these demonstrated prospects over to government. This seems to imply that the government is not doing the thing in question; that it might be willing or be made willing to do it; that it has the money to do it. There is an assumption that no matter how difficult it may be to whip ourselves up as voluntary welfare-service givers, the sky is the limit in speeding ourselves up as involuntary taxpayers.

I am not treating the subject of economy. I understand that economy has already been discovered and talked about-indeed, adopted, so to speak, as a new national flower. I am not averse to taxpaying. I believe that the saying that nothing is sure but death and taxes is somewhat vicious in its import, for I believe that very often it should be changed to read death or taxes; that in many ways taxes, expressed in health work, school inspection, and so on, have helped

FIG. 1.-Federal appropriations for welfare purposes in 1925

to break the sickle of the grim reaper. On the whole, I think the biggest return we get from any of our spendings is that which comes from what we pay in taxes.

The subject of this paper is, "Social Service Ratios: How Our Government and Private Agencies Have Worked Out Their Relative Responsibilities for Accomplishment and Support of Social Work."

Whatever, then, our individual private agency purpose, national, state, and local, may be whether it is our expectation to do a given piece of work in perpetuity, or as above indicated-we are making a demonstration that we expect, somehow or other, to place on board the ship of state; we need to know what is already being done through governmental sources, national, state, and local. This will help us to know whether our individual activity, either permanent work or a demonstration enterprise, is needed, so far as governmental agencies are concerned. It will help us better to understand whether or not additional taxes can or should be secured to add such projects to the taxation program.

I shall quote 1922 budget figures, since they are the latest for which certain analyses which I am using have been made:

The total national budget for the fiscal year 1922 was $3,795,302,499.84; the total state budgets, according to the 1922 Financial Statistics of States, was $918,269,400.00; the total city budgets, according to the 1922 Financial Statistics of Cities, was $1,284,188,727.00; making a grand total of $5,997,760,626.84. This does not include counties, boroughs, etc. I have been unable to find any compilation of such county, borough, and other minor expenditures. Let us, then, begin with the national government, follow with state, municipal, and local social service accomplished through taxation, finally approximating this as nearly as may be to what we do through our private enterprises, and see, if possible, what the whole bill and program of rationing is.

Figure 1.-Beginning, then, with the federal government, we find that Uncle Sam's appropriation for welfare purposes in 1925 amounted to about $19,400,000; $8,000,000 each for health and sanitation, charities, hospitals, and correction; and slightly more than a million each for investigation and research and recreation. These services are applicable to the nation as a whole. The national government also takes care of the District of Columbia. The 1925 welfare bill for the District of Columbia was $2,878,000. Understand, this does not include the veterans' bureau or pension bureau. The 1925 bill for these projects was $586,820,000.

Figure 2.-In the military branches of the government, Uncle Sam annually spends $586,820,000, which you see from Figure 1 is almost evenly divided between the United States Veterans' Bureau (51 per cent) and bureau of pensions (40 per cent); the remaining 9 per cent being for the bureau of medicine and surgery, navy department; construction and repair of hospitals, war de

partment; marine hospitals, treasury department; medical department, war department; recreation for enlisted men, navy department; and United States Soldiers' Home, war department.

Figure 3.-The governmental cost payments for expenses for all states in the Union and all cities over 30,000 population, according to the United States Bureau of the Census report for 1922, totals $2,201,000,000. This chart, based on the combined figures for welfare purposes for state and city governments, amounting to $435,190,000, shows how recreation (10 per cent), health and

FIG. 4.-Total expenditure showing amounts apportioned to welfare service

sanitation (34 per cent), compares with 56 per cent for hospitals, charities, and corrections for all states and cities.

Figure 4.-This chart is based, as was the previous one, on the combined figures for city and state governments, but shows in addition the amounts spent by the states as compared with the cities. The bar marked "cities and states" represents $2,201,000,000 spent by all the state and city governments with a population of over 30,000. Of this, $44,000,000 is for recreation; $242,000,000 for hospitals, charities, and corrections; and $148,000,000 for health and sanitation, which leaves $1,767,000,000 for services other than welfare, or approximately 20 per cent for welfare service and 80 per cent for all other services.

The two small bars marked "cities and states" are, of course, equal to the largest bar, and show how the expenditures are divided; for instance, of the $44,000,000 spent for recreation, $42,000,000 is spent by the cities, and only

$2,000,000 by the states; that $80,000,000 is spent by the cities for charities, hospitals, and corrections, against $162,000,000 by the states; likewise, $126,000,000 is spent by the cities for health and sanitation and $21,000,000 by the states. The cities spend more for welfare purposes than the states, the ratio being 57 per cent for cities and 43 per cent for states.

Figure 5.-The governmental cost payments for states, covering all the states in the Union, according to the United States Bureau of the Census report, totals $918,000,000 for welfare purposes, 87 per cent of which is for charities, hospitals, and corrections, 12 per cent for health and sanitation, and I per cent for recreation. As you will see from some of the charts that follow, judging by the very small percentage that is apportioned for recreation by the

RECREATION.1%

HEALTH SANITATION 12%

CHARITIES, HOSPITALS

4 CORRECTIONS
87%

FIG. 5.-Distribution of amounts for welfare purposes (states)

state governments as compared with the city governments, it is evident that this recreation task is considered more especially the job of the city rather than of the state. In this connection it is interesting to note that the highest state per capita cost for recreation is 7 cents in Rhode Island, New Mexico, and Iowa; that in sixteen states it is less than half a cent; and in seven states absolutely nothing is spent on recreation. Georgia has the lowest per capita cost for charities, hospitals, and correction (44 cents), while Massachusetts ranks highest, with $3.25; Georgia and Kentucky stand at the bottom of the list for health and sanitation (7 cents); Connecticut and Vermont are at the top with a cost of 63 cents.

Figure 6.-The distribution of expenses for welfare purposes in certain states: In this selected group of states the divisions are almost identical, with the exception of Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania spends her greatest share for health and sanitation, and less for charities, hospitals, and corrections. It is interesting to note the per capita costs for welfare purposes in these selected

states as compared with the total per capita costs for all governmental service, including developments of natural resources, highways, schools, libraries, etc. (Table I).

Figure 7.-We have seen how Uncle Sam and the state governments have worked out their relative responsibilities for the accomplishment and support of social work; I will now attempt to show what is being done by the cities to meet this responsibility. The total amount of expenditures by cities for welfare purposes is $248,853,000, distributed as follows: 50 per cent for health and

FIG. 6.-Distribution of expenses for welfare purposes in certain states

sanitation, 32 per cent for charities, hospitals, and correction, and 17 per cent for recreation. Denver stands at the top of the list of per capita costs for recreation, with $2.04, the lowest being Hamtramck, Michigan. Kokomo, Indiana, has the lowest per capita cost for health and sanitation ($0.28), and Atlantic City, New Jersey, the highest ($7.89), while Newark, New Jersey, ranks highest for charities, hospitals, and corrections ($4.64), and fourteen cities have none.

Figure 8.-This chart of the total governmental expenditures by cities, amounting to more than $1,200,000,000, shows the amount apportioned for welfare purposes better than do the charts in the remaining groups. The next