A STUDY OF THE INFLUENCE OF THE ENGLISH POOR LAW UPON THE DEVELOPMENT OF AMERICAN PUBLIC ASSISTANCE PRACTICES

A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE ATLANTA UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF SOCIAL WORK IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SOCIAL WORK

BY MARTELLE TRIGG KING

ATLANTA, GEORGIA AUGUST 1947

/ TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Page

I. INTRODUCTION . 1 Statement of Problem 1 Purpose 5 Scope...» 3 Method of Procedure 4 II. A BRIEF SKETCH OF THE ENGLISH POOR LAW 5 Repressive Legislative Measures 5 The Elizabethan Poor Law 8 The Act of 1834 11 Influence Upon American Practices 12 III. PUBLIC ASSISTANCE IN AMERICA 14 The Colonial Era 14 State Interest 16 Federal Government Participation in Relief- Giving 22 Steps Toward Federal Social Legislation 25 IV. SOCIAL SECURITY MEASURES 28 The Public Assistance Program 29 Influence of Poor Law Upon Social Security...... 33 Individualization of Needs 34 Gaps and Trends in the Present Federal Assis¬ tance Program 36 V. SUMMARY 41 BIBLIOGRAPHY 44 CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Statement of Problem

The focus of charity from early periods of history has

always been on an individual basis namely, that "of services

or care given by an individual to an individual."! In Hebrew

society which was the earliest written record, it was found that as tribal life gave place to agriculture and commerce,

social classes began to develop and "rich" and "poor" appeared

The Old Testament reveals that the Hebrew prophets and sages were concerned about and gave attention to the problem of the

poor. It was also pointed out that among the Romans "....Slav

ery replaced pauperism by securing subsistence for a large

proportion of the poor, and that they practiced for centuries

the gratutious distribution of grain."2

Later Christianity gave greater impetus to the care of

the poor. Jesus* teachings with emphasis upon love and good

deeds made charity a virtue.3 In some instances people gave

to beggars with selfish motives hoping that "by means of alms

!Gordon Hamilton, Theory and Practice of Social Case Work (New York, 1940), p. 17.

2John Lewis Gillin, Poverty and Dependency (New York, 1921), pp. 147-148.

3Ibid., p. 149. 1 2 we may wash off any stains subsequently contracted.”! The giving of alms for the welfare of "one’s soul" continued to be a dominent motive throughout Christian centuries.2

J. W. Ashley, 3 an authority in history, summarizes the characteristics of relief giving during the Middle Ages in

Europe as a lack of any attempt by the state as a whole or by any secular authority to relieve distress. Charity was left entirely to the church, and its motives were chiefly religious.

Almsgiving was indiscriminate, and no attempt was made by any public authority to coordinate the various agencies. Legisla¬ tive measures were concerned with lessening the evils of va¬ grancy and not the pauperism of the impotent poor. Theolo¬ gians, recognizing the evils that grew out of Medieval charity long before the state actually took over the care of the poor, emphasized two principles, first, that the duty of the state was to undertake or to supervise the relief of the poor, and

secondly, that there was need to stringently prohibit begging.4

England, for the most part, followed the pattern of six¬ teenth century Europe. The manoral lords were responsible for the indigent and later, the guilds and monasteries. The monas¬

teries, however, continued even after the Renaissance to

!lbid.. p. 154.

2Ibid.. p. 155.

5J. W. Ashley, An Introduction to English Economic His¬ tory (New York, 191?), pp. 338-539.

4John Lewis G-illin, op, cit.. p. 155. 3 assume most of the responsibility for the care of the poor and gave indiscriminately to all who sought aid. The religious communities were accused of fostering poverty beyond the point where they could deal with it. But with the dissolution of the monasteries, thousands of destitute persons were thrown upon the local parishes with no means of support.^

The writer is of the opinion that the social worker, con¬ cerned with relief giving, is concerned with the economic wel¬ fare of the individual, adequate budgeting and the raising of standards of living. He is also interested in adequate pro¬ grams of relief giving with constructive aims; in the rehabili¬ tation and strengthening of the family to help the individual become self-sufficient; and in the basic principles of social planning which should govern relief practices.

Purpose

The purpose of this study is to trace the development of financial assistance to the needy from early English periods to show how they influenced the public assistance program as practiced in America.

Scope

Special attention will be given to the historical aspects

of relief giving from the Elizabethan Era to 1935. Emphasis will be placed upon the trend of relief giving since the enact¬

ment by Congress in 1935 of the Social Security Program as well

lAnne Roselle Johnson, Standards of Relief (Philadelphia, 1938), p. 88. 4 as trends for the future.

Method of Procedure

This study is primarily a library research project.

Source materials include readings on the historic and economic

aspects of England and America. Special attention was given

to the early practices in handling the poor and the provisions made for their care. Materials relating to the Social Security

program as developed in the United States were used in an

attempt to point out the important aspects of the two programs.

Documents presenting various laws from the early colonial

period were read in order to secure from them some of the early

attitudes of the people toward the poor. CHAPTER II

A BRIEF SKETCH OF THE ENGLISH POOR LAW

Repressive Legislative Measures

England met its problem of caring for the poor with legis lation designed to repress begging. Its first legislation bearing upon the "pauper" grew out of acute labor conditions.1

As a result of the Black Death Plague of 1349, the number of laborers decreased, and the survivors demanded higher wages for their work. When they did not secure the wages demanded, they refused the jobs available and maintained themselves by begging. Parliament met this situation with the "Statutes of

Laborers" which was an attempt to compell all able-bodied per¬ sons without means of support to work wherever needed and at a rate of pay obtained before the Black Death.2 In order to sup press begging, provisions were included that any able-bodied person refusing to work and persisting in begging would be im¬ prisoned. Another repressive measure was passed under the

Statute of 1388 which stated that "beggars impotent to serve

shall abide in the cities and towns where they be dwelling at the time of the proclamation of this statute."3 This was the

^■John Lewis Gillin, op. cit.. p. 162.

2Stuart Alfred Queen. Social Work in the Light of History (Philadelphia, 1922), p. lô'ST

3Ibid., p. 169 5 6 first expression of a settlement law.

During the latter part of the fifteenth century and early decades of the sixteenth century several other repressive laws were passed seemingly as measures to enforce previous laws.

One of these provided that beggars and others dependent upon alms should be settled, registered and licensed to beg only in their native districts. Anyone straying beyond his district was to be whipped and sent home. If the offense were committed a second time, the law provided for drastic punishment, namely that he would be "bored through the gristle of the right ear and if he continued in his roguery he was to suffer, in the last resort death for felony."1

Historians agree that the general principles of the act of 1556, passed during the reign of Henry VIII, governed the development of the English Poor Law of 1601 and may be regard¬ ed as the foundation of relief giving practices in England.2

This act was an attempt to restrain the giving of individual alms by fining the giver ten times the amount given.3 It pro¬ vided for a fund to be collected in each parish by the parish officials and church warden which placed the responsibility for providing relief on the local communities. There was no compulsion as to obtaining the funds, and the parishes had to

B. Black, The Reign of Elizabeth 1558-1605 (Oxford, England, 1956), p. &2Ü,

2Stuart Alfred Queen, op. cit.. p. 184.

^Arthur E. Fink, The Field of Social Work (New York, 1942), p. 5. 7 rely on voluntary contributions. This act also established the beginnings of a work relief program by including a pro¬ vision that all able-bodied beggars were to be put to work. The law, however, did not state how this was to be done.1 Al¬ though these measures were harsh, this law initiated the trans¬ ition of poor relief from indiscriminate giving of aid by the church to regulation by the law. In it, however, are found the characteristics that remain through the centuries: repres¬ sion of want, local responsibility for relief and a work relief program. Subsequently, other laws were enacted. One governing housing in 1547 indicated that there was a housing problem. In 1555 a law made it mandatory that the land owners provide the ground upon which homes were to be built for the poor for fear of punishment by special taxes.2 In the act of 1572, however, there was some attempt to protect taxpayers’ funds for relief. It was provided by law that collectors and overseers prevent fraud by persons able to support themselves.3 With more adequate administration of the poor law came some organization of services. By 1576 Justices in every parish were empowered to purchase or rent buildings to be "con¬ verted into houses of correction and provide work for the in¬ digent."4 These were known as workhouses and formed the basis

1Anne Roselle Johnson, op. cit.. p. 185. o Stuart Alfred Queen, op. cit.. p. 185. 3Ibid., 4Ibid.. p. 186 8 of the famed workhouse test of the Elizabethan era.

The Elizabethan Poor Law

In view of the fact that there were so many different laws relating to poverty and dependency, an act was passed in 1598 which consolidated them into a more orderly state. The act of

1601, which was the Forty-Third Act of Elizabeth and best known as the Elizabethan Poor Law, was a revision of the act of

1598.

The poor law of 1601 established three categories of re¬ lief recipients, namely, the able-bodied poor, the unemploy¬ ables, and dependent children, and it provided for the care of these groups. Employment was provided for the able-bodied poor, and any person who refused to work was imprisoned. Insti¬ tutional care in an almshouse was provided for the impotent poor or unemployables, and dependent children were the responsi¬ bility first, of relatives if they could take care of them. If not, they were to be apprenticed, boys until they were twenty- four years old and girls until they were twenty-one or married.!

Charged with the administrât ion of this law were overseers appointed annually by the justice of the peace. The overseers were leaders in the parish being selected from among the church wardens and substantial house holders. It was their duty to make decisions regarding the dependent children whose parents were unable to support them; to provide work for able-

lArthur E. Finie, op. oit.. p. 5 9 bodied adults; to raise weekly, by taxation, whatever amounts were necessary to keep materials for the employment of the poor; to maintain the almshouse; and to provide for the chil¬ dren who were being sent out as apprentices. Monthly meetings of the overseers were required, and annually they were expected to make a report. If the local parish was too poor to carry the burden of its own poor the justice could levy a tax in other parishes of the same county and imprison any person who did not pay. Other provisions included appeals against tax levied and established mutual responsibility for relatives.1 Because of the differences in the wealth of the various parishes, the poor continued to move from place to place es¬ pecially into parishes where the relief was more adequate. The need for a settlement law was recognized, and the Settle¬ ment Act of 1668 was passed. By this law the parish became re¬ sponsible only for those persons who had legal residence with¬ in its limits. Legal residence was defined as meaning those who were born or apprenticed in the parish. Those who did not have legal residence could be removed to the parish where they belonged if done within forty days of their coming to a new community. The justice of the peace was empowered to do this if he felt the individual was dependent or likely to become dependent. He could also request surety from the newcomer that he would not become a charge upon the parish.2

ijohn Lewis Gillin, op. cit.. pp. 165-166. 2Stuart Alfred Queen, op. cit.. p. 189. 10

By 1691 registration was required of paupers and the amount of relief granted them in hopes of decreasing the num¬ bers on relief rolls. This list was publicly examined but had no effect on the increase of persons seeking aid. As the pau¬ per list grew longer, a special act of Parliament in 1697 au¬ thorized a workhouse in Bristol, where the local poor could be lodged and be placed at remunerative labor. To refuse work was to be dismissed and denied assistance.1 2 This plan helped to reduce relief expenses and distress and other communities tried it.

The parishes were too small to maintain separate work- houses, but it was provided in 1723 that they might unite for this purpose. As a result parishes began to "farm out" the poor on contract. In 1782 the Gilbert Act abolished "farming out" of the poor and initiated the first system of guardians or commissioners to administer relief to the poor in institu¬ tions and at home. This was commonly called "indoor” and "out¬ door” relief.2 The Guardians or Commissioners’ of the poor collected the wages of the able-bodied poor and when they were found to be insufficient to support the family would supple¬ ment from relief funds. There was danger in this supplementa¬ tion of inadequate wages of relief officials for it effected the economic condition of the entire country as employers did not hesitate to pay lowest possible wages knowing the govem-

1Arthur E. Pink, op. oit.« p. 7.

2Stuart Alfred Queen, op. cJLt., p. 192. 11 ment would supplement them.

The Act of 1854 As the economic conditions and social order of England changed from a feudal economy to commercial and industrial economies, the lot of the laborer and his dependents fell to a lower and lower estate. In order to effect some change, in 1817 Parliament appointed an investigating committee which made changes in a few details of the Poor Law administration. A second committee, appointed in 1832 worked for two years and brought a report, with recommendations and supporting evidence that formed the basis of the law of 1834, which proposed that: 1. The condition of the paupers shall in no case be so eligible as the conditions of persons of the lowest class subsisting on the fruits of their own industry. 2. The workhouse test was recommended to be re-estab¬ lished as the only means by which the principle of less eligibility could be enforced. 3. In order that relief afforded to each class of paupers might be uniform throughout the kingdom the com¬ mission provided for the establishment of a central board of control consisting of three poor law commissioners who had the power to give orders, enforce regulations and supervise through inspectors and auditors. They were also to organize the country into districts which were called Poor Law Unions and would take the place of parishes as units of administration. Each unit was to have an unpaid board of Guardians and paid executive officers.1 Thus the doctrine of least eligibility, the re-establishment of the workhouse test and centralization of control was establish¬ ed under such provisions, and later they were termed by Beatrice and Sidney Webb on the "Royal Commission on Poor Laws g and the Unemployed" as the "framework of repression."

Stuart Alfred Queen, op. cit.. p. 193. ^Arthur E. Fink, op. cit.. p. 7. 12 Pauperism declined appreciably after 1854, and there was no doubt that the administration was at least partially re¬ sponsible for this.1 The Poor Lav/ Commissioners were abolished and a Poor Law Board of Guardians established, headed by a minister responsible to Parliament.2 The country was organized into poor law districts instead of parishes and relief was ad¬ ministered under the direction of the Guardians. This was the beginning of the recognition that the problem was larger than any single unit.3 The most significant change from 1834 to 1909 centered around the development of specialized care for various groups of needy people, the dependent children, the sick, the aged, infirm, insane, feebleminded and blind. District schools and foster homes were provided for dependent children; hospitals, dispensaries, asylums and infirmaries were established for the sick; the insane and feebleminded were gathered into specializ¬ ed institutions and the blind and deaf were educated in special schools. The workhouses became chiefly homes for the aged and infirm.4

Influence Upon American Practices From the English Poor Law, modem social work has gained

!D. W. Roberts, An outline of the Economic History of Eng¬ land to 1959 (London, 1340), p. 273. Sstuart Alfred Queen, op, cit.. p. 194. 3Arthur E. Fink, op. cit.. p. 9. 4Stuart Alfred Queen, op. cit.. p. 195. 13 certain principles which may be summarized as follows: 1. the development of a technique of relief giving including organization, administration and methods of dealing with those in need. 2. the development of a consciousness of national responsibility for dealing with the problems of poverty. 3. the development of a consciousness of the fu¬ tility of mere relief.! Specifically, the poor law contributed the principles of local responsibility which is the basis of present day resi¬ dence requirements; work relief as used during the depression years of the early 30*s; categorical relief as found in the public assistance program established in 1935 and central con¬ trol of administration. From the Poor Law the idea of govern¬ mental participation in planning for the poor of the nation and the pattern of financing aid to the poor from taxes were derived.

libid., p. 165 CHAPTER III

PUBLIC ASSISTANCE IN AMERICA

The story of public assistance in America can be seen in four periods of development which, like other historical periods are not sharply separated. According to Arthur Dunham, these periods are as follows:

1. The interval from colonial days to about 1909, during which "poor relief” - through almshouse care, and "outdoor relief" to families in their homes - was the prevailing type of public aid. During these years there was, however, a gradual withdrawal of certain groups from the almshouses and provisions of specialized types of care for them. In the latter part of this period, starting about 1877, came the beginnings and growth of the Charity organization movement which were the precursors of our modern family welfare societies. 2. The years from about 1909 to 1929, which were marked by the rise of "category relief," or relief to special groups in their own homes. 3. The depression period from 1929 to about 1936, when unemployment relief was the focus of attention in the field of public assistance and when it was, in fact one of the central features of American life. 4. The contemporary period, beginning about 1936 which has thus far been characterized by the initiation of the social security program and a widespread organiza¬ tion of public welfare in the many states.1

The Colonial Era

The English Colonists who settled in America brought with

them the institutions, customs and habits prevailing in Eng¬

land. Therefore, in the early colonies, it was natural to ex¬

pect the relief of the poor to be based upon the English

^Arthur Dunham, "Public Assistance in the United States," The Public Assistance Worker ed. Russell Kurtz (New York. ï93'8T;"PPTT~-T: 14 15 practices of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. Evidence that it was can he found in the early records of the colonists.1

As long as there were new frontiers to explore, the family which was unable to manage in the more crowded Eastern communi¬ ties had an opportunity to go west. To a large degree this prevented the development of any great stationary problem of mass poverty.2 But all could not go west, and the attitude of the colonists toward the poor followed the English pattern.

Pauperism was not to be made respectable and to be a pauper was an individual matter signifying some moral flaw.

As in England, the colonists stressed repression and local responsibility and used the almshouse as a catch-all for the poor. Herded into them were the aged poor, orphans and other dependent children, unmarried mothers and their children, the crippled, the blind, the deaf, the mentally ill, feebleminded and epileptic. Almshouse paupers were farmed out and the chil¬ dren apprenticed. In order to make relief as degrading as possible names of paupers were published, and the amounts given to them - that is if they were not being cared for in an alms¬ house .

Although almshouses continue to exist, there were a number of early moves that tended to change its character. Among the first of these was the withdrawal of groups with special needs

^race Abbott. From Relief to Social Security (Chicago. 1941), pp. 6 - 7.

2Arthur E. Fink, op. olt., p. 10. 16 and their placement in specialized institutions which were in the process of development 1 during the eighteenth century in such colonies as Pennsylvania and Virginia. But the first separate institution in the colonies for a special group was the orphanage established by Catholics in 1729 in New Orleans Parish for children orphaned in the Indian Massacres. The first public supported institution for a specialized group was an insane asylum established during the colonial period in Y/illiamsburg, Virginia. This institution was estab¬ lished by lav/ to make provision for the "support and main¬ tenance of idiots, lunatics, and other persons of unsound minds" for: Several persons of insane and disordered minds have been frequently found wandering in different parts of this colony, and no certain provisions having been yet made either towards effecting a cure of those whose cases are not become quite desperate nor for restraining others who may be dangerous to society.2 In establishing this institution a named board of trustees was authorized to "found and establish a public hospital for the reception of such persons."3 In 1752 provisions were made for the mentally ill by a Pennsylvania Hospital.

State Interest State concern in the indigent person developed slowly. The need was recognized for public service to give continuous,

1Ibid.. p. 11. 2Sophonisba P. Breckinridge, Public Welfare Administration In the United States (Chicago, 1930) p. 3Ibid 17 custodial care to the dependent, defective and delinquent classes of persons who were unable to care for themselves, and for whom private agencies were inadequately prepared to assume responsibility.1

The first public orphanage appeared in 1790 when one was set up in Charleston, South Carolina.2 Kentucky led in estab¬ lishing a state prison in 1798, recognizing that "wicked and dissolute men resigning themselves to the dominion of inordi¬ nate passions, commit violations on the lives, liberties and property of others," and that, "the government would be de¬ fective in its principal purpose, were it not to restrain such criminal acts...." Kentucky provided care for the deaf and dumb and in 1822 an act was passed to endow an asylum for the

"tuition of the deaf and dumb." Massachusetts followed closely with provisions for deaf and dumb children in 1829; state prison provisions in 1831; and a hospital for the insane in

1834.3 Ohio established a state school for the blind in 18374 and Massachusetts bagan the first school for delinquent boys, a Manual Labor School, in 1846.5 By 1848 Massachusetts had made some public provision for its feebleminded and mentally ill. The recognition of this need may be traced to the efforts of

1Ibid.. pp. 1-3.

^Arthur E. Fink, op. cit.. p. 11.

3Sophonisba P. Breckinridge, op. cit.. p. 98.

^Arthur E. Fink, op. cit.. pp. 11-12.

5Sophonisba P. Breckinridge, op. cit.. pp. 104-148. 18

Dorothea Dix, a pioneer social reformer in Massachusetts who advocated humanitarian treatment of the mentally ill, and tried to secure federal legislation and participation in a plan to improve their condition.1 In 1852 an act was passed providing almshouse care for paupers who had no settlement in Massachu¬ setts.

America, like England, approached the problems of the poor from the view point of local responsibility. President

Pierce’s veto of Miss Dix’s bill established without doubt that the care of indigent classes was a local not federal re¬ sponsibility.2

Some development of individualizing need by public agen¬

cies was shown in the Charity Organization movement which was begun in England and organized in this country in Buffalo, New

York in 1877, in an effort to relieve the relief rolls of im¬ posters and the undeserving, and to bring organized coopera¬

tion to relief giving.3 This movement eventually brought the methods of social case work to the process of relief giving,

for it emphasized a fuller understanding of problems of indivi¬

duals in trouble and stressed an attempt to work out an indivi¬ dual plan to meet those particular needs or problems.4

^race Abbott, op. cit., pp. 13-17.

2Sophonisba P. Breckinridge, op. cit.. pp. 231-234.

3Virginia P. Robinson, A Changing Psychology in Social Case Work (Chapel Hill, 1930), p. 5.

^Arthur Dunham, op, cit.. p. 9. 19

During the first quarter of the twentieth century, there was a widespread growth of laws providing for individualiza¬ tion of need, and public assistance to special groups in their own homes was given. This form of relief included mother*s aid, old age assistance, aid to the blind and veteran's relief.

Such forms of public assistance were called "category relief” because the recipients were set off by law into special classes or categories with specific eligibility requirements clearly defined and different from those receiving general poor relief.1

This may be declared the most revolutionary development in the history of relief practice and represents a distinct departure

O from institutional care and concepts of the Poor Law.

Our present concept of categorical relief dates from the year 1909, when the first White House Conference on Dependent

Children was called by President Roosevelt. From this confer¬ ence came a set of principles surrounding care of children.3

Home life is the highest and finest product of civi¬ lization. ..children should not be deprived of it except for urgent and compelling reasons...fatherless children belong with their mothers...the preservation of family life is the foundation of all child care.4

Likewise, it was declared that children should not be deprived of their homes except for urgent and compelling reasons and

•^Arthur Dunham, op. oit.. p. 11.

2Arthur E. Fink, op. cit.. pp. 328-331.

3Arthur Dunham, op. cit., p. 12.

4Emmo 0. Lundberg, "White House Conferences," Social Work Year Book. 1941 ed. Russell Kurtz. (New York, ÏÔ41)' ' ppTTSST&gl7 20 advocated that relief should he given in the form of private charity rather than as public relief.

Two years later in 1911, Jackson County, Missouri enacted a Mother*s Aid Law, the first in the United States. Within the same year Illinois passed a state wide law called the "Funds to

Parents’ Act." Significantly, the money for administration of the program came from public funds and not private charity.

Social workers disagree as to whether the funds should be secured from public or private sources, many feeling it was a public responsibility while others felt that due to the higher standards and greater achievements of private social work, the administration of such programs should be under the direction of private charity. It was recognized, however, that the job was bigger than private agencies could handle.1

The movement spread rapidly because legislators were un¬ willing to be branded as against a movement for the welfare of children. Also the movement had the backing of women’s organi¬ zations, fraternal orders and the local organized groups. By

1920, thirty-nine states and territories had some law provid¬

ing for aid to dependent children in their own homes.2

Long before legislation was passed for the care of depen¬ dent children, the blind had been receiving special attention.

There was no standard of uniformity in provisions made for them as each locality took care of them in its own way. Some-

^rthur E. Fink, op. cit., pp. 350-331.

2 Ibid.t p. 331. 21 times responsibility was assumed by public agencies, at other times it was the private agency. The care provided was also varied in that some communities used their institutional faci¬ lities, others used education and vocational training. It was easy for the people to see the need that some pro¬ visions should be made for the blind because they were at a disadvantage in competing for employment and therefore were ad¬ mittedly unable to earn enough to be self-maintaining. New York State in 1866 authorized grants to the blind and in suc¬ ceeding years other states followed with various legislations. Eligibility rules made were reminiscent of Poor Law provisions, such as the ’’means test," in which the blind person had to describe his income and show that it was insufficient for self¬ maintenance or his ’’degree of blindness” and the ’’age of re¬ st rict ions. It was not until 1923 that the first operable old age pen¬ sion law was passed. Previously the aged pauper was sent to an almshouse and forgotten, but through investigations of alms¬ house conditions social workers and civic minded citizens be¬ came concerned about the demoralizing effect of the relief sys¬ tem and the fact that the relief total was so large. Montana was the first state to pass an Old Age pension law which was not declared unconstitutional. Funds for the program were shared on a state county basis except where the appropriations were

iArthur E. Fink, op. cit., p. 328. 22 solely from county funds.1

Federal Government Participation in Relief Giving

Although some progress was made in the pre-depression years the gains were less significant than they had promised to he. Relief grants were still inadequate and almshouses were still the main method of caring for some classes of the unemployables. More than that the attitudes of the people to¬ ward the poor were still grounded in Elizabethan England for p they regarded the poor with scorn.

The depression came and brought marked changes in the

American picture. The millions of workers who were unable to earn a living for their families, were frantic with fear of mass starvation.3 Relief giving agencies were not prepared to feed the masses of unemployed persons, and the question arose as to the responsibility of the central government for funds.4

Many of the business and political leaders felt that it was only a temporary crisis. Unemployment, however, increased and breadlines formed. The "share-the-work" plans were advocated, and "block aid" plans under which it was proposed that people in each city block should care for their unemployed neighbor were undeniably an emphasis on local responsibility.

3-Ibid.. pp. 332-334.

2Josephine C. Brown. Public Relief: 1929-1939 (New York. 1940), p. 3.

3Arthur E. Fink, op. cit., p. 334.

^Josephine C. Brown, op. cit.. p. 63. 23 During the years 1929-1951, private agencies tried to carry the entire load of relief to the poor. The economic conditions were steadily becoming worse, and it became harder for the private agencies to secure funds through private donations and community chests. The turning point came at the Minneapolis National Conference of Social Work in 1937 when Ruth Taylor, a deputy commissioner of public welfare of Westchester County made her plea for the public wel¬ fare program.^ As a result, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, then the Governor of New York State, authorized a survey of condi¬ tions in his state. Using the findings of the survey he ad¬ dressed his legislature setting forth the policy that, One of the duties of the State is that of caring for those of its citizens who find themselves the victims of such adverse circumstances as makes them unable to obtain even the necessities for mere exis¬ tence without the aid of others.1 2 In September 1931, the legislature of New York State passed the Wicks Act to establish state aid for home relief and work relief to relieve unemployment distress. The state administering agency was called the "Temporary Emergency Relief Administra¬ tion." Other states soon followed, thus providing state aid.3 When state funds were unable to meet the gigantic task of caring for the unemployed, Senators Costigan and LaFollette

1Gertrude Springer, "The Challenge of Hard Times" Survey Mid-Monthly. July, 1931. 2Josephine C. Brown, op. cit.. p. 89. 3Arthur Dunham, op. cit.. p. 16. 24 began agitation for federal aid. In 1931, they introduced a bill for federal aid to the states. This bill brought forth much contention because federal relief was contrary to basic

American philosophy of local responsibility for the indigent and states* rights to plan locally. There were objections to the use of foderal funds as it would be "sinking huge sums into a bottomless pit,” and its administration would be a stu¬ pendous job.l The bill was defeated but was significant in that it showed a waivering of the concept of local responsibi¬ lity for its dependent citizens.

In July 1932, however, Congress passed the Wagner Act authorizing the Reconstruction Finance Cooperation, an organi¬ zation to lend federal funds, to furnish sums for direct and work relief to needy and distressed people in the states.

These were loans to the states and not grants but everyone felt the states would not actually have to repay the money. The years 1932-33 saw increasing use of state and federal funds for unemployment relief.2

Banks closed in 1932, and in 1933 the Federal Emergency

Relief Act was passed. It shattered the concepts of the poor lav/ by accepting federal responsibility for the welfare of the

/ people. It provided for a relief administrator who was autho¬ rized by the senate to make grants to states to aid in meeting the costs of relief and to relieve hardship and suffering

3-Josehpine Brown, op. oit., p. 112.

^Arthur Dunham, op. cit., p. 18. 25 caused by unemployment.1

In November 1933, the Federal Government, with little or no advance planning, established Civil Work's Administration to provide employment on public works at regular wages for un¬ employed persons able and willing to work. The task proved so costly and was so poorly administered that the program was dis¬ continued in April, 1934.2

A new program was established in February, 1934 to meet the needs of three separate groups namely, distressed families in rural areas, stranded populations, and those persons in com¬ munities supported by one industry and unemployed in large cities. The objective of the program was to rehabilitate in¬ dividual families to self-supporting position by means of loans and advisory services.3

Steps Toward Federal Social Legislation

In lune, 1934 the President, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, addressed Congress on the subject of social security and announced his intention to appoint a committee on Economic

Study, to survey and report a definite program of social securi- 4 ty and unemployment relief by January 1955. This committee reported January 15, 1935 and recommended:

....that the Federal Government shall assume primary

Josephine Brown, op. cit., p. 141.

2Grace Abbott, op. cit.. p. 28.

3Josephine Brown, op. cit., pp. 160-161.

^Arthur Dunham, op. cit.. p. 23. 36 responsibility for providing work for those able and willing to work; also that it aid the states in giving pensions to the dependent aged and families without breadwinners...and should assume responsibility for relief....* The relief plan outlined as the federal program was limited to work relief and assistance under a social security program with unemployment compensation and special assistance for those in certain categories described as unemployables. Home relief was to be continued, but social security would be available. His plan was that all needs were to be met, work for the em¬ ployables, unemployment insurance for the unemployed, old age insurance upon retirement, assistance for the unemployables, dependent children, the aged and the blind and local relief for those who fell into none of these categories.2 A statistical study made in May 1935 showed that approx¬ imately one-seventh of the population was wholly or partly de¬ pendent upon public relief funds for subsistence. Approximate¬ ly one person in every six was on relief in cities and one in every eight in rural communities. Five-sixths of the cases receiving aid were families, the remainder were unattached per¬ sons. The study also showed that unemployment was the major cause which drove families to seek relief. Estimates showed that the number of unemployed workers in the country increased from 3,000,000 in March 1929 to 8,500,000 by March 1933. Of the 520,000 unemployables on relief rolls, one-fourth were un¬ employed by reasons of old age, more than 30 per cent because

Josephine G. Brown, op. oit.. p. 303. 2lbid., p. 340. 27 of physical condition or handicap, while 45 per cent consisted of mothers with dependent children.1

The results of the Presidents appeal for legislation were first, a social security program; second, a withdrawal of the national government from participating in direct unemploy¬ ment relief and third, a new work program for employables financed by the federal government. The act was passed in

August 1935 but was not immediately put into effect as Congress did not appropriate funds for its administration until February

1936.2 Consequently, the American government began to accept its responsibility to meet the needs of dependent persons and abolished in part the concept of local responsibility for relief. It re-inforced the idea that citizens had a right to expect the National government to become concerned with matters of human welfare.

lUnited States Federal Emergency Relief Administration, On Relief Washington, D. C. (May, 1935.)

2Arthur Dunham, op. cit.» p. 23 CHAPTER IV

SOCIAL SECURITY MEASURES

The Federal Social Security Act, "represents the most am¬ bitious and comprehensive attempt ever made by the American government to promote economic security of the individual.”1

This means that recognition was given to the fact that for all persons in need of security the Federal Government had a con¬

stitutional responsibility.2 Therefore, federal legislation that ”....substitutes hopes for fears, and aims at a minimum level of well being for the people of this nation"3 is in keep¬

ing with a basic principle of relief designated by Stewart

Maxwell as "an integrated national program.”4

The social security program involves the principle that persons similarly situated should be treated alike and people with equal needs should receive equal assistance.5 It no long¬

er relies on the repressions of the earlier poor law, but is

constructive and aims to preserve human resources.6

^-Eveline M. Bums, "Social Security Act," Social 'Work Year Book. 1957. p. 472.

2Josephine Brown, op. oit.. p. 420.

3Arthur J. Altmeyer, "Ten Years of Social Security,” Sur¬ vey Graphic XXIV (September, 1945).

^Stewart Maxwell, This Question of Relief Public Affairs Committee, Inc., Washington, 1938, pp.‘ 31-32.

5Arthur J. Altmeyer, op* cit.. p. 371.

6Arthur E. Fink, op. cit., p. 342. 28 29

The Public Assistance Program Under the Social Security Act, the purpose of public assis¬ tance is to supply the necessary minimum of economic security to persons in specified groups of the population who lack finan¬ cial resources of their own to meet their essential needs.1 Associated with this objective of the social security program are two major operating purposes, first the rights of the indi¬ vidual to public assistance and second, fairness and dependabi¬ lity in the distribution of funds to the individual.2 The right to public assistance is implied in the provisions which give the individual an opportunity to have a fair hearing of his claim for assistance, and in his participation in estab¬ lishing his eligibility for public aid. The respect of person¬ ality is inherent in the provision that the public agency must safeguard confidential information concerning applicants. Re¬ cipients are regarded as individuals capable of handling their own affairs. It is provided that payments be made in cash and that the recipient secure the amount of money to which he is entitled under the law.3 Moreover, the applicant can look to the central and state authority for his enforceable right to assistance.4

^-Grace Marcus, "The Nature of Service in Public Assistance Administration," Report No. 10. (Washington, 1946), p. 2. 2Ibid., p. 3. 3Jane M. Hoey, "Amendments to Public Assistance Titles of the Social Security Act," Public Welfare (December, 1946) 277. 4Ibid. so

Fairness and dependability in the distribution of funds to the individual is provided for in the requirements that each state must have an approved plan that fulfills the specified conditions of eligibility and that the plan must be in effect in all political subdivisions of the state. The state must participate financially in the plan and in determining need, must take into consideration all income and resources of the applicant. Specified conditions of eligibility are concerned with residence requirements, citizenship and, in the case of

Old Age Assistance, with age.

That the public assistance program was the first part of the Social Security Act to become effective was probably due to the fact that it was an opportune time for states to expand tf their existing relief programs and also to secure federal funds which had ceased with the discontinuance of Federal Emergency

Relief Act grants.-1- The Social Security Act provided for the financing of a program by grants-in-aid to states for various categories of the poor namely, the aged, the blind and the dependent child. These categories were included for it was recognized that recipients eligible for this type of aid usually require assistance over an extended period of time and that their need must be met on something more than an emergency basis.2

Relief for these groups is granted on the basis of need

Ijosephine C. Brown, op. cit.« p. 538.

2Ibid., p. 369. 31 and is an effort to safeguard the welfare of the people who are without income through no fault of their own. The act provides "....that determination be made of an individual's need and that assistance be granted him according to his indi¬ vidual need."l The Social Security Act makes no other specific reference to the establishment of need or the amount of pay¬ ment. Under the 1946 amendments to the Social Security Act, the federal share to states was increased to two-thirds of all state expenditures up to an average of $15 for the aged and the blind and one half of such additional expenditures up to $45 for an individual, and to two-thirds up to an average of $9 per child and one half of such additional expenditures up to $24 for one child and $15 for each additional child.2 Although social security retains categorical form of relief Old Age Assistance is a money payment made by the. govern¬ ment to aged persons who meet the eligibility requirements. The money comes from two sources, federal funds and local funds. Any person sixty-five years of age or older, in need because he does not have minimum necessities of food, clothing, and shelter, and is not living in a public institution is eligible. At present the federal government pays one half of a grant not to exceed the maximum amount of $45 a month. This provision has

•^Federal Social Security Agency, Compilation of the Social Security laws, Social Security Board, V/ashington, 1945. 2Social Security Bulletin, August, 1946, "Social Security in Review*' IX, No. 8., Washington, D. C. 32 tended to limit the maximum monthly grant irrespective of the heed of the aged person.1

The program of aid to the blind is also under the same matching plan as the other assistance programs. The same con¬ dition with respect to residence, and citizenship requirements apply to this group as to the aged person. A blind person may receive only one grant at a time and some states prohibit begging by a recipient of this assistance. The needy blind person twenty-one years of age or over who is not an inmate of a public institution may receive a maximum of $45 a month.2

His degree of blindness must be established by medical exam¬

inât ion.

An entirely different program is that set up for aid to dependent children. A dependent child is defined as one who

is under the age of sixteen, or eighteen if attending school, who has been deprived of parental support or care and is living in a home maintained by a relative.3 This program has wider implications than mere relief when thinking of it in

terms of conserving human welfare. Under the Social Security

Act the Federal Government reimburses states presenting accept¬

able plans for administration of this program up two-thirds

of the monthly amount of $24 for the first child and $15 for

each additional child. Its goal is to maintaifft children in

libid.

2Ibid.

^Federal Security Agency, Social Security Laws, op. cit. 33 decency and health and it is toward this latter that special services are provided which include maternal and child health services, services for crippled children and child welfare services.

Influence of the Poor Law Upon Social Security The provisions and administrâtion of public assistance as set up under the Social Security Act of 1935 are far removed from the "pauper" rolls of the Poor Law days in England and America, yet the categories found in the Poor Law still exist; local responsibility is still part of the program and the re¬ quirement that eligibility and need must be proven, is still implied. The use of federal funds and federal control over the program and the fact that state participation is mandatory are important differences. The old public relief laws were in general characterized by local responsibility, family responsibility and rigid regu¬ lations regarding settlement. Present practices tend to move away from local responsibility for public aid and to establish minimum national standards of decency, health and welfare. Family responsibility is not specifically provided for in the Social Security Act, but public officials expect relatives to contribute to the upkeep of the indigent one if they are able although no statuatory provisions for prosecution are granted. It is felt that in some cases the family may suffer with the additional burden of caring for a relative which may lead to 3k breaking, instead of strengthening, family ties.1 Residence and citizenship provisions, however, were de¬ rived from the poor law and extend to those who must meet cer¬ tain statuatory requirements regarding residence in the differ¬ ent local units.2 The requirement that the person concerned must be actually in the state one year prior to the application has meant a new interpretation of settlement, and has presented serious complications in developing interstate services to re¬ cipients where it may be advisable for the recipient to go to another state where relatives can assist.3

Individualization of Need From Elizabethan and Colonial Days onward, little atten¬ tion was given to the individual needs of the persons asking for public relief. Many believed, as did Thomas Malthus, that the poor were poor because it was their own fault.4 Relief was made as unattractive as possible in order to discourage the poor from asking for help. Any other approach was unthink¬ able, and it was not until the development of individual case work that individual needs were met on an individual basis.5 Social workers, trained under private or voluntary

lEdith Abbott, "Public Assistance - Whither Bound?” National Conference of Social Work Proceedings. 1957. (Chicago, 193*7 ) ,pp. 3 - 23. 2 . "Social Security Act," Social work Year Book 19ÏÏ7 (New York, 1937), pp. 361-365. 3josephine Brown, op. cit., p. 374. 4Edith Abbott, Public Assistance, op. cit.. p. 514.

^Arthur E. Fink, op, cit.. p. 353. 35 auspices and drafted into the Emergency Relief Administration in the early 1930’s, were at first bewildered and overwhelmed by the problems of mass case loads and began to think of relief as "business" and its administration as a "business matter." Many case workers resented this attitude in which large scale administration and reasonable individualization were found in¬ compatible, and eventually, there evolved new skills and tech¬ niques of relief giving. The case workers learned to "deper¬ sonalize" eligibility data and to "personalize" the attitudes of the client toward relief itself. They learned the meaning of the relief situation; how to appraise rights as well as needs; and how to release capacities for self-direction and self-organization even under the pressure of work.1 The giving of cash relief became a matter of much contro- » versy. The principle objection to its use was the possible abuse of the use of the money by some clients.2 Public agencies during the depression, gave relief "in kind"3 but as the con¬ cept that the need to determine and evaluate goals of the family and the relationship of these goals to income became inherent in the case work process,4 thinking changed and cash relief was given to conserve self respect. There developed an awareness that most clients had previously been able to manage

^Gordon Hamilton, op. cit., p. 22-23. 2Joanna C. Colcord, Cash Relief (New York, 1956),p. 10. 3Ibid., p. 11. ^Family Welfare Association of America, Family Budget Counseling, ed. Dorothy Book, (New York, 1944). 36 their own affairs and that ability had not decreased because of dependency. To take away such a privilege was to emphasize the feeling of failure.1 Today, the worker’s attitude toward relief giving is of great conoern. Agencies devote much attention to explaining relief giving and to molding workers’ attitudes towards relief. There is a feeling that because of the varying interests of the case workers themselves and the fact that their evaluation of a family’s need is inevitably subjective and based upon their own life's experiences, that there will obviously be some variation in their use of relief. In other words, it is quite possible that a particular family might have its relief request met completely by one worker and only in part or not at all by another worker, equally well trained. It is held that relief as a therapeutic tool has greater meaning for some case workers than for others. This variation may be due to the worker’s own feeling of insecurity and her inability to withhold relief.2 Vague instructions to staff often put too much or complete responsibility for decision about need on the individual worker or the recipient himself.3

Gaps and Trends in the Present Federal Assistance Program Prior to the amendments to the Social Security Act of 1946 the outstanding gaps in the program surround the lack

1Joanna C. Colcord, op. cit.. p. 58. 2Manual, Family Service Society. Atlanta Georgia, Jan¬ uary, 1945, pp. 52-53. (Unpublished;. 3Jane M. Hoey, Public Welfare, op. cit. 37 of protection against wage loss resulting from physical dis¬ ability, against the cost of medical care and inadequate grants to the needy. As these amendments pertain to the finan¬ cing of the program it is clear that in many instances the lack of sufficient funds has retarded progressive development. But, since the amendments are temporary, they do provide an oppor¬ tunity for further development and improvement of the public assistance program.1

Gaps in the public assistance program may be summarized from the shortcomings of the program as agreed upon by the

American Public Welfare Association and the Social Security

Administration.2 The proposals made by these two groups for improving the program show that a single, integrated type of public assistance program is preferable, one that will give assistance to all needy persons regardless of whether or not they fall within the three categories.

The proposal that special federal aid to low income states in addition to the regular 50-50 matching carries the implica¬ tion that poorer states are unable to provide adequate assis¬ tance to the needy or to compare favorably with the wealthier states in the amount of their grants. To eliminate or at least raise the standard nationally, federal matching best begin with equalization of grants to the poorer states. This would mean the individual would receive grants adequate to

1Ibid.

2Arthur J. Altmeyer, "Security in a Post War World," Public Welfare IV, (November, 1946), 242-245, 38 cover his needs. Another gap in the program is shown in the proposal that the federal government should participate in a medical care program for recipients of public assistance. That there are children whose need is as great as those who receive Aid to Dependent Children but who have been unable to establish eligibility for a grant is shown in the recommendation that the Federal Government should provide for grants to all needy chil¬ dren outside of institutions including those receiving foster care under the supervision of the state. Variations in states administrations are singled out in a proposal that all public welfare programs in which the govern¬ ment participates should be administered by a single agency at the local, state and federal level. A recommendation that residence and citizenship requirements in determining eligibi¬ lity be eliminated is one of the suggestions with which social workers generally agree. In view of these recommendations and others, several bills were introduced in Congress to meet this need. The best known of these was the Wagner-Murray-Dingell Bill first introduced in 1943. This bill proposed that the Social Security Act should be amended to include health insurance provisions and to increase health facilities in the nation. The nation-wide in¬ surance program as suggested by this bill, was to cover the insured employee and his family for medical and hospital bene¬ fits; insurance for the unemployed and temporarily disabled; liberalized old age benefits and the elimination of the present 39 rigid categorical system of doing away with citizenship and residence requirements. It also provided for greater rates of reimbursement to the poorer states requiring assistance funds to be distributed equally within the states.1 Senator

Taft of Ohio referred to this bill as ’'socialistic” and draft¬ ed another which followed his own line of thinking. His bill provided security only through a "means test” which followed essentially the Poor Law of the time of Queen Elizabeth.2 The

Green Bill was similar to the Wagner-Murray-Dingell Bill omitting, however, from its provisions the more controversial issues.

Other legislation, namely the Pepper Bill, was introduced in 1945* Its provisions were supplementary in nature to in¬ crease the existing services. The Pepper Bill provided mater¬ nity care for mothers and medical care for children. Under the Pepper Bill, maternal care would become a medical service available to every family without cost.3 The Forand Bill, introduced in March 1946 by Representative Aime J. Forand of

Rhode Island is sponsored by the American Public Welfare

Association and makes definite recommendations for continuing general relief. It proposes a broad program of social welfare whose services will be available to all age groups regardless

1Robert Huse, "Seeing Social Security Whole’.'" Survey Mid- Monthly, LXXXI (June 1945) 174.

2John J. Corson, "Basic Issues of Security," Public Wel¬ fare, IV (October 1946) 218.

^Ibid. 40 of the categories. This bill is not expected to pass during the present session of the legislature, however, it is pending and it is thought, will receive favorable attention from the 80th congressional session.1 These bills have not reached the place of becoming laws. The Wagner-Murray-Dingell Bill, the most comprehensive and in¬ clusive of those mentioned, died in the committee. The Pepper Bill is now tinder consideration. At present the Forand Bill is pending. Social workers, however, do not feel that amended public assistance legislation is the answer to socio-economic security but that an inclusive program of social and health insurance under federal auspices is essential.

^Statement by Miss Wilson, Supervisor, State Department of Public Welfare, July 9, 1947. CHAPTER V

SUMMAHT

The concept that society was responsible for its members has gone through a long period of development. Before the seventeenth century dependency was handled through personal gifts and the motives for charity were personal ones based on the early religious teachings of the Hebrews and later of the Christians. Many of our charitable organizations had their beginnings in the church, for the church was the first "agency" responsible for the distribution of relief. As early as the sixteenth century there was an awareness of the responsibility of the state for the poor. The problem of the needy was so great that it was necessary to pass meas¬ ures governing the activities of the poor. Even though these measures were repressive in nature they served to awaken the interest of public officials in the poor and their problems. By the seventeenth century, the concept of state respon¬ sibility took concrete form in the emergence of the first comprehensive body of laws for the care of dependents. Sub¬ sequent legislation in England and America has taken its roots from laws of the Elizabethan period, passed in 1601. These laws made it mandatory upon officials in the parishes to be responsible for the care of the poor. Prisons and workhouses were established as a means of punishment of the poor because many agreed with Malthus that to be poor was one’s own fault 41 48 and signified some flaw in the individual. The laws on the statute hooks in Colonial America and the United States closely followed the provisions of the English Poor Law. Local responsibility was stressed; mutual liability for relatives continued to be an issue; and repression was the keynote to describe public sentiment toward the poor. It took a great economic depression to bring any change in these laws. In 1933 a number of states passed emergency relief laws. Many people thought these measures were to tide the country over for a few abnormal years. But as a result of the finan¬ cial collapse of 1933 and the prolonged period of unemployment, federal laws were passed to care for special types of need re¬ gardless of the community in which the needy persons lived. A revolutionary step was made and financial responsibility for dependent persons was first divided between local, state and federal governments. The Social Security Act of 1935 provided for an assis¬ tance program to provide aid to the needy blind, the dependent child and the needy aged. The act closely follows the pro¬ visions of the English Poor Law with the exception that it is compulsory that states participate and for the first time fed¬ eral funds are used in financing such a program. The Act is an expression that may be deemed to no longer accept poverty as inevitable. Need, which cannot be eliminated, has come to carry with it the right to relief, and around this concept there has developed new attitudes toward relief giving, use of relief as a means of treatment, thé value of money to the 43 client and worker, and a broader understanding of common, human needs of people in want. Although amended in 1946 to provide more services and to make grants available to the various states which will more nearly equalize the payments to the needy receiving aid under the various categories, the social security program is inade¬ quate. Gaps in the federal relief program center around the lack of protection against wage loss resulting from disability, the lack of medical care, as well as the inadequacy of public assistance to provide a decent standard of living. A step in the direction of correcting these gaps is found in recent social legislation of which the Wagner-Murray-Dingell Bill is best known. Such a proposal points the way toward protection and consideration of human welfare through social insurance. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books Abbott, Edith, Public Assistance. Vol. I. Chicago: Univer¬ sity of Chicago Press, 1940.

« "Public Assistance - Whither Bound?" National "Conference of Social Work Proceedings, 1957. Edited by Howard R. Knight. Chicago : University of Chicago Press, 1937. . "Social Security Act," Social Work Year Book i'9^7. Edited by Russell Kurtz. New York: Russell Cage Foundation, 1937. Abbott, Grace. From Relief to Social Security. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1941. Ashley, J. W. An Introduction to English Economic History. London! Longmans Green, 1893. Black, J. B. The Reign of Elizabeth 1558-1605. Oxford: Clarendon Press'," Ï9Î36 . Breckinridge, Sophonisba P. Public Welfare Administration In the United States. ' Chicago': University of Chicago Press, 1938. Brown, Josephine C. Public Relief 1929-1959. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1940. Burns, Eveline M. "Social Security Act," Social Work Year Book 1957. Edited by Russell Kurtz. llew York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1937. Colcord, Joanna C. Cash Relief. New York: Russell Sage Foun¬ dation, 1936. Dunham, Arthur. "Public Assistance in the United States," The Public Assistance Worker. Edited by Russell Kurtz. Rew York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1938. Fink, Arthur E. The Field of Social Work. New York: Henry Holt and Co., 1942. Gillin, John Lewis. Poverty and Dependency. New York: The Century Company,1921. Hamilton, Gordon. Theory and Practice of Social Case Work. New York: Columbia University Press,' 1940. 44 45 Hoey, Jane M. and McHugh, Rose J. "Public Assistance, " Social Work Year Book 1945. Edited by Russell Kurtz. Mew York': Sus sell Sage Foundation, 1945. Johnson, Anna Roselle. Standards of Relief. Philadelphia: Times and News Publishing Co., 1938. Lundberg, Eramo 0. "White House Conferences," Social Work Year Book 1941. Edited by Russell Kurtz. Mew York Sussell Sage foundation, 1941. Queen, Stuart Alfred. Social Work in the Light of History. Philadelphia : J. fe. Lippincott Co. , 1922. Roberts, D. W. An Outline of the Economic History of England to 1959. London: Longmans C-reen and do.,' 19407 Robinson, Virginia P. A Changing Psychology in Social Case Work. Chapel Sill: University or North Carolina Press, 1930.

Articles Altmeyer, Arthur J. "Ten Years of Social Security," Survey Graphic. XXXIV (September, 1945), 362. . "Security in a Post War World," Public Welfare. TV (November, 1946). Corson, John J. "Basic Issues of Security," Public Welfare. IV (October, 1946). Hoey, Jane M. "Amendments to Public Assistance Titles of the Social Security Act," Public Welfare. TV (December 1946). Huse, Robert, "Seeing Social Security Whole," Survey Mid- Monthly . LXXXI (June, 1945). Springer, Gertrude, "The Challenge of Hard Times," Survey Mid-Monthly. (July, 1931). Social Security Bulletin, Vol. IX, No. 8. U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C,

Monographs Family Welfare Association of America, Family Budget Counsel ing. Edited by Dorothy L. Book. Mew York:' 1944. 46 Marcus, Grace F. "The Nature of Service in Public Assistance Administration." Public Assistance Report No. 10. Washington: U. S. Government Printing Press, 1946. United States Federal Emergency Relief Administration. On Relief. Federal Research Studied, Washington, 1955. Stewart, Maxwell S. This Question of Relief. Public Affairs Committee Inc., 1938.

Miscellaneous Manual, Family Service Society, Atlanta, Georgia,(Unpublished).

Compilation of the Social Security Laws; AS amended, May 1, 1945. federal Security Agency. Social Security Board. Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1945.