Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

of the London Society. There are nineteen societies now in existence in the following towns:

Union Relief Association, Springfield Mass., February 13, 1877.
Charity Organization Society, Buffalo, N. Y., December 11, 1877.
Board of Associated Charities, New Haven, Ct., June 1, 1878.
Society for Organizing Charity, Philadelphia, Pa., June 13, 1878.
Bureau of Charities, Brooklyn, N. Y., November 26, 1878.
Benevolent Association, Harrisburg, Pa., January 15, 1879.
Charity Organization Society, Newport, R. I., February 18, 1879.
Associated Charities, Boston, Mass., February 26, 1879.
Charity Organization Society, Poughkeepsie, N. Y., June 9, 1879.
Associated Charities, Cincinnati, O., November 18, 1879.
Charity Organization Society, Indianapolis, Ind., December 12,1879.
Associated Charities, Portland, Maine, winter 1879-1880.
Association of Charities, Detroit, Mich., February 11, 1880.
Society for Organizing Charity, Cleveland, O., January 14, 1881.
Society for Organizing Charity, Salem, N. J., January 29, 1881.
Associated Charities, Taunton, Mass., March 28, 1881.
Associated Charities, Lowell, Mass., April 26, 1881.
Charity Organization Society, Baltimore, Md., April 30, 1881.
Associated Charities, Washington, D. C., June 7, 1881.

Steps have been taken to organize in Quincy and Cambridge, Mass., in Hartford, Conn., and in Princeton, N. J. Brooklyn proposes to enlarge with District Associations her Society; and New York City is engaged in ascertaining the conditions that exist in her great territory, realizing the necessity of organization.

In view of the varied activities and experiences in the work of these several societies, and in order to serve as a guide to the movement now extending so widely, a schedule of interrogatories was sent to the Societies. Returns have been made by all the home Societies, excepting those of Baltimore, Washington, D. C., and Salem, N. J., too recently organized, and by nine of the Societies in England and in the United Kingdom, including those of Liverpool, Glasgow and Dublin. It is a matter of much regret that the return of the London Society has not yet reached the Committee. The secretary advised the Committee that he feared it could not be mailed in time. The receipt of this will comprise

*Since the reading of the Report, the Return of the London Society has been received and is published with other Returns in a fuller report of the proceedings of the Committee in a separate publication, to be obtained on application to office of Philadelphia Society, 1602 Chestnut St.

all the Societies sent to. The returns have been consolidated, and it was the intention to have had them printed in advance, for the use of members of the Conference in aid of the discussion; but this purpose was prevented through the delay in receiving the returns from two of the principal Societies. The Committee have been fortunate, however, through the liberal enterprise of the New York Herald, and the admirable rendering of the consolidated statement by Henry Hill, Esq., of its staff, to present the most valuable features of the returns in the distribution of the Herald's issue of the 24th instant, that has been made among the members of the Conference. It is a matter of regret that time will not permit to have the full consolidated statement read here; as the returns, by most of the Societies, were carefully prepared and are very instructive. The matter is too voluminous, also, it is apprehended, to be printed with the report of these proceedings. It is proposed, however, in addition to the consolidated abstract in the Herald, that there shall be appended in the published report, the separate and full returns of a few of the principal foreign and home Societies. The schedule of interrogatories upon which the returns were made, was as follows:

1. Name and Address of Society?

2. Date of Organization?

3. What is the character of its Central Body?

4. What is the character of its District Associations?

5. (1) What is the population of the city or town? (2) The membership of your Society?

(3) The number of its Workers and Visitors?

(4) What constitutes Membership?

6. To what extent has Coöperation been effected?

(1) With Societies?

(2) With Churches, or Religious Bodies?

(3) With Public Departments?

And what success is anticipated in these directions?

7. (1) Does the Society furnish relief from its own resources, or depend exclusively upon other Societies to furnish it? and what course is deemed most advisable in this respect?

(2) What ground for apprehension may there be that the resources of relief through Coöperating Societies alone, may not, at all times, be adequate, or to be depended upon?

8. What provisions have been made for giving or procuring employment? and what would you advocate in this direction?

9. What success has been obtained in suppressing street beggars and mendicancy? and through what methods? and what better means could be suggested?

10. What do you consider to be the chief causes of Pauperism and Crime in your town? and how far may these conditions be chargeable to Indiscriminate Charity and Intemperance? What percentage do you attribute to the latter cause? 11. What is your system of registration? How far is it complied with by Societies and individuals? and what value do you place upon it?

12. What ameliorating effects on Pauperism and Crime have been produced in the town since the existence of your Society?

13. What new or additional agencies have been introduced, or their introduction caused by your Society, either Provident, Preventive or Remedial?

14. What attention has been given to the care of the Children of the Poor, either Custodial, Sanitary, or Educational, and what relative importance do you place upon this branch of your work?

15. In the Central Body, or Council of your Society, what powers of administration are entrusted to it? Has it different Committees engaged in the questions of Charitable Economy, and if so, name them? Are there stated Conferences of all the workers in the Society for the discussion of such questions, and are other persons invited to attend? 16. In the Branch, or District Associations

(1) Have you, in all cases, paid agents in charge of the office?
(2) Are there Volunteer Visitors, men or women, and if so,
what are the relative functions between the Agent and
Visitors in the investigation or care of cases?

(3) Have you Weekly Conferences of all your Workers to
consider special cases for Relief, or do you employ
Committees, or any other means, for this purpose?
(4) What other features in the administration or work of any
of your District Associations are of peculiar, or of
special interest?

17. Will you give a list of the publications of your Society?
18. In general terms, what might be said to characterize your
Society, or to be its distinguishing features from other
Societies in Organized Charity.

19. What was the entire cost of

(1) The Administration of your Society for the last year (exclusive of relief)?

(2) The Central Office?

(3) (The average cost) of administration of a District Association (exclusive of relief)?

20. General remarks.

For facility of discussion, the following division of the subject is suggested:

A. The best development of the Central Work of a Society for Organizing Charity, viz:

1. In directing and harmonizing the administration of the District Associations.

2. In Registration and as a Clearing House.

3. In the Financial Administration.

4. In Coöperation (a) with Societies; (b) with Religious Bodies; (c) with Public Departments.

5. In suppressing Vagrancy and Street-begging.

6. In the question of Employment.

7. In the Formation, or Establishment of Provident, Preventive, or Remedial Agencies, especially among Children.

8. Through Standing Committees and Conferences for the discussion and promotion of Charitable or Social Economy. B. The best development of the work of a District Association of a Society for Organizing Charity, viz:

1. In the form of Administration.

2. In the relation of the Agent and Visitors in its work.

3. In Coöperation with (a) District Societies; (b) District Religious Bodies; (c) and with Public Departments.

4. In Provident and Preventive Directions

Savings and in work among Children.

as Loans and

C. Is Public Out-door Relief in a Town necessary and beneficial, and where it exists, what should be its relation to that of Voluntary Agencies?

D. Considerations upon a Better System of Public Charities and Corrections for Cities.

APPENDIX TO THE COMMITTEE'S REPORT.

[NOTE. It is necessary to bear in mind in reading the following careful compilation, prepared by Henry Hill, Esq., of the NEW YORK HERALD staff, that it does not include the reply of the London Society, the oldest and largest of all the Socjeties referred to. This reply was unavoidably delayed until after the occurrence of the Conference. The expenses of the Philadelphia Society are also added in Mr. Hill's paper.]

COOPERATIVE BENEVOLENCE.

The subject for consideration is one of especial interest, as it relates to the new and growing system of the organization of charities in cities. But a few years since there was no such organization in America, and now there are seventeen. In England, where the system was originated, they are making similar progress. Indeed, the organization of charities in cities, which has been otherwise called "a clearing house for charities," is admitted as a clear necessity in both countries, and the discussion no longer pertains to the practicability of the scheme, but rather to the best methods of administering such organizations and of securing the coöperation of the individual societies that already exist. The committee sent out lists of twenty pertinent questions to all these organizations, and have received replies in full from sixteen American and from nine foreign cities. The list of American organizations, omitting but one, is given in the following table, and from these the committee received a prompt answer to their request for information :

[blocks in formation]
« AnteriorContinuar »