678.
During the first 6 months—February through July 1936—the
number of families receiving aid averaged 1,625 a month, and the
number of children averaged 4,288. During the 6 months, January
through June 1937, the number of families averaged 1,241 a month,
with an average of 3,500 children. In September 1937 aid was given
to 1,213 families with 3,506 children. Expenditures for aid totaled
during the month $50,555. The average grant per family was $41.68.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

THE PUBLIC CHILD-WELFARE PROGRAM

T able 9.— A m o u n t p a id each m o n th u n d er the S o c ia l S e c u r ity A c t to f a m il i e s w ith
d e p en d en t c h ild r e n , a n d n u m b er o f f a m il i e s a n d n u m b er o f c h ild ren a id e d ; F e b ru a r y
1 9 8 6 to S e p te m b e r 1 9 8 7 , in c lu s i v e 1
Amount paid
to families

Num ber of
families
aided

Num ber of
children
aided

Average
amount
per family

me
February...............................................
March...................................................
April___________________________
M ay_________ ______ ___ ______
June_____ ____ _________ ________
July........................................................
August_________________________
September............... ........ ........ ............
October............................... ......... ......
November............ .......................... .
December._____ ________________

$60,769
57,213
57,858
57, 785
57,492
*44,803
56,881
62,879
62,559
66,831
67,345

1,867
1,615
1,583
1,591
1,533
1,559
1,575
1,452
1,378
1,335
1,317

4,678
4,217
4,197
4,232
4,199
4,204
4,224
3,994
3, 793
3,705
3,655

$32.55
35.43
36.55
36.32
37.50
(*)
36.11
43.31
45.40
50.06
51.14

$12.99
13.57
13.79
13.65
13.69
(*)
13.47
15.74
16.49
18.04
18.43

19S7
January________________________
February...............................................
March___________________ ______
April.....................................................
M ay________ _____ ___________
June......................................................
July................................................ .
August..................................................
September_______________ ______

65,240
63,006
60,718
58,961
54,766
57,675
51,426
49,987
50,555

1,275
1,234
1,234
1,150
1,228
1,223
1,224
1,224
1,213

3,577
3,459
3,461
3,528
3,506
3,470
3,490
3,536
3,506

51.17
51.06
49.20
47.17
44.60
47.16
42.01
40.-84
41.68

18.24
18.22
17.54
16. 71
15.62
16.62
14.74
14.14
14.42

M onth

Average
amount
per child

1 Data obtained from the District of Columbia Board of Public Welfare, corrected through Nov, 8,1937.
* The smaller payment in this month was due to a change in accounting procedures; therefore the averages
are not computed.

Under the Home-Care Act the monthly aid averaged $58.55 to
$63.82 per family between January 1935 and January 1936. During
the present type of administration—from February 1936 through
September 1937—the average monthly aid per family has ranged from
$32.55 to $51.17.38a Some of the apparent difference may be attrib
uted to the inclusion under the Social Security Act of smaller family
groups than the Division of Home Care has been accustomed to
accepting, but the average amount of aid per child was almost $19
a month under the Home-Care Act, as against $14.42 for the two
groups together in September 1937. The averages were substantially
higher during the winter months. No conclusion as to the meaning of
these figures could be reached without detailed case studies showing
the budgetary standards and the differences in the types of families
comprising the group receiving aid to dependent children as compared
with those receiving aid under the Home-Care Act.
Mothers’ aid, or home care, as it has been called in the District of
Columbia, is a form of family relief established in order to assure
care in their own homes for the large group of children whose fathers
are dead, absent from the home, or disabled. These families are in
special need of the security that comes from assistance that is con
tinuous and that supplies the needs of normal family life. Long
before mothers’ pensions were provided generally from public funds,
private family-welfare agencies recognized the desirability of setting
apart families of this type and giving them the assurance of regular
aid on a budget basis. This ideal has been attained in a measure by
38° For December 1937 the average relief grant for aid to dependent children was $45.42, and under the
Home-Care Act, $59.19, with an average for the two groups of $47.68.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

the Division of Home Care, which has safeguarded the welfare of
approximately 700 children. Through funds made available by the
Federal Social Security Act, such aid can now be extended to a much
larger number of children who are equally in need of it.
Some confusion of terms has come about through the use of the
term “dependent children" for the group aided in their own homes
under the Social Security Act, as well as for those cared for by insti
tutions and agencies. In the original and usually understood mean
ing, dependent children are the. group taken under the care of childwelfare organizations because their parents or other relatives are
unable to provide for them. This merging of terminology for what
has previously been thought of as two distinct groups of children
is a hopeful sign, perhaps forecasting general acceptance of the fact
that the difference is not in types of children but in the way in which
their problems have been met by social agencies.
The need for aiding families deprived of the father’s support has
been amply demonstrated. There still remains the problem of
actually providing security for approximately 4,000 children in the
District of Columbia who are now receiving assistance. Because of
the temporary availability of relief funds and supplemental Social
Security funds, an amount is now being spent monthly that would
mean an annual expenditure of approximately $700,000. Grants
under the Social Security Act are made on the basis of expenditures.
Unless the Board of Public Welfare is assured relief funds that will
make it possible to continue aid to dependent children at the present
rate, the scope of the plan will have to be reduced. If this should
happen, more than 3,000 children would be left to the insecurity of
the present relief situation in the District.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

*
DELINQUENT CHILDREN BEFORE THE JUVENILE
COURT
Purpose and Scope of Study
It is not the purpose of this study to describe the mechanism and
policies of the court nor to make more than a very general analysis of
the problem of juvenile delinquency in the District of Columbia.
The data presented in the following cross section of the delinquency
problem were compiled from information obtained from court dockets
and from statistical cards made out by the probation office for each
child coming to the attention of the juvenile court, officially or un
officially, during the 4 months, April, May, June, and July 1935.
These summaries were used as a basis for study of children committed
to the Board of Public Welfare because of delinquency.

Official and Unofficial Cases
During the 4 months, 617 children came before the juvenile court
for official or unofficial hearings on delinquency charges.39 Of these,
556 were boys and 61 were girls. The distribution according to type
of hearing, color, and sex is shown in table 10.
T

10.— N u m b e r o f w h ite a n d colored bo ys a n d g irls brou gh t before the ju v e n ile
co u rt i n official a n d u n official d e lin q u e n c y ca ses d u r in g the 'period A p r i l - J u l y
1935

able

Children brought before court
Color and sex of child

In official
cases

Total

In unofficial
cases

617

428

189

656

383

173

W hite........................................................................................
Colored___________________________________________

181
375

103
280

78
95

Girls.................................................................................................

W hite........................................................................................
Colored---------------------- ----------------------------------------- -

17
44

6
10

Total.....................................................................................

>• During this period the total number of delinquency cases in which these boys and girls were brought
before the court on new charges was 634 (table 11).

♦

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

T able 11.— M a n n e r o f h a n d lin g d e lin q u e n c y ca ses o f w h ite a n d colored h oys a n d
g irls brou ght before the ju v e n ile co u rt d u r in g the p e r io d A p r i l - J u l y 1 9 3 5
Delinquency cases brought before
the court during—
M anner of handling case; and color and sex of child
Entire
period
Total cases_____________________.

April

M ay

June

July

634

152

163

12 1

198

1445
189

115
37

112

106
15

112
86

573

140

146

108

179

White boys___ _______ ____ _________

182

Official cases.....................................
Unofficial cases....................................

104
78

29
11

27
17

32
5

16
45

Colored boys__________________________

391

100

102

118

296
95

75
25

72
30

67
4

82
36

Official........... . ............. . .................. .
Unofficial.............................. .
Boys’ cases_________________________

Official cases..... ..............................
Unofficial cases.....................................
Girls’ cases......................................................

White girls.............................................................

Official cases.........................................
Unofficial cases........................................

11
6

6
2

Colored girls________ ______ __________
Official cases........ .............. ......................
Unofficial cases........................ ......

1 One white boy and lfi colored boys came before the court for official hearings on different charges in 2
of the months included in the study: the total number of children was, therefore, 428, and the total cases
were 445.

According to the 1930 census of the United States, 27 percent of the
population of the District of Columbia were colored. Differences
between the two races with respect to problems that bring them to the
attention of social agencies are reflected in the comparative numbers
of white and colored children coming before the court because of de
linquency. Only 32 percent of the children were white; 68 percent
were colored.
Ages of the Children
There was no significant difference between the ages of children
brought before the court officially and those brought unofficially
(table 12). It appears to be the usual practice of the police and court
officials not to bring delinquency charges against children under 9
years of age. Only seven children under 9 years of age were brought
before the court officially or unofficially; one, a 6-year-old girl, had
told the police officer that she was 2 years older tnan she was later
found to be.
Sixty percent of the children were 14 years of age or over. Cases
involving five boys who were 17 years of age and therefore not under
the court’s jurisdiction were dismissed when the correct ages were
discovered. There is a striking difference between the ages of white
and colored boys; 30 percent of the white boys as compared with 47
percent of the colored boys were under 14 years of age. Five of the
17 white girls and 12 of the 44 colored girls were under 14 years of age.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

THE PUBLIC CHILD-WELFARE PROGRAM

T able 12.— A g e o f w h ite a n d colored b o y s a n d g ir ls brou ght before the j u v e n ile c o u rt
i n official a n d u n o fficial d e lin q u e n c y ca ses d u r in g th e p e r io d A p r i l - J u l y 1 9 3 5
Children brought before the court
Colored boys

W hite boys

Age of child
Total

617

Official
cases

Unoffi
cial
cases

103

Official
cases

280

u
i

1
1
1
6

2
1

4
20
20

44
66

82
127
142
05
5

3
4
5

2
1

6
8
20

2
0
10
10

34
23

15
15

White girls

Unoffi
cial
cases

14
27
34
30
61
58
34
3

4
7
12
20

13
17
11
2

Colored girls

Unoffi
cial
cases

Official
cases

Unoffi
cial
cases
10

1
1

i
3

1
2
2
2
2

2
0

14
3

Offenses Charged Against Boys

Three-fourths of the charges against boys brought before the juve
nile court for official hearings were offenses against property (table 13).
In the cases of 67 percent of the white boys and 77 percent of the colored
boys the complaints alleged petty larceny, more serious forms of lar
ceny or burglary, unlawful entry, unauthorized use of automobile,
destruction of property, or attempts to commit depredations of these
kinds. One-sixth of the complaints charged disorderly conduct, in
corrigibility, or truancy. The remaining cases included traffic vio
lations, false fire alarms, injury to person, and sex offenses.
Complaints in the cases dealt with unofficially by the court were in
general of a much less serious nature than in those handled officially
(table 14). Nearly half of the group handled unofficially involved
offenses against property—50 percent of the cases of white boys and
44 percent of colored boys. A considerable proportion of the offenses
in the cases handled unofficially appeared to be very trivial. In more
than a third of these cases the complaints were disorderly conduct,
trespassing on railroad property, playing ball in street or alley, riding
a bicycle on the sidewalk, distributing handbills, and, since the Fourth
of July was within the period studied, discharging fireworks.
T able 13.— R e a so n f o r referen ce to co u rt i n official d e lin q u e n c y c a ses o f w h ite a n d
co lo red b o ys brou gh t before the co u rt d u r in g the p e r io d A p r i l - J u l y 1 9 3 5
Official delinquency cases
Reason for reference to co u rt 1
Total c a se s.....................................................................................- ........

White
boys

Total
400
7

Colored
boys

104

1
2
1

3
3

4
3

206
7

1
1
Housebreaking and incorrigibility.................................. ................—...........
i The reasons for reference are those reported by complainant. Police charges of petty larceny, grand
larceny, robbery, and housebreaking are entered on the formal complaint as T . P. A.—taking property
of another.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

T able 13.— R e a so n f o r referen ce to co u rt i n official d e lin q u e n c y ca ses o f w h ite a n d
co lo red b o y s b rou gh t before th e co u rt d u r in g th e -period A p r i l - J u l y 1 9 3 5 — Con.
Official delinquency cases
Reason for reference to court

White
boys

Total
Unlawful entry______ _____________________________
Unlawful entry and false alarm______________________
Unlawful entry and disorderly conduct_____ ____________
Unlawful entry and violating probation........................
Attempted unlawful entry________________________

Petty larceny____ ______________________________
Petty larceny and unauthorized use of automobile.....................
Petty larceny and violating probation.....................................
Attempted petty larceny and violating probation____________

97
1
15

Receiving stolen property......................................... .................
Unauthorized use of automobile.......................................
Unauthorized use of automobile and violating probation____
Attempted unauthorized use of automobile...................

3
38

Destroying public property......................................................
Destroying private property........... ................ .
Destroying private property and unauthorized use of automobile..........

1
11
1

Traffic violation..............................................................
Traffic violation and violating probation.................
False fire alarm__________________________
Concealed weapons__________________________
Assault (injury to person)______________________
Sex offense______ _______ ____________
Disorderly conduct......................................... .............
Disorderly conduct and violating probation...............
Selling in districted zone___ ____ _____ ________
Swimming n u d e ..................................... ........
Incorrigibility.........................................................
Incorrigibility and violating probation..........................................
Truancy__________ ___ ______ _____________
Truancy and violating probation__ 1 ..........................................

10
1

Colored
boys

2
1

8
3

7
1

21
15

3
3
15
1

1
23
6

x
2

1
14
XI
i
1
1
26
19
7
2

6
1

x
7

T able 14.— R e a so n f o r referen ce to c o u rt i n u n o fficia l d e lin q u e n c y c a ses o f w h its
a n d co lo red b o y s brou ght before th e co u rt d u r in g th e p e r io d A p r i l - J u l y 1 9 3 5
Unofficial delinquency cases
Reason for reference to c o u rt 1

W hite
boys

Total
Total cases___________________________________
R obbery.............................. ......................... ................
Housebreaking......................................... ...........
Attempted housebreaking_____________ ___________
Unlawful entry___________ _______________
Obtaining money under false p retenses.................................
P etty larceny_________________________
Attempted petty la rcen y ....................................................
Unauthorized use of automobile...........................
Destroying public property.................................................
Destroying private p ro perty.................................
False fire alarm________ _________
Traffic v io latio n ..............................
G am in g ............................................
Assault (Injury to p erso n )................................
Breaking glass on street______ ________
Trespassing on railroad property__
Disorderly conduct...................................
Acts of carelessness and mischief___
Jumping on moving vehicles..................
Discharging fireworks...........................
Incorrigibility_______________ _____
Riding bicycle on sid e w alk ...........................
Unlicensed vending.........................
Distributing handbills........................
Swimming n u d e ...............................
Playing ball in street or alley............................
Throwing missiles_____________

173

Colored
boys

X
2

3
x
44
X
i
3
17
x

3
X
6
2

39
2

14
3

h
x

2
6
11

3
X
5

• The reasons for reference are those reported by complainant. Police charges of petty larceny, grand
larceny, robbery, and housebreaking are entered on the formal complaint as T. P. A.—taking property of
& QOtH 6r •

14788—38----- 5

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

THE PUBLIC CHILD-WELFARE PROGRAM

Tables 13 and 14 list the charges entered by police officers or others
making the complaints. Study of case histories and detailed descrip
tions of offenses showed that the official charge did not always indicate
the nature of the offense. Charges of housebreaking and unlawful
entry, for example, covered a wide range of offenses, some of them of a
serious nature and others that might have been described as trespassing
on property or malicious mischief. “Unauthorized use of automo
bile” was sometimes a euphemistic term for theft or attempted theft
of an automobile, but often it meant taking a “joy ride” in a car that
the owner had left conveniently unlocked. In incorrigibility cases, on
the other hand, although the complaints were sometimes made by
parents who were unable to control the boys, there was often a history
of specific offenses or conduct that made it necessary to restrain the
boy from continuing a career of delinquency.
Offenses Charged Against Girls
Of the 61 girls brought before the juvenile court for official or un
official hearings, 17 were charged with larceny or other offenses against
property and 6 with injury to person, traffic violation, or throwing
missiles. The most prevalent complaints were incorrigibility and dis
orderly conduct, involving 24 and 10 girls, respectively. Three girls
were charged with truancy and 1 with sex delinquency. Case records
indicated that most of the 38 girls in this group were of the type usually
designated as sex delinquents. (Tables 15 and 16.)
T able 15.— R e a so n f o r referen ce to cou rt in official d e lin q u e n c y ca ses o f w h ite a n d
colored g ir ls brou ght before the cou rt d u r in g th e p e r io d A p r i l —J u l y 1 9 8 5
Official delinquen cy cases
Beason for reference to court

White
girls

Total
Total cases.......... .................. .......................................... ...... .............
Grand larcen y ....................... ........................ ................... ...................
Forgery.................................. ..............................................................................
Unlawful entry________ ____________________ ________________
P etty larceny___________ _________ ______________________________
Destroying private p ro p erty ......... ........ ........ ............. ...... ■__________
Traffic violation . . . I . . ......... ........................................
Assault (injury to person)_______________ _______ ____ _____________
Sex delinquency..!_______________________________________
Disorderly conduct______ ________ ________ _________________ _____
Incorrigibility_______________________________________________
Incorrigibility and violating probation............................ ...............................
Truancy___________ _________________________

Colored
girls
34

2
1

5
6
2
1
2
1
1

1
2
1

5
5
2
1
2

T able 16.— R e a so n f o r referen ce to cou rt in u n o fficia l d e lin q u e n c y cases o f w h ite a n d
colored g irls brou ght before the cou rt d u r in g the p e r io d A p r i l - J u l y 1 9 3 5
Unofficial delinquency cases
Reason for reference to court
Total
Total cases_____________________ _____
Petty larceny_____________________ _________ ____
Assault (injury to person)____ ____________ ____
Disorderly conduct.............................. ...................
Incorrigibility__________________________
Throwing missiles__________________________

16
1
2
9
3
i

White
girls

Colored
girls

1
3
1
1

Girls' cases differed radically from boys’ cases, as to both the number
brought before the court, officially or unofficially, and the nature of
the offenses charged. Such differences are common to all juvenile

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

courts, but the proportionate number of girls’ cases brought before
the juvenile court of the District of Columbia appears to be unusually
small.
Record of Previous Offenses
The 445 delinquency cases brought before the juvenile court for
official hearings in the 4 months were only those in which there were
new charges of delinquency during the period. In 222 of these cases
there was a record of previous court appearances, either official or
unofficial. Of the white boys 38 percent were repeaters and of the
colored boys, 57 percent. Two of the 11 white girls and 12 of the 34
colored girls had been before the court previouslv on delinquency
charges. (Table 17.)
There are sometimes unofficial cases with records of previous official
or unofficial court hearings on delinquency charges, but as a general
rule cases were dealt with unofficially only if the charges were of a
minor character and there was no record of previous conduct th at
indicated the need for official handling of the case.
T a b l e 17.— P r e v io u s cou rt ex p erien ce o f w h ite a n d colored h oys a n d g ir ls i n official d e
lin q u e n c y ca ses brou ght before the ju v e n ile cou rt d u r in g th e p e r io d A p r i l - J u l y 1 9 3 5
Official delinquency cases
Children
Children.
with no
with
previous
previous
court
court
experience experience

Color and sex of child
Total

Total cases____________________________
Boys:
W h ite..............................................
Colored..............................................................
Girls:
W hite..........................................................
Colored..........................................................

445

223

104
296

128

U
34

222

Home Conditions as a Cause of Delinquency
Data susceptible to statistical compilation can reveal only the bare
outlines of social conditions, serving as the basis for certain general
premises. Figures relating to the types of homes from which delin
quent children come to the attention of juvenile courts invariably
show a large proportion of cases in which the home had been broken
by the death of a parent or by divorce, desertion, or separation.
A “broken home” is not necessarily coincident with neglect or de
linquency; many children in all levels of society suffer from this handi
cap without becoming objects of concern to child-caring or correctional
agencies. No figures are available as to the prevalence of broken
homes in the general population, upon which conclusions might be
based as to the comparative incidence of broken homes among families
in the lower economic groups. From a study of court records we can
safely say that the majority of the children come to the court from
families'of the lower economic levels, and that the interrelated factors
of financial stress, bad housing, low standards of family life, and
inability of the mother alone to maintain a normal home are potent
causes of juvenile delinquency.
The prevention of delinquency must be concerned with the con
ditions that lie behind the conduct of the individual child. Data on

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

THE PUBLIC CHILD-WELFARE PROGRAM

whereabouts of the children and parental status are merely surface
indications of home conditions. The whole story can be told only by
case histories that show for individual children the effect of home and
environmental conditions. Records of children who come before the
juvenile court are in general a monotonous recital of the same story
with variations—low standards of family life, caused by deprivation of
necessities or by shiftlessness, immorality, intemperance, subnormal
mentality, or bad housing; neighborhoods without opportunities for
recreation that will not conflict with city regulations; mothers working
away from home and providing an inadequate subsistence for the
family; children left to their own devices, getting into trouble with gangs.
There are, of course, numerous cases in which home conditions
cannot be held responsible for the depredations or difficulties for which
the children are brought into court. Here is a field for study by staffs
of child-guidance clinics and other experts in the causes of personal
maladjustment.
There are also cases in which the only reason that can be assigned for
the delinquent behavior seems to be “pure cussedness.” Some of
these may be solved through understanding the child’s experiences in
the home and the school, his emotional outlets, his ambitions, and the
opportunities for breaking laws and ordinances.
In many of the cases in which the offense was fisted as “unauthorized
use of automobile,” the adventure was facilitated by owners who left
their cars unlocked. Children brought to the court by police officers
for discharging fireworks during the Fourth of July period and those
apprehended because of infractions that can hardly be classed as willful
law-breaking may also, in the main, be exempted from the group in
which home conditions or personal maladjustment, or these factors
together, are cause's of delinquent behavior. But in most cases the
histories of boys and girls charged with larceny, housebreaking, sex
delinquency, truancy, or incorrigibility indicate the influence of bad
living conditions as well as personal maladjustments.
Whereabouts of the Children
Almost half of the 617 boys and girls who came officially and
unofficially before the juvenile court because of delinquency during the
period studied were from broken homes or were living away from their
parental homes. One-fourth of the children came from homes in which
the mother was the head of the household. Fifty-two percent of the
children lived with both parents; 48 percent lived with a parent and a
stepparent, or with the mother or the father, or were in another family
home or an institution.
The whereabouts of the children at the time they were referred to
court was as follows:
Whereabout» of child

Percent
distribution

Total--------------------- ---------------------------------------------- 100.0
Child living with:
Both parents_______________________________________ 51. 8
Mother and stepfather---------------------------------------------4. 3
Father and stepmother ................................................................ 1
Mother____________________________________________ 25. 9
Father_____________________________________________
5. 0
Child away from own home:
In another family home_____________________________ 12. 2
In institution— ................................................................................. 7

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

The cases dealt with unofficially differed from those heard officially
not only in the seriousness of offenses but also in the types of homes
from which the children came. Of the boys and girls appearing before
the court officially, nearly 47 percent lived with both parents, as com
pared with 63 percent of those dealt with unofficially. The figures on
children living with the mother only are astonishingly similar for
the two groups—28 percent for official cases and 21 percent for
unofficial cases.
There is a striking difference between the home conditions of the
white children and the colored children. Sixty-one percent of the
white children lived with both parents, as compared with 47 percent
of the colored children. Twenty-two percent of the white children and
28 percent of the colored children were with the mother only. Seven
percent of the white children and 16 percent of the colored children
were in other family homes or in institutions. The proportionate
numbers of children who were living with a parent and a stepparent
or with the father only did not differ appreciably in the two groups.
Parental Status
Parental status was reported for 580 of the 617 children. Two
percent of these children were whole orphans; the father was dead in
15 percent and the mother in 7 percent of the cases.
Three percent of the delinquent children were reported to be of
illegitimate birth; it is probable that this figure is too low, since it is
not likely that birth status would in all cases be known for children
of the ages of those who came before the court because of delinquency.
Data in regard to divorce and desertion are also likely to be somewhat
questionable. According to the reports, one of the parents had
deserted in 7 percent of the cases; in 2 percent the parents were
divorced; and in 8 percent the parents were “living apart.” The last
category included cases in which one parent was in a penal institution,
a sanitarium, or a hospital, as well as those in which the parents were
reported as separated. Fifty-six percent of the parents were living:
together.
The parental status of the children at the time they were referred
to court was as follows:
Parental status

Percent
distribution

Total.......................................................................................... 100. 0
Parents living together......................................................................
Both parents dead............................................................................."
Father dead........ .................................................................................
Mother dead________________;______________________ _____
Child illegitim ate.....................
Parents divorced________________________________________
Father deserting_______________________
Mother deserting________________________________________
Parents living a p a rt.........................................................................

55. ^
2. 2
14 , 8
7. 4
2. 8
1. 9
6. 2
.9
8. 1

One of the most significant facts brought out by analysis of these
figures is the number of children from homes in which the mother was
the sole head of the family. More than one-fourth of all the children
brought before the court officially, and more than one-fifth of those
dealt with unofficially lived with the mother, the father being dead
or absent from the home. In addition to these, a considerable number
of the children who were living in other family homes or in institutions

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

THE PUBLIC CHILD-WELFARE PROGRAM

when they were charged with delinquency had apparently been
removed previously from homes maintained by the mother alone.
Tables 18 and 19 show the relation between whereabouts of the child
and parental status, according to color and sex.
T able 18.— W h erea b o u ts a n d p a r e n ta l sta tu s o f c h ild ren brou ght before the ju v e n ile
co u rt i n official d e lin q u e n c y cases d u r in g the p e rio d A p r i l —J u l y 1 9 8 5
Whereabouts of child and parental status at time of
reference to court

Colored
boys

White
girls

White
boys

Total

Colored
girls

Total.......................................................................

428

103

280

W ith both parents in hom e..........................................

195

118

7
4
4

4
3
1

W ith mother......... ............................................... ..........

117

Father dead-----------------------------------------------

2
1

1
1

3
25

34
4

2
2

1
20
12

Parents living a p a r t.............................................

4
5
4

1
1
2

2
1

11
2

1
2
1

12
2
1

5
7
3

6
1

1
1
2

17
4
6

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

1
1
2

1
1

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

T able 19.— W h erea b o u ts a n d 'parental sta tu s o f c h ild ren brou ght before the ju v e n ile
co u rt i n u n o fficial d e lin q u e n c y cases d u r in g the p e rio d A p r i l - J u l y 1 9 3 5
Whereabouts of child and parental status at time of
reference to court

White
boys

Total

Colored
boys

White
girls

Colored
girls

Total...............................

189

W ith both parents in hom e...

119

W ith mother and stepfather..

W ith mother______________

Father dead....... .
Father deserting.......
Parents living apart.

Mother dead.............
Parents living apart.

4
3

2
2

2
1

In other family home___

Father dead____ ____ _

W ith father.

Parents living together.
Both parents dead____
Mother dead_________
Parents living apart___
Not reported_________
Not reported.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

i
5
7
3

1
2
2

1
1

4
4
1

DEPENDENT CHILDREN UNDER THE CARE OF PUBLIC
AND PRIVATE AGENCIES AND INSTITUTIONS
Federal Census of Dependent and Neglected Children
No one knows the whole story of child dependency and neglect.
Definite data can be obtained only in regard to children who, because
of neglect or dependency or for other reasons, have been taken under
the care of agencies and institutions. Many of these children are not
actually dependent in the sense that their relatives cannot provide for
their support, at least in part. But for all of them care outside their
own homes has been thought to be necessary, either because of home
conditions adjudged by the juvenile court to be detrimental; because
of the inability of mothers to provide support and proper care for chil
dren when the fathers were dead or absent; because of the inability of
fathers to maintain homes for children left motherless; or, in some
cases, because one or both parents found it necessary or convenient to
place their children in an mstitution, usually in order to permit em
ployment of the mother.
In 1904, 1910, 1923, and 1933 the Federal Bureau of the Census
took a special census of children under the care of institutions and
agencies. Differences in the groups included in these enumerations
and varying methods of compiling the data make it impossible to
compare the figures of one census with another. The latest census,
for December 31, 1933, is undoubtedly better planned and more
specific than any of the preceding ones, both in its definition of in
clusion and in the facts obtained. The published report on this
census became available in January 1936.40 The cooperation of the
Bureau of the Census made it possible for the Children’s Bureau to
obtain from the original reports certain data in regard to each child
cared for by institutions and agencies of the District of Columbia.4^
As of December 31, 1933, 17 organizations42 located in the District
of Columbia reported 1,945 children receiving care in institutions or
foster-family homes.43 Of this total 1,863 children were residents of
the District. Agencies and institutions in nearby States cared for
103 children who were District residents.44 The total number of chil
dren classified as dependent or neglected whose residence was the
District of Columbia and who were away from their own homes under
direct care of institutions and agencies on the given date was, therefore,
40 Children Under Institutional Care and in Foster Homes, 1933. U. S. Bureau of the Census. Wash
ington, 1935. 125 pp.
D ata on which the following discussion is based were compiled by Caroline E . Legg of the Children s
Bureau staff.
,
,
. _
« The total number of agencies and institutions in the District is 20. The census report for the Division
of Child Welfare of the Board of Public Welfare includes the Industrial Home School, the Industrial Home
School for Colored Children, and the Receiving Home for Children.
« The total as given in the report of the Bureau of the Census is 1,928. In compiling the data the omission
was noted of one agency from which information as of the given date was obtained and added to the census
figures.
*« This figure is probably an understatement; it was obtained as the result of a search through the census
reports only for States that seemed likely to receive children from Washington because of their proximity or
because they contained fraternal or sectarian institutions receiving children from other States.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

1,966. This number represents 163 dependent children out of every
10,000 children under 18 years of age in the general population of the
District according to the census of 1930.
High Rate of Child Dependency in the District
In order to ascertain the status of the District of Columbia with
respect to child dependency, data were obtained from the Bureau of
the Census for 30 large areas. This list comprises areas with popu
lations between 250,000 and a million, accordmg to the 1930 census.
The rate of dependent children was obtained by comparing the total
child population of each area with the number of children who were
residents of the area and who were away from their own homes under
care of agencies and institutions. Table 20 shows that Washington
(the District of Columbia) ranked second among the 30 areas in rate
of dependent children, being outranked only by the San Francisco
area and equaled by Rochester, N. Y., and Denver, Colo.
T able 20.— N u m b e r o f d e p en d en t a n d n eglected c h ild ren u n d er care i n in s titu tio n s
a n d fo s te r h om es w h ose re sid e n c e w a s i n sp e c ified a r e a s ,1 a n d ra te p e r 1 0 ,0 0 0
c h ild ren u n d er 1 8 y e a r s o f a g e ; 2 D ec. 8 1 , 1 9 8 8

Residence when accepted for care 1

Children in institutions
and foster homes
Number of
children
under 18
Rate per
years of age 2 Number * 10,000 chil
dren under 18
years of age

San Francisco, Calif_____________________________
Rochester, N. Y ________________________________
Washington, D. C_______________________________
Denver, Colo___________________________________
Louisville, K y__________________________ _______

128,885
127,517
120,408
77,046
106,080

2,219
2,083
1,966
1,256
1,677

172
163
163
163
158

Indianapolis, I n d .. . . . . . _________________________
Boston, Mass___________________________________
Providence, R. I ______________________ . ________
Buffalo, N. Y_________________________________
Kansas City, M o_______________________________

121,319
266,382
179,459
248,401
123,136

1,547
3,363
2,263
3,075
1,453

128
126
126
123
118

Cleveland, Ohio____________________ . . ____ _____ _
Cincinnati, Ohio__________________ ____________ *.
Baltimore, M d_____ ____ _______________________
St. Paul, M inn_________________________________
Minneapolis, M inn__________ ___________________

377,553
163,664
246,093
86,436
149,233

4,375
1,796
2,566
876
1,487

104

Portland, Oreg___ . __________ ___________________
Toledo, O h io ...;____ _____ ______________________
Columbus, Ohio________________________________
Milwaukee, Wis_______ . . . . . . ___ . . . . . . . . . _________
New Orleans, La________________________________

86,194
105,956
104,332
224,270
142,400

766
940
916
1,891
1,171

84
82

Newark, N. J ________________ ____________ „____
Memphis, T enn________________________________
Seattle, Wash___________________ _______________
St. Louis, Mo__________________________________
Oakland, Calif_____________________________I ...I .

256,354
92,809
122,527
217,245
125,101

2,083
724
940
1,453
819

81
78
77
67
65

Dallas, Tex_____________________ _______________
Jersey City, N. J ............................................ .................I.
Akron, Ohio____________________________________
Houston, Tex___________________________________
Birmingham, Ala______________________ ______

99,821
227,362
117, 785
110,612
153,257

625
1,406
613
569
585

63
62
52
51
38

116
110
101
100

89
89
88

1 Each area is designated by the name of the principal city and includes the entire county, except Balti
more and St. Louis, which are cities only.
* According to the 1930 census.
* According to unpublished data as of December 31,1933, made available to the Children’s Bureau by the
u . S. Bureau of the Census.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

THE PUBLIC CHILD-WELFARE PROGRAM

A comparison of this kind may indicate several things. The areas
with the highest rates of dependent children may be providing care
for a larger proportion of children who are in need of such care than
areas at the other end of the scale. This is undoubtedly true of
Washington, where, through the public agency, care for colored
children is extensive as compared with several of the areas whose
dependency rates are low. A high rate may, and usually does, mean
that the area has inadequate measures for prevention of child de
pendency. The numbers are also affected by the availability of
public care or public subsidy to private agencies. This has a corollary
of inadequate provision in many cities where public funds are not
available for child care. In other words, figures such as these must be
analyzed for each community with regard to adequacy of provision
for children needing care away from their own homes, and with regard
to the attention given to prevention of child dependency, especially
by means of aid to children in their own homes, family relief and
rehabilitation, and protection of children.
The foregoing sections of this study indicate that the District of
Columbia has fairly adequate resources for all types of children need
ing care, but that the particular form of care needed for each child
is not always available because of the limitations of public provision.
If measures for the prevention of dependency were applied to a greater
extent, the number of dependent children in Washington who must
be cared for in foster homes and institutions would undoubtedly be
reduced greatly.
In none of the areas in this list would conditions warrant a guess as
to the normal rate of child dependency. It is, however^ significant to
note that in Milwaukee and in Minneapolis, areas ranking nineteenth
and fifteenth in the list, the numbers of children receiving public aid
in their own homes through mothers’ aid laws in 1930 were almost as
great as the numbers of children cared for by agencies and institu
tions.45 In Washington, on the other hand, figures compiled coin
cidentally showed that only one-fourth as many children were receiv
ing public aid in their own homes as were under the care of agencies
and institutions. Neglect of this “first line of defense”—aid to
children in their own homes—cannot fail to influence the childdependency problem.
Public and Private Care
Of the 1,966 dependent children in the District, 1,031 were under
the direct care of the Board of Public Welfare, either in family homes
or in the two Industrial Home Schools. Private institutions and
agencies located in the District cared for 832 of the children, and
organizations in other States had 103 children under care. Reports
of the Board of Public Welfare indicate that about 30 children whose
maintenance was paid for from public funds were under the care of
institutions included in the census report. Thus, estimating roughly,
approximately 52 percent of the care for dependent and neglected
children of the District of Columbia was provided by the Board of
Public Welfare and 48 percent by private agencies and institutions.
Data were not available as to the number of children whose parents
or other relatives paid some part of their maintenance. It is an
« D ata compiled for July 1.1930. See Child Dependency in the United States, by Emma O. Lundberg,
p. 108. Child Welfare League of America, New York, 1332.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

accepted fact that even, when relatives pay the full amount charged for
care of children in an institution this does not cover the entire cost of
maintenance, so that all children under care of agencies or institution^
are at least partially dependent upon public or private funds. Both
public and private agencies and institutions obtain whenever possible
some payment toward the support of children from parents who are
able to make a contribution, but there is undoubtedly a much larger
proportion of partially dependent children in the populations of private
mstitutions than among those who have been committed to the public
child-caring agency.
Racial Distribution
Two-thirds of the children cared for away from their own homes
were white and one-third were colored. On the surface this is an
unexpectedly low proportion of colored children, in view of the fact
that 27 percent of the population of the District of Columbia are
colored, according to the 1930 census, and that economic conditions
and other factors that operate to create dependency are more prevalent
among this race. This is a striking illustration of the truism that the
actual number of dependent and neglected children in the District of
Columbia or in any community is not shown by statistics on children
under the care of agencies and institutions.
Two significant facts are brought out by figures on racial distribu
tion: (1) 58 percent of the children provided for by the Board of
Public Welfare through placement in boarding or free homes or in the
Industrial Home Schools are colored; (2) only 9 percent of the children
cared for by private agencies or institutions are colored (table 21).
Or, from another approach, 66 percent of the dependent white children
in the District are under care of private agencies or institutions as
compared with 34 percent under the care of the Board of Public
Welfare; only 12 percent of the colored children are cared for by
private agencies and institutions, and 88 percent are public wards.
The explanation would appear to be, at least in part, the difference
between the availability of institutional care for white and for colored
children. I t might also be found that the proportionate number of
children whose maintenance must be paid for entirely by the agency
or institution is much greater among the colored than among the
white children. There is also the traditional tendency in the colored
race for relatives or others to care for children without the aid of
social agencies.
T able 21.— D e p e n d e n t a n d n eglected w h ite a n d co lo red c h ild r e n u n d e r p u b lic a n d
p r iv a te ca re i n in s titu tio n s a n d fo s te r h om es o n D ec. 3 1 , 19 S 3 1
Children in institutions and foster homes
Colored

W hite

Type of care
Total

Number

Percent

Number

Percent

Total......... .................................................... .......

1,966

1,291

675

Board of Public W elfare... -------- -----------------------Private agencies and institutions_________________

1,031
935

438
853

42
91

593
82

i According to the Bureau of the Census. See p. 06.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

THE PUBLIC CHILD-WELFARE PROGRAM

Ages of Children Under Care
Of thé 1,966 children in foster homes or in institutions on December
31, 1933, 4 percent were under 2 years of age; 13 percent more were
from 2 to 5 years, inclusive. Children of the usual elementary-school
age, 6 to 13 years, inclusive, comprised 57 percent of the total number,
and 26 percent were 14 years of age or over. (Table 22.)
T able 22.— A g e o f d e p en d en t a n d n eglected c h ild ren u n d e r care in in s titu tio n s a n d
f o s te r h om es o n D ec. S I , 1 9 S S 1
Children in institutions and
foster homes
Age of child
Percent dis
tribution *

Num ber
1,966

10 0 .0

Under 1 year_______________
1 year......................... .................

27
44

2 .2

years........................ - .............
3 years_____________ _______
4 years........... .............................
5 years.........................................

60
49
63

Total________________

1.4
2 .6

2.5
3.2
4.5

3.9

6 years________ ____ _______
7 years.........................................
8 years........ ................................
9 years____________________

122

6 .2

138
133

6 .8

10
11
12

years___________________
years.......................................
years_________ __________
13 years___________________

171
152
168
164

8.4

14 years.......................................
16 years___________________
16 years___________________
17 years............... .......................

144
125
87
58

7.4
6.4
4.4
3.0

18 years___________________
19 years.......................................
20 years.............................. ........

43
29
27

2 .2
1 .5

7.0
8.7
7.8
8 .6

1.4

7
1 According to the Bureau of the Census. See p. 6 6 .
i Percent distribution based on 1,969 children (1,029 under the care of the Board of Public Welfare and 930
under the care of private agencies and institutions) for whom age was reported.

Ages of Children When Received for Care
The policies of agencies and institutions and the types of problems
they meet are revealed in the figures on ages of children at the time
they were received for care (table 23).
In this connection it should be noted that many of the children who
are committed to the Board of Public Welfare have previously been
under care of other agencies and institutions, and that certain institu
tions receive children who have passed the age limit set by institutions
that care for very young children. Data on ages of the children when
they were received by the agencies and institutions reporting do not,
therefore, give a true picture of the ages at which the children became
dependent.
Analysis of the reports on this point show that almost 14 percent of
the children were taken under care of the reporting agencies and in
stitutions when they were under 2 years old. The fact that 134

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

children of the 1,959 for whom age was reported were received for care
when they were under 1 year old, and 135 at the age of 1 year, suggests
the need for careful study of the reasons that so large a number of
infants had to be cared for away from their mothers.
T able 23. — A g e o f d e p e n d e n t a n d n eglected c h ild ren w h en received b y p u b lic a n d
p riv a te o r g a n iz a tio n s f o r care i n in s titu tio n s a n d fo s te r h om es on D ec. 8 1 , 1 9 8 8 1
Children in institutions and foster homes

Age of child when received for care

Under care of Board Under care of pri
vate agencies and
of Public Welfare
institutions

Total

Number

Percent
distri Number
bution s

Percent
distri
bution 1

Number

Percent
distri
bution *

Total...................................... ............

1,966

100.0

1,031

100.0

935

10 0 .0

Under 1 year.................................................
1 year........................... ............ ...................
2 years, under 5......... ........... .......................
5 years, under 10 _____________________
10 years, under 15........... ............. ................
15 years, under 18......................................

134
135
367
781
463
79

6 .8

64
33
149
422
209
53

6.9
3.5
16.0
45.4

Not reported_________________________

6.9
18.7
39.9
23.6
4.0

102

218
359
254
26
2

9.9
2 1 .2

34.9
24.7
2.5

2 2 .6

5.7

According to the Bureau of the Census. See p. 66 .
Percent distribution based on 1,959 children (1,029 under the care of the Board of Public Welfare and
930 under the care of private agencies and institutions) for whom age was reported.
1
1

A. large proportion of the children placed in foster homes or institu
tions when they were under 2 years of age were children of illegitimate
birth. Information on birth status was obviously very inadequate,
especially in the reports from institutions. If the information were
complete, it is probable that the number of infants of illegitimate
birth would be found to be larger than the reports indicated.
Length of Time Under Care
One-third of the children who were under care away from their
own homes on the given date had been in foster homes or institutions
5 years or more (table 24). Forty-two percent of the children who
were wards of the Board of Public Welfare had been cared for by the
Board for 5 years or more. Twenty-two percent had been under
care of private agencies and institutions 5 years or more.
The policies and practices of the various agencies and institutions
regarding length of time children are under care are not revealed so
much by figures based upon the present institution population as
they would be by figures for children who have been discharged from
care. This latter information, however, was not available in the
census reports.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

THE PUBLIC CHILD-WELFARE PROGRAM

T able 24.— L en g th o f tim e u n d e r p u b lic a n d p r iv a te care; d e p e n d e n t a n d neglected
c h ild ren i n in s titu tio n s a n d fo s te r h om es on D ec. 3 1 , 1 9 3 3 1
Children in institutions and foster homes
Under care of Board
of Public Welfare

Total
Length of time under care

Number

T otal_______
Less than 1 year___
1 year____________
2 years___________
3 years____________
4 years____________
5 years, less than 10..
10 years, less than 15.
15 years or more___
Time not reported...

Under care of pri
vate agencies and
institutions

Percent
distri- Number
bution 2

Percent
distribution

Number

Percent
distribution 2

1,966

> 100.0

1,031

100.0

935

100.0

450
323
230

22.9
16.4
11.7

178
163
109
105
39
318
85
34

17.3
15.8

272
160

10 .6
10 .2

12 1

29.2
17.1
13.0
10.3

201

1 0 .2

114
493
118
35

5.8
25.1
6 .0
1 .8

3.8
30.8
8 .2

3.3

96
75
175
33
1
2

8 .0

18.8
3.5
.1

1 According to the Bureau of the Census. See p. 6 6 .
2 Percent distribution based on the total of 1,964 children and the 933 children under care of private agencies
and institutions for whom length of time under care was reported.

Status of Parents of Dependent Children
The census reports included information in regard to the where
abouts of one or both parents of 1,624 of the 1,966 children under the
care of agencies and institutions away from their own homes as of
December 31, 1933. I t may in many instances represent the where
abouts of the parents at the time the children were received for care,
but it cannot be interpreted as having a direct bearing upon the reasons
for the care of children away from their own homes. The data
reported on the status of parents may, however, be indicative in a
general way of home conditions underlying child dependency. Un
fortunately institutions and agencies do not always obtain adequate
facts about home conditions when a child is received or keep informed
about changes that may occur.
Data were given concerning the whereabouts or status of one or
both parents of 1,624 children; included in this number were 363
children for whom the whereabouts or status of the mother but not
of the father was reported, and 149 children for whom information
was available about the father but not about the mother.
In only 11 percent of the total number were both parents reported
to be in the family home. Nine percent of the children were recorded
as whole orphans.
Twenty-one percent of the children for whom information was
available were reported to be of illegitimate birth. Large as this
figure is, study of the reports made by some institutions indicated that
it would have been still larger if reports on birth status had been more
complete. The reason for this astonishingly high percentage of
illegitimacy is found largely in the figures for the colored children.
In the total number of children in each group for whom the status
of one or both parents was reported, 13 percent of the white children
and 35 percent of the colored children under care of agencies and
institutions were of illegitimate birth. It is a very serious matter
that more than one-fifth of the children in the District of Columbia

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

who are maintained at public or private expense are children handi
capped by birth out of wedlock, whose fathers are for the most part
not meeting their financial responsibilities, limited as these are under
the laws of the District, and whose mothers are unable to provide
care and maintenance.
The fathers of 3 percent of the children were known to be in penal
institutions, and the same proportion were in other institutions. The
mothers of 8 percent of the children were in institutions. It is
assumed that those reported as “elsewhere”—6 percent of the fathers
and 9 percent of the mothers—included parents who were divorced,
who were living apart, or who had deserted their families. Obviously,
a larger number of fathers than of mothers who were reported as un
known or whose whereabouts was not given belonged in this group,
but the distribution of the numbers and percentages in all the groups
would undoubtedly be changed considerably if complete reports
had been obtained in regard to the parental status of all the children.
Table 25 gives the reported whereabouts of the father and of the
mother in terms of numbers of children and percent distribution.
Omission from the census reports of facts in regard to whereabouts
of the parents undoubtedly implies failure to obtain or to record this
fundamental information. It is significant that most of the omissions
occurred in reports from certain institutions conducted under private
auspices. This evidence of ignorance in regard to the children points
to neglect to ascertain home conditions when the children were re
ceived for care and to keep in touch with parents and other relatives
with a view to restoring the children to their care if it should become
possible to do so. This neglect of such preventive measures as careful
mtake, continued contacts with persons legally responsible for the
children, and a definite plan for rehabilitating homes is, in the last
analysis, the greatest factor in creating and continuing child de
pendency. It is a costly neglect, both in terms of taxpayers’ dollars
and charitable contributions and in child welfare.
T

able

25 .— S ta tu s a n d w h ereabou ts o f p a re n ts o f d e p e n d e n t a n d n eglected c h ild r e n
u n d e r care o f in s titu tio n s a n d fo s te r hom es on D ec. S I , 1 9 3 8 1
Children under care

Status and whereabouts of parents
•

Number
Total

White

Percent distribution
Colored

Total

Total_________________________

1,966

1,291

675

Whereabouts reported________________

1,624

1,025

599

100.0

Both parents in the home__________
Both parents dead______________ _
Father dead...........................................

184
145
197

12 1

89
145

63
56
52

11.3
8.9

Mother in the home___________
M other in institution.....................
Mother elsewhere...................... .
Mother unknown or not reported.

102

9
9
77

77
4
64

25
9

Father in penal institution___ ______

Mother in the home................ ......
Mother dead...................................
Mother in institution.....................
Mother elsewhere...................... .
Mother unknown or not reported-

8
1

15
5

According to the Bureau of the Census. See p.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

66 .

White

100.0

Colored

100.0

1 1 . 8.

1 2 .1

8.7
14.1

10.5
9.4
8.7
4.2
1.5

6.3

7.5

.6
.6

4.7

.4
6 .2

.8
2 .2

2 .8

3.0

2.3

13
5

3
3

1 .0

1.3
.5
.1
.7
.5

.5
.5

7
5

.5
.1
.9
.3

1.3

THE

p u b l i c c h i l d -w e l f a r e p r o g r a m

T able 25.— S ta tu s a n d w h erea b o u ts o f p a re n ts o f d e p e n d e n t a n d n eglected c h ild r e n
u n d e r ca re o f in s titu tio n s a n d fo s te r p a r e n ts o n D ec. S I , 19S S — Continued
Children under care

Total
Whereabouts reported—Continued.
Father in other institution...................

Percent distribution

Number

Status and whereabouts of parents

Colored

White

Total

White

Colored

2.7

4.2

1 .1

1.7
.4
.9

17
9

17
4
9

1
12

.1
1 .2

Father in the h o m e..............................

210

150

12.9

14.6

10 .0

M other dead................. ..................
Mother in institution__________
M other elsewhere__ __________
M other unknown or not reported.

108
37
18
47

72
27
15
36

6 .6

7.0

6 .0

Father elsewhere....................................

100

M other in the home................ ......
Mother dead__________________

17
23

10
11

Mother in other institution...........
Mother elsewhere_____________
M other unknown______________

14
37

5
14
5

9
23
3

.9
2.3

.5
1.3
.5

Father unknown or not reported____

363

272

22.4

26.5

15.2

Mother in the home................ ......
Mother dead.................... ......... .
M other in in stitu tio n ...................
Mother elsewhere...........................

196
119
29
19

144 *
93
23

52
26

1 2 .1

7.3

14.0
9.1

8.7
4.3

1 .8
1 .2

2 .2
1 .2

1 .0
1 .2

Child born out of wedlock....................

336

129

207

20.7

1 2 .6

34.6

Mother In the home............. .........
M other dead__________________
M other in penal institution_____
M other in other institution...........
M other elsewhere............................
M other unknown or not reported.

87.
55
3
28
46
117

40
49

5.4
3.4

4.6

6.7

.6
.2

8 .2
.2

7
13
54

1
21

33
¡S3

.7
1.3
5.3

3.5
5.5
10.5

342

266

M other dead.......................... ........

6
2

.3
.6
.1

2.3

2 .6

1.7
.5

2.9

1.5
3.5

1 .8

6 .2

4.4

9.2

L0
1.4

1 .0

1 .2
2 .0
.2

12
1

1 .1

1.7
2 .8

7.2

1.5
3.8
.5

Preventing Removal From Homes
Statistics such as the foregoing give only general indications of
social and economic factors in chdd dependency. They can merely
suggest the possibility of preventing some of the conditions that are
apparent. Thoroughgoing investigation and action, case by case, are
necessary in order to know the real causes of dependency and to pre
vent needless removal of children from their own homes. On the
other hand, adequate information in regard to home conditions may
reveal a real need for care of children away from their own homes in
many instances where surface facts seemed to indicate that removal
might have been avoided by means of case work with the family and
financial assistance.
Mention has been made of the fact that parents in the District of
Columbia who place their children in institutions and pay mainte
nance charges for them often do so in order to have the children cared
for while the mother is employed. It is difficult, therefore, to attempt
any estimate of the probable extent to which aid to families or enforce-

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

ment of parental responsibility might reduce the number of children
supported in whole or in part Dy public or by private agencies.
The most obvious type of cases in which financial aid to families
might prevent removal of children from their own homes is the group
in which the mother is the head of the household, the father being
dead or absent from the home. Eliminating from this group the 87
children born out of wedlock whose mothers were reported to be at
home, the distribution of the 348 children in this classification was
as‘follows:

Whereabouts of-father

Children under care of—
Private
Board of
agencies
Public
and insti
Welfare
tutions

Total______ ___________
Dead______ _______ _________ _
In penal institution___________
In other institution___________
Elsewhere____________________
Unknown or not reported_____

_
_
.
.
.

141

207

50
13
10
17
51

52
3
7
145

Although many of the families in which the father’s whereabouts was
not reported would probably not be eligible for mothers’ aid, it would
appear safe to estimate that at least 300 of the children who were in
the care of agencies and institutions might be proper subjects for such
provision in their own homes. How many of the children who were
received for care by agencies and institutions might have remained in
their own homes if such aid had been available and if their real needs
had been known early enough is, of course, quite another question.
Undoubtedly the actual number of children who might be cared for in
their own homes would be very much larger than the number revealed
by study of the situation on a given date, when many of the children
had been under agency and institutional care for several years and
home conditions had changed radically and many parents had been
lost sight of. It is one thing to prevent removal of children from their
own homes by means of timely aid and case work and another to
reassemble a household that has been scattered.
Child-Caring Agencies and Institutions in the District
The census reports covered 17 agencies and institutions 46 located in
the District of Columbia, caring for 1,945 dependent children away
from their own homes on December 31,1933.47 A total of 1,041 children
were under the care of the Board of Public Welfare, including 956
placed in family homes under supervision of the Child-Welfare Divi
sion and 85 in the Industrial Home School (for white children) and
the Industrial Home School for Colored Children. One child-caring
agency and nine institutions under sectarian auspices cared for 636
children, four nonsectarian institutions and one nonsectarian agency
cared for 222 children, and one institution under the auspices of a
fraternal order had 46 children under care on the given date.
46 One agency, which had 17 children in foster homes on the given date, was added by the Children’s
Bureau. D ata in regard to children in the two Industrial Home Schools and in the Receiving Home for
Children were included in the report made by the Board of Public Welfare.
47 It should be noted that the foregoing sections deal with the 1,966 children in the care of agencies and
institutions located in the District or elsewhere (insofar as reports could be obtained for those in other States)
whose residence was the District of Columbia. Of the children cared for in agencies and institutions located
in the District, 82 were not residents of the District; 103 children with District residence were under the care
of agencies and institutions in neighboring States.

14788— 38------ 6

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

THE PUBLIC CHILD-WELFARE PROGRAM

Of the total number of children cared for by agencies and institu
tions located in the District of Columbia, 1,298 were white and 647
were colored 5that is, 67 percent of the children under care on the
'.ven date were white and 33 percent were colored. The Board of
ublic Welfare cared for 445 white children and 596 colored children.
Only one of the private institutions and one agency cared for colored
children—51 children on the given date as compared with 853 white
children cared for by private organizations.
Of the total number of children, 914 were boys and 1,031 were
girls. Eleven of the institutions under private auspices cared for
both boys and girls. One received boys only and two received girls

° Table 26 shows the agencies and institutions located in the District
of Columbia, grouped according to the auspices under which they are
conducted, with the number of boys and girls cared for by each, as
reported to the United States Bureau of the Census on December
31, 1933.
T able 26. — D e p e n d e n t a n d neglected b o ys a n d g ir ls u n d er care i n in s titu tio n s a n d
fo s te r h o m es, b y ty p e o f a g e n c y o r in s titu tio n g iv in g care, o n D ec. 31 , 1 9 S 3 1
Children in institutions and
foster homes
Agency and institution giving care
Total

Boys

Girls

T o ta l..._______________________________

1,045

014

1,031

Board of Public Welfare, Child-W'elfare Division *.

1,041

541

500

P rivate agencies and institutions............................. .

004

373

531

Sectarian:
_____
,
Catholic Charities of Washington.............. .
Children’s Emergency Home..................... .
Episcopal Home for C h ild re n ...............
Jewish Foster Home.............. ......... ........ —
St. Ann’s Infant Asylum..............................
St. John’s Orphanage...................................
St. Joseph’s Home and School.....................
8 t. Rose’s Technical School...- ..................
St. Vincent’s Home and School------. . . —
Swartzell Methodist Home----------- -— --

45
34
76
46
73
40
60
84

23
14
36
26
34
14
60

22
20

11 1

40
20

30
26
84
111

Nonsectarian:
Juvenile Protective Association-----------------------------------German Orphan Asylum...... .
.............. . . . . . . . . . .
National Home for Destitute Colored Women and Children
Hillerest (Washington City Orphan Asylum).........................
Washington Home for Foundlings............................................

17
41
44
60
51

20
20
8

15
61
14

Fraternal:
_
_
Masonic and Eastern Star Home

1 According to the Bureau of the Census. See p. 66 .
> Including the Child-W’elfare Division, the Industrial Home School, the Industrial Home School for
Colored Children, and the Receiving Home for Children.

Types of Care Given Dependent Children
The difference in the types of care provided by organizations under
public and under private auspices is shown in the strikingly high
percentage of children under care of the Board of Public Welfare m
foster homes, especially boarding homes (table 27). Of the dependent
children under direct care of the Board 8 percent were in the two
Industrial Home Schools, while 75 percent were cared for in boardmg

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

homes and 17 percent in free homes or in work or wage homes.48 Of
the children provided for by organizations under private auspices,
on the other hand, 92 percent were cared for in institutions, and only
7 percent in boarding homes and 1 percent in free homes.
The types of care given dependent children by public and private
organizations are compared below:
Percent distribution
Private
Public

Total
Total______________ _____ - ______ 100
Type of care

Institution_______________________
Boarding home___________________
Free home----------------------------------Work or wage home______________

______
______
..............
..............

47
43
8
2

100
8
75
13
4

100
92
7

i Less than 1 percent.
4i Adding to the number under direct care of the Board of Public Welfare the number (estimated as 30
for the given date) of wards cared for in private institutions at the expense of the Board, the percentages
would be changed to: 11 percent in institutions; 72 percent in boarding homes, and 17 percent in free, work,
or wage homes.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

able

27.— D e p e n d e n t a n d neglected w h ite a n d colored c h ild ren u n d er care i n i n s titu tio n s a n d i n fo s te r hom es, b y ty p e o f care a n d b y ty p e o f a g e n c y
a n d in s titu tio n g ivin g care, on D ec. S I , 1 9 8 3 1

Type of care
Total number of
children

T o ta l.................. .............................................
Board of Public Welfare............................................
Private agencies and institutions......... ..................
Sectarian:

St« Aim s Infant A s y lu m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
St. Josepli s Home and S c h o o l.............

1,045
1,041

National Home for Destitute Colored
Hillcrest

(Washington

City

Fraternal:

Orphan

1,298
445

904

853

45
34
76
46
73
40
69
84

111

Nonsectarian:
Juvenile Protective Association..................

White Colored Total
647
596
51

111

17
41

7
44

White Colored Total

Free home

White Colored Total

Work or wage home

White Colored Total

White Colored

842

837

372

465

150

>57

>28

776

318

458

139

829

786

34
76
46
73
40
69
84

34
34
76
46
73
40
69
84
111

111

58
10

914
85

69
51

59
• 48

59
48

' According to the Bureau of the Census. Seep. 66 .
,
„
a 56 in the Industrial Home School (for white children), 1 in the Receiving Home for Children.
»27 in the Industrial Home School for Colored Children, 1 in the Receiving Home for Children.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
..
Federal Reserve Bank of -St. Louis

» —

i l i - '_________________ _____________________ __ ___________________ 'p w v ____________________________________ .

-Mr

THE PUBLIC CHILD-WELFARE PROGRAM

Total

Boarding home

Institution

Agency and institution giving care

DISTRICT OP COLUMBIA

In addition to the Catholic Charities and the Juvenile Protective
Association, reporting, respectively, 45 and 17 children under care in
foster homes on the given date, the following two private institutions
reported placed-out children: Hillcrest had 10 children in boarding
homes and the Washington Home for Foundlings had 3 children in free
homes. I t must be remembered that the census information relates to
December 31, 1933. It is possible that the facts have changed some
what since that time. The census reports show that there is a large
field for development of noninstitutional care for dependent children
in Washington, in spite of the fact that the proportionate number of
dependent children cared for in boarding homes is greater than in most
large cities because of the policy of the Board of Public Welfare.
The data presented in the foregoing sections in regard to ages of
children cared for under public and under private auspices, parental
status, and so forth, do not suggest differences between the public and
the private agencies that would explain the different practices with
respect to type of care. This difference is brought out forcibly in the
figures relating to colored children. Ninety-two percent of the
dependent colored children were wards of the Board of Public Welfare.
Of these 5 percent were in institutions, 77 percent were provided for in
boarding homes, and 18 percent in other fam ily homes. The very
limited amount of care for colored children available under private
auspices was provided by one institution and one agency. It is difficult
to find suitable boarding home care, but it is undoubtedly easier to
make such provision for white children than for colored children.
The different types of care given dependent white children are com
pared below with the types given dependent colored children:
Type of care

Total................................ -......
Institution______ i........................... .....................
Boarding home.................................... ...................
Free h o m e ..................................-...... ...................
Work or wage home........ ................

Total

Percent distribution
Colored
White

100

47
43
8

65
29
5

100
11
72
13
4

2
1
The census data indicate that dependent children are given care
according to the prevailing method used by the organization to which
application is made, and that the type of care which is readily available
and not the need of each child is often the determining factor. A
hopeful beginning has been made in extending the service of institu
tions to include foster-home care, either through cooperation with a
child-placing agency or through placement by the institution. The
private institutions should develop this kind of service so that each
child may be given care in an institution or in a boarding home or other
family home according to his needs.
The Board of Public Welfare recognizes the need for institutional
care of certain types of children by placing some of its wards in private
institutions. Careful study of the needs of some of the children now in
foster homes might show that training in a suitable institution would
be better in some instances. It is a more commonly accepted principle
that foster-home care would be desirable for some children now in
institutions. In other words, the care of children who must be pro
vided for away from their own homes must be flexible, and not
dependent as largely as it seems to be in the District upon whether the
children are wards of the public agency or of private institutions, and
whether they are white or colored.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

APPENDIX TABLES
T able I .— T y p e o f care o f d e p e n d e n t a n d n eglected c h ild ren u n d er care o f th e B o a r d
o f P u b lic W e lfa re o n th e f ir s t d a y o f each m o n th , J a n u a r y - O c to b e r 1 9 8 7
Children under care
January

February

March

April

701

786

718

796

717

800

122

102

394
108

427
128

394
119

426
137

394
118

427
133

Free...........................................
Board paid................................

75
32

87
35

72
30

94
35

79
29

90
38

82
37

100

84
34

93
40

Free home..........................
Wage or “ wage board” home.................
Trial adoption home.....................
Institution under Board of Public Weifare._____ ______ _____
Private child-caring institution..............

34
17

64
34
4

67
29
4

65
32
4

22
11

67
34
4

21
11

33
19

22
11

33
4

82
51

59
28

76
51

56
32

61
31

75
46

61
29

74
49

64
33:

15-

Board paid by Board of Public
Welfare................... .....................
Board not paid by Board of Public
Welfare.....................................
Hospital...........................................
“Absconders.” or children whose whereabouts was not know n................

11
68

Colored

779
424
129

White

700
391

Colored

770
420

T otal. .1 ..........................................
Boarding home____________
Own or relative’s home............... .

White

710
389
107

White

W hite

M ay

Colored

Type of care

Children under care
June

Type of care

July

8
J3
£

c
o
Q

August
V

*2
a>

o
O

”©
O

3
%

September

October
©
3

'©
o

T otel...............................................

733

809

737

808

742

810

762

823

761

833

Boarding home........ .............. ................
Own or relative’s home...........................
Free....................................................
Board paid.......................................

402
116
81
35

429
127
90
37

400
113
84
29

436
130
94
36

402
105
83

430

408
116
89
27

440
136
97
39

401
116

446
124

Free home......... ....................... ..............
Wage or “wage board” home.................
Trial adoption h o m e .............................
Institution under Board of Public
Welfare..................................................
Private child-caring institution..............
Board paid by Board of Public
Welfare............................................
Board not paid by Board of Public
W elfare......... ....................... ........

33
24

70
29
4

34
25

70
31
4

29
25

71
30
4

34
25

75
52

71
32

79
55

74
68

69
46

Hospital...............................................
“Absconders”, or children whose whereabouts was hot known____________

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

122

90
32

69
28
4

32
25
8

70
35
4

77
59

74
28

88
66

90
26

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

T able II. — T y p e o f care o f d e lin q u e n t c h ild ren u n d e r care o f th e B o a r d o f P u b lic
W e lfa re on th e f ir s t d a y o f each m o n th , J a n u a r y - 0 d o b e r 1 9 S 7
Children under care
March

February

January

May

April

Total................................................
Own or relative’s home.................. —
Free_______________ ___________
Wage or “ wage board” home— ...........
Institution under Board of Public
Welfare..................................................
Private child-caring institution...........

Colored

White

Colored

White

Colored

White

Colored

White

Colored

Type of care

242

238

214

220

224

2
12

29
27

35
25

27
26

3
3

4
4

112

48
7

115
27

29
28

4
4

3
4

4
4

45
7

128
24

1
6

Board paid by Board of Public
Board not paid by Board of Public
Welfare........... ............ - ...............
“ Absconders,” or children whose whereabouts was not known.........................

134
28

106
28

16
7

4
3

Children under care
June

• September

August

July

October

-3
2

*2
©

Total_______________ ________

235

242

250

244

194

Boarding hom e................... ....................
Own or relative’s home................. .........

29
27

25
30

3
13

23
27

3
15

26
23

3
13

Free........................................... ........

22
1

12
1

21
1

2
2

2
6

Wage or “ wage board” home.................
Institution under Board of Public Weifare...... .................. -..............................
.Private child-caring institution..............

1
1

3
3

46
7

126
26

50
9

130
27

47
9

142
30

49
8

135
27

29
9

93
27

Board paid by Board of Public Wei-

5 >

Board not paid by Board of Public
Welfare............................................

7
2

“ Absconders,” or children whose whereabouts was not known_______ ____ _

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

THE PUBLIC CHILD-WELFARE PROGRAM

T able

III .— T y p e o f care o f w h ite a n d colo red -d ep en d en t a n d n eglected a n d d e lin q u e n t
c h ild ren u n d e r care o f the B o a rd o f P u b lic W e lfa re on N o v . 1, 1 9 3 6
Children under care
Delinquent

Dependent and neglected

Total
Type of care

Per
Per
Num cent Num cent White
ber distri ber distri
bution
bution

Col
ored

T o ta l......................... — 1,778
Foster-family home................

1,197

Per
N um cent White
ber distri
bution

Col
ored

100.0

1,474

100.0

712

762

304

100.0

67.3

1,135

77.0

526

609

20.4

235
5T

54.2
11.3

389
71

410
95

33
16

10.9
5.3

33
13

6 .8

62
33

4.6
.7

Relative’s home________

832
182

46.8
10 .2

799
166

F re e ...........................

114
1 58

6.4
3.8

100
66

4.5

38
33

Free home........................
Wage home or “ wage
board” home..... ............

113

6.4

107

7.3

2 .0

57
13

3.2
7

50
13

3.4
.9

17
9

33
4

2.3

Parents’ home.........................

5.0

4.3

8 .2

15.

Institution under Board of
Public Welfare...................-

296

16.6

129

8 .8

167

54.9

123'

171

9.6

3.4

12 1

39.8

117

6 .6

5.0

14.5

2 76

4.3

4.2

4.6

14*

3.8

3.7

4.3

industrial Home School
Industrial Home School
Receiving Home for ChilPrivate child-caring instituBoard paid by Board of
Board not paid by Board

Other type...............................
C ivilian Conservation
Penal institution___ >___
United States A rm y .___
Nurses’ training schopl...
"Absconders” , or children
whose whereabouts was
not known______________

2 .0

1.5

4.3

11
6

1
1

1 .0
2 .0

12
8
1

.7
.4

.7
.4
.3

4.2

3.6

14
;

5
1'

12 1

3
5

1.3

7.6

i Includes 50 children whose board was paid by means of grants of "aid to dependent children.”
* See table 5, p. 47.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

11
2■

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Full text of The Public Child-Welfare Program in the District of Columbia, Bureau Publication No. 240

FRASER