Annual Report of the Department of Public Welfare, Covering the Year from December 1, 1933, to November 30, 1934, Is Herewith Respectfully- Presented
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
79 n Public Document No. 17 Wfyt Commontuealtti of jdlasssaclmstettss ANNUAL REPORT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE FOR THE Year Ending November 30, 1934 PARTS I, II, AND III Publication of this Document approved by the Commission on Administration and Finance 8500-5-'35. Order 4640. ,1935, MG 23 ig *AW*. WfUXAJA ®be Commontoealtf) of JWaggarim^ette DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE Richard K. Conant, Commissioner To the Honorable Senate and House of Representatives: The Fifteenth Annual Report of the Department of Public Welfare, covering the year from December 1, 1933, to November 30, 1934, is herewith respectfully- presented. Members of the Advisory Board of the Department of Public Welfare Date of Original Date of Appointment Name Residence Expiration December 10, 1919 Jeffrey R. Brackett Boston .... December 1, 1937 December 10, 1919 George Crompton Worcester . December 1, 1936 December 10, 1919 Mrs. Ada Eliot Sheffield Cambridge . December 1, 1935 July 1, 1931 Harry C. Solomon, M.D Boston .... December 1, 1937 December 21, 1932 Mrs. Cecilia F. Logan Cohasset . December 1, 1935 February 28, 1934 Francis J. Murphy Salem .... December 1, 1936 Divisions of the Department of Public Welfare Boston Division of Aid and Relief : Room 30, State House Frank W. Goodhue, Director Miss Flora E. Burton, Supervisor of Social Service Mrs. Elizabeth F. Moloney, Supervisor of Mothers' Aid Edward F. Morgan, Supervisor of Settlements John B. Gallagher, Supervisor of Relief Bureau of Old Age Assistance: 15 Ashburton Place Francis Bardwell, Superintendent Division of Child Guardianship: Room 43, State House Miss Winifred A. Keneran, Director Division of Juvenile Training: 41 Mt. Vernon Street Charles M. Davenport, Director Walter C. Bell, Executive Secretary Miss Almeda F. Cree, Superintendent, Girls' Parole Branch C. Frederick Gilmore, Superintendent, Boys' Parole Branch Subdivision of Private Incorporated Charities: Room 37, State House Miss Florence G. Dickson, Supervisor of Incorporated Charities Miss Alice M. Mclntire, Supervisor of Incorporated Charities Miss Mary C. Robinson, Supervisor of Incorporated Charities Subdivision of Town Planning: 14 Beacon Street Edward T. Hartman, Visitor to City and Town Planning Boards Subdivision of Crippled Children: 15 Ashburton Place Miss Margaret MacDonald, Supervisor Institutions under the Supervision of the Department of Public Welfare State Infirmary, Tewksbury. John H. Nichols, M.D., Superintendent Massachusetts Hospital School, Canton. John E. Fish, M.D., Superintendent Lyman School for Boys, Westborough. Charles A. Keeler, Superintendent Industrial School for Boys, Shirley. George P. Campbell, Superintendent Industrial School for Girls, Lancaster. Miss Catharine M. Campbell, Superin- « • ' ' ,'[ --; ;-• • .• tendent I State Board of Housing: 209 Washington Street Sidney T. Strickland, Chairman • < 2 P.D. 17. Part I REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC WELFARE Peering through the clouds of the depression, unable to guess how long bad weather may last, driven by the hurricane of Federal activities, all that we can see tells us to keep our own little craft headed as it was, away from the old pauper laws and toward a modern system of public welfare. Federal relief has during the year become entirely divorced from our State Government. The Emergency Relief Administration, operated in this State directly by the Federal Government, has in most cities and towns set up local offices separate from the welfare boards with its own system of social service to deal with the families who are given work relief. Work relief is in this State the only form of Federal relief, except for the distribution of Federal surplus commodities. The Emergency Relief Administration in Massachusetts gives no direct relief except through the work relief payroll. The new plan throughout the country to have the Federal government withdraw from the field of direct relief will not affect Massa- chusetts because we have been carrying the entire burden of direct relief without assistance from the Federal government. Our only Federal reimbursement for relief consisted of about $12,000,000 received in 1933 and 1934 when all states were granted something on the basis of one-third of their expenditures for relief. The arrangement that obtains in Massachusetts under which the State and its cities and towns pay the whole cost of direct relief and leave to the Federal govern- ment the category of work relief is apparently the arrangement which is now planned for other states. President Roosevelt's program for social security and the report of his Com- mittee on Social Security make us feel also that we are on the right course. That program deals with protection against poverty in old age, protection to widows with young children and protection to orphaned, dependent and crippled children in the way in which Massachusetts has been attacking these three problems. Only slight changes in our laws regarding these subjects would be necessary to enable us to satisfy the Federal requirements. Our Mothers' Aid Law and our Old Age Assistance Law, providing for State subsidies and State standards of service, and our State care of dependent and crippled children seem to point the way of progress toward a complete federal and state system of public welfare. The course apparently lies in the direction of local responsibility for relief, cities and towns providing adequate assistance with state and federal reimbursement. Throughout the country, leaders in this field of work are coming to an agreement that the problem of relief of destitution is one in which federal, state and local governments should cooperate, and that federal and state funds should be made available to assist the localities in developing modern systems of public welfare administration. The settlement law as a basis for determining reimbursement is something which I believe we should throw overboard because in this State we have come to the point where we no longer need it to ensure that every needy applicant shall get relief, and today it operates merely to cause controversy and to hamper us in giving assistance. The settlement law as a basis of reimbursement operates quite dif- ferently from the subsidy basis of reimbursement which should be the modern basis. The settlement basis is highly controversial. A straight percentage subsidy would better accomplish the object desired, to make the State a partner with cities and towns, having a cooperative interest, rather than a defendant against the claims of cities and towns. A straight twenty-five per cent state reimbursement in all cases would give the cities and towns considerably more reimbursement than they are now getting and it would do away with the red tape of notices, individual reports on cases, bills for individual cases, all the investigations of settlement and the controversies over the red tape and the settlement laws. At least an eighth of the local visitor's time would be saved and the State vis:tor would be freed from his contentions over settlement and from duplicating the work of -oca) visitors Ha could then devote his time to helping with the difficult cases and could exercise some leadership in improving welfare systems. Pt. I. 3 The State should not be a litigant with cities and towns, constantly at odds with them because of the settlement law. It should reimburse in every case, questioning only the standards of work done by the cities and towns, having a general super- vision and power to approve or disapprove reimbursement, an educational power to set up standards of work and secure the acceptance of them by cities and towns as rapidly as persuasion can produce such a result. Modern systems of record keeping and modern methods of dealing with families in need should be insisted upon in every city and town. Local government must continue to bear the fundamental responsibility and yet local government must recognize the need for state and national assistance and guidance in dealing with problems which affect so seriously the whole fabric of government and even threaten the continuance of sound government. Massachusetts has developed its systems logically. It put mothers' aid and old age assistance on the sound basis of relief and it can continue to handle unemployment assistance on the basis of relief if it continues to modernize its systems and to discard as fast as possible the old pauper laws. An extensive revision of the welfare laws which I have drafted discards the settlement laws and substitutes a state reimbursement of twenty-five per cent. It requires boards of public welfare to appoint a duly qualified agent and to leave to the agent the decisions on individual cases under such rules and regulations as it may adopt. It empowers two or more towns to employ an agent jointly. A com- panion bill eliminates the word "pauper" from the State Constitution and from the election laws. Further, the revision does away with public and contract burials and establishes a decent burial allowance of one hundred dollars. Free State care for crippled children at the Massachusetts Hospital School at Canton would be provided, and admissions to the State Infirmary would be upon a hospital basis instead of upon the basis of legal settlement. Duties of the Department of Public Welfare The State Department of Public Welfare has the following principal duties: 1. Supervision over the five state institutions of the Department: State Infirmary, Tewksbury. Massachusetts Hospital School, Canton. Lyman School for Boys, Westborough. Industrial School for Boys, Shirley. Industrial School for Girls, Lancaster. 2. Direction of public relief, both indoor and outdoor, given to unsettled persons by cities and towns. 1 3. Supervision of mothers aid rendered by cities and towns. 4. Supervision of old age assistance rendered by cities and towns. 5. Care and maintenance of delinquent, neglected and dependent children coming into the custody of the Department through court commitment or otherwise. 6. Institutional custody and treatment of juvenile offenders committed by the courts to the three State Training Schools, and the care of these children in families when on parole.