Irrespective of whether the family is of the native-born or
foreign-born group, the problem of the case of those in distress
should not be regarded as solely a local problem. It is indeed of
national importance. Poverty, sickness, illiteracy, inefficiency,
incompetence, are no longer matters of peculiar concern to a locality.
The causes leading to these conditions are not local; the consequences
are not local. The agency that deals efficiently with them should not
be entirely local.
Yet at the present time there is lacking not only a national agency
and a national standard; there is often lacking a state agency and a
state standard.[75] In Illinois, for example, the Pauper Act is
administered in some counties by precinct officials designated by
county commissioners; in other counties by the township
officials.[76] The Mothers' Aid law is administered in Illinois by the
juvenile court, which in all counties except Cook County (Chicago) is
the county court. There is no agency responsible in any way for the
standardization of the work of these officials, and niggardly doles or
indiscriminate relief without either adequate investigation or
adequate supervision, often characterizes the work of both.[77]
Not all states are in as chaotic a condition as Illinois. A few states
have developed a larger measure of central control. Massachusetts,
California, and New Jersey, for example, secure a certain measure of
standardization in the administration of their Mothers' Aid laws by
paying part of the allowances, in case the central body approves--the
State Board of Charities in Massachusetts,[78] and California,[79] and
the State Board of Children's Guardians in New Jersey.[80]
Pennsylvania secures this by assigning to the Governor the appointment
of local boards and providing central supervision, while in other
cases there may be inspection, the preparation of blanks and requiring
reports. A member of the State Board of Education is supervisor of
the Mothers' Aid law administration in Pennsylvania.[81]
The case cited above illustrates the way in which the demoralizing
effects of unskillful treatment in Pennsylvania and then in Illinois
lasted into the period in which Chicago agencies tried to render
efficient service.
It would not be possible to develop at once a national or Federal
agency for rendering aid to families in distress. Nor would such an
agency be desirable if characterized by the features of the old poor
law. But the development of a national agency for public assistance
will undoubtedly be necessary before such problems as these can be
adequately dealt with. It should be based on such inquiries as the
United States Children's Bureau and other governmental departments can
make as to the volume and character of the need and the best methods
for dealing with that need. Undoubtedly the Grant in Aid, as proposed
in the bill introduced into the Sixty-fifth Congress to encourage the
development of health protection for mothers and infants, will prove
the quickest path to a national standard. Careful study into the kind
of legislative amendment necessary in the various states in order to
reduce the chaos now existing in the exercise of these functions
should also be made.
The present is in many ways an unfortunate moment at which to suggest
the necessity of developing such an agency. The War Risk Bureau,
created to provide certain services for the families of soldiers and
sailors and others in the service, through the failures and
imperfections of its service, has discouraged the idea of attempting
such tasks on a national scale. It should be recalled, however, that
the assignment of the War Risk Bureau to the Treasury Department
concerned with revenue instead of to the Children's Bureau concerned
with family problems, rendered it practically inevitable that such
limitations of skill would characterize its work. Neither a taxing
body nor a bank should be chosen for the supervision of work with
family groups.
The "home service" work of the American Red Cross constituted such a
national agency during the period of the war, and if the so-called
"peace-time program" is successfully developed, the need urged in this
chapter may be met.
The efficient local private agencies suffer in the same way from the
lack of a national agency and a national standard in case work. The
American Association for Social Work with Families, and the National
Conference of Social Work, attempt by conference and publication to
spread the knowledge of social technique and to improve the work done
by existing societies. But there are whole sections, even in densely
populated areas, in which there exists no such agency.
If, then, the benevolence and good will of the community are to be
embodied in such service for foreign-born families that fall into
distress as will not only relieve but upbuild the life of the family,
interpret to them the standards of the community, and help them to
become a part of the true American life, a national minimum of skill
and information must be developed below which the agencies for such
care will nowhere be allowed to fall. From the experience both of
these foreign-born families and of the communities into which they
finally come we learn again the doctrine laid down a hundred years ago
by Robert Owen, that the care of those who suffer is a national and
not solely a local concern.