for such an activity, whether it can be met by an existing agency, and whether the incorporators are reliable. This makes it possible for the state to direct into proper channels the fine, altruistic impulses of society, without which the world would be decidedly hard-boiled, and to weed out the irresponsible organizations that are looking only for some means to raise funds, ofttimes for some purpose other than that stated in the incorporation. No state supervisory body that is worth while ever seeks to snuff out private enterprises, which we shall always need. But certainly it is entirely proper that there be in every state a public department which will make it possible to direct private agencies to the end that they will give the community what it needs most. Perhaps the following illustrations will indicate how this works out in Ohio. In a city in northwestern Ohio, having a population of 20,000, a group of women decided that a day nursery was an absolute necessity. One of our staff arranged that a definite piece of preliminary work be done to determine the need of the proposed nursery. In that town there was what was called a Finnish district, but which was now Italian. The organization with which we were dealing was sure that a great many of the Italian mothers were leaving their children while going out to work. At the end of a month, during which the preliminary work was done by local persons, a meeting was called and we were asked to be present. At the opening of the meeting the president of the club announced that the preliminary work had been completed and that it showed very definitely that their city did not need a day nursery. Five families were found that needed such service, but they were so widely scattered that a nursery located centrally could not serve them, and another solution was possible. Ohio's conception of the state's relation to private agencies is that through the department which is responsible for the licensing and standardization of these agencies there may result a more complete realization of ideals. DIVISION V-THE FAMILY MOTHERS' PENSIONS A. PROBLEMS OF ADMINISTRATION Joel D. Hunter, General Superintendent, United Charities, Chicago The facts as to the departments of the government administering mothers' pensions are to be found in Bulletin No. 63 of the Children's Bureau. It is the purpose of this paper to discuss some of the tendencies in administration under the judicial branch of the government and some under the executive, and then to guess which is tending toward the higher efficiency. The judicial branch of the government has been the branch that has been most free from political corruption. Quite often when there has been a desire to place governmental responsibility where it will be free from undue political influence it has been placed with the courts. Recently in Cook County the independent voters were more aroused than they have been for many years because of an open attempt of the Lundin-Thompson politicians to elect their henchmen to the circuit court. For the first time these gangsters were beaten and badly beaten. The ordinary citizen winks at a good many things in other branches of the government which he objects to in the judiciary. For those who are in favor of the administration of mothers' pensions by the judicial branch of the government the record of the judiciary, as compared with that of county supervisors of the poor and sinfilar officers, is a strong argument. It is safe to say that throughout the country a majority of county and township supervisors of the poor have been political appointees with no particular preparation for their responsibilities. Administration by courts is more likely to be free from politics than any other administration. Score 1 for the judicial branch of the government. Most of the irregularities and inefficiencies in mothers' pension administration have been, not in the large cities, but rather in counties in which there is no large urban community. In at least half the counties of Illinois the pensions granted are inadequate or else the law is very poorly administered or both. To the question, "How can proper methods be introduced in each county?" the best answer seems to be, “By centralized supervision and control.” There are theoretical and practical objections to the state, through its e officers, supervising the activities of the judicial officers of the county. The cal objection is that in our system of government we have been committe policy of keeping the legislative, the executive, and the judicial branches of the ment distinct. It is argued that it would be a policy fraught with danger ↑ the executive department of the state to supervise any judicial activities. Again, there are practical objections to state supervision of courts. officers. These are the jealousies of the judges and their consciousness of p freedom. A few judges would welcome state supervision, feeling that it would result in the common good, but a majority would not be able to see that supervising from outside could possibly have any such result. The most satisfactory law so far as state supervision of local executive officers is concerned is that of Massachusetts. The law reads: SEC. 5. State board of charity to have supervision. The State board of charity shall hereafter supervise the work done and measures taken by the overseers of the poor of the several cities and towns in respect to families in which there is one child or more under the age of fourteen, whether or not such family or any member thereof has a settlement within the Commonwealth; and for this purpose may establish such rules relative to notice as they deem necessary and may visit and inspect any or all families aided under this act, and shall have access to any records and other data kept by the overseers of the poor or their representatives relating to such aid; and said board shall, in its annual report to the legislature, report upon the work done by its own agents and by the overseers of the poor in respect to such families, any of whose members are without legal settlement in the Commonwealth; and shall make a separate report on the work done by the overseers of the poor in respect to such families in which all the members have a legal settlement in the Commonwealth. There is less jealousy and less theoretical objection to overcome if state supervision is applied to county executive officers than to officers appointed by the judges. Centralized supervision is necessary to obtain an efficient state-wide administration of the excellent laws which we are discussing. This satisfactory change in legislation and administration is occurring much more rapidly in states in which the administrative responsibility is placed elsewhere than the judiciary. Score I for executive county administration. Something which should not be given without state supervision but which should invariably go with it is state aid. In ten out of the sixteen states which have some sort of state supervision state funds are used. There are at least three reasons for state aid: First, it makes state supervision much more acceptable to local authorities That statement needs no elucidation. If a prize is to be given for good and efficient behavior, those who have any merit at all will welcome inspection. Second, state aid makes state supervision more effective. When a considerable amount of the state's funds are involved, the officials of the state will be more inclined to select intelligent and experienced administrators of the law than they would otherwise, and these same administrators will be more careful in their investigations and more thorough in their reports when they know that state aid to county funds depends upon them and their reports. Also the power to effect changes in local administration is increased manifold by a financial leverage. Third, state aid with state supervision will provide adequate relief in many counties where such relief is not being given. In Illinois and probably in many other states many local authorities in numerous counties do not grant all they can under the law, when even the maximum would be inadequate. State supervision alone would not be able to effect the amount of relief given nearly as quickly as would state supervision with state aid. The reasons given to show that state supervision is more likely to be obtained when mothers' pensions are administered by executive county officials apply also to state aid. Score 2 for executive county administration. Fourth, when mothers' pension laws were originally passed it was felt that they would have an immediate effect on the population of children's institutions and the number of children placed in family homes. The effect was hardly noticeable. Why? The parents of most of the children in institutions have been determined to be unwilling or unable to care for these same children or else they, the parents, were deceased. The parent or parents of the children in whose interest pensions have been granted have been determined to be fit, mentally, morally, and physically to care for children. In the main the children in whose interest pensions are granted form a distinct group from the neglected children who make up the population of children's homes. Again, the satisfactory administration of a mothers' pension law, or any other piece of family welfare legislation, will prevent many a family breakdown which otherwise might have occurred. There is enough information available in some communities to warrant the assertion that the population in children's institutions and the number of children placed in family homes have been decreased partially because of the successful administration of a mothers' pension law. For example, the number of neglected children brought before the juvenile court in Chicago and committed to institutions or child placing societies has consistently decreased since 1912, with the exception of one year. The point toward which this discussion is leading is that the specialty of juvenile courts is delinquent and neglected children, and not children whose parent or parents are fit in every way to care for a family. Theoretically the responsibliity for the administration of mothers' pensions seems to fit better with some other group than that which specializes with the children of unfit or improper parents. There has long been a feeling among students of the juvenile court that such courts should not take jurisdiction over dependency cases when no element of neglect is present. It would seem that this responsibility should be placed with some other governmental group, for instance, mothers' pensions with some executive county official. Score 3 for county executive administration. Before announcing the final score, warning should be given that what is sought is an efficient, state-wide administration of excellent laws, and that the best way to obtain it seems to be by having some sort of state supervision of and state aid to executlve county officers appointed on a merit basis. This principle should be a guide to states considering the passage of a new law and a suggestion to states which already have adopted a different system to carefully consider the situation to determine if a change would be desirable. The score is 3 to 1 for the administration of mothers' pensions by the executive branch of the county government with state supervision and aid. One definition of a law is, "A contrivance to establish a certain end." Mothers' pension laws are contrivances to establish what end? To keep together in wholesome surroundings and under proper influences families which otherwise might be unable to stay together the parent or parents of which families are fit but economically unable to properly care for the children. There has never been any disagreement worthy of note to this purpose. There has not been, however, a united opinion that it was wise to seek to attain the agreed-upon end through publicly administered mothers' pensions. If that opinion still exists we need not concern ourselves with it, for the principle is well established by law and custom, and our present interest is in the proper administration of present laws and their logical development rather than in their repeal. There has been discussion as to whether deserted women and women with children born out of wedlock and other groups should be included among those MOTHERS' PENSIONS-LUNDBERG 237 eligible for pensions. Such discussion is not interesting. It is beside the mark. The general policy can and should be in every state to increase the number of those eligible for pensions until every fit parent is included, provided certain things are present, and these provisos are of importance. In other words, we should all say: "We believe in mothers' pensions. The principle behind them is correct. We will go the limit in extending their scope provided: first, that there is an efficient administration of the law and a general approval of it and its method of administration in the area affected; second, that the total amount to be used for mothers' pensions is guaranteed by the provisions of the statute; third, that the amount to be given for each child and family is adequate; fourth, that the administrators of the law are appointed on a merit basis; and fifth, that there is centralized supervision and aid." B. THE PRESENT STATUS OF MOTHERS' PENSIONS ADMINISTRATION Emma O. Lundberg, Children's Bureau, United States Department of Labor, Washington Ten years have elapsed since the enactment of the first law specifically providing for the care of dependent children in their own homes through allowances from public funds. Forty states now have what are commonly called "mothers' pension laws." After another ten years, when an analysis is made of the social results of the mothers' pension movement, we may discover that the whole system of poor relief has become socialized through this leaven, and that not only public agencies but private organizations for family and child welfare work will have learned a valuable lesson in the possibilities of conserving home life for children. Moreover, there will have been a demonstration of the financial cost of social amelioration that must increase efforts to abolish through a wiser social program this tremendous burden, the full weight of which we have so recently begun to acknowledge. In these ten years of mothers' pension laws, assistance to children in the home from public funds apart from the old-time poor relief has become a recognized principle of public aid, going hand in hand with the extension of placing children in family homes instead of maintaining them in institutions. Ten or fifteen years ago the main discussion was on the question of placing out dependent children as against care in institutions. In 1921 the moot point is how the home can be conserved and the child's removal prevented. We cannot overestimate the constructive force that is represented by thousands of homes that have been enabled to give their children a better chance for proper physical development and to conserve for them a mother's care made more adequate through the removal of some degree of strain and worry and deprivation. The many changes in administrative regulations and methods give some indication of the trend of development that we may expect in the next few years. Inadequate as the application of the law has been in many states and localities, the theory of aid to children in their own. homes is firmly rooted. The tendency in legislative amendments has been toward increasing grants and liberalizing the requirements. Eligibility requirements.-Nothing can be further from standardization than are mothers' pension regulations and administrative measures. In regard to eligibility for the grants, for example, in the forty states there are twenty-nine varieties of combinations of specifications as to status. In only eight states is the grant limited |