6. George Eisler, director, Americanization Executive Committee, Cincinnati: I have been engaged in practical publicity work among foreign-speaking people for the last ten years. Nothing has been said here about the fact that democracy depends upon the ability to read the printed page. If we are to be truly a united people we all will have to speak one language—the English language. I have noticed with regret in our largest municipalities where we have a large percentage of foreign-speaking population, that those who are engaged in social service activities among them have been giving immigrants little notices first in English, which they could not read, and added thereto in Slavic. Hungarian, Roumanian, Polish, Italian, Russian, Greek, and other tongues of sometimes from a half dozen to a dozen different languages, all on one sheet of paper, quite often of the size 6x9 to 16x22. # As a matter of fact, none of these were ever read or paid attention to, because the material was not prepared with a view of understanding individual and social psychology of the various linguistic groups and nationalities. For instance, a Slav has a natural-born grudge and is prejudiced against a Hungarian. As soon as he sees something in Hungarian, no matter how beneficial the notice might be to him, he refuses to read it or act upon the suggestion contained on the printed page.

You have the same situation with the other groups, and therefore your efforts have not resulted in anything practical because of the refusal to consider the social psychological relations between the different groups. I plead with you to give more attention to this point. To me Americanism is a matter of the spirit. It is a psychological condition and unless we older Americans will Americanize ourselves first we will notbe able to do very much with the so-called "foreigner." Whatever an immigrant is in our environment or whatever he is expected to be largely depends upon how much you and I will do for him in a constructive and practical manner, ascertaining his needs and serving them in a practical manner, according to the best accepted standards.

7. Frederic Almy, secretary of the Buffalo Charity Organization Society, spoke in part as follows: If Missouri, as is said, means "Show me," Buffalo is to that extent in Missouri. Until shown, I am not persuaded as to what I have heard. Our annual reports are issued to win converts more than to tell what we have done. Hornell Hart has just said that social work must be democratic and not autocratic. I believe it may well be autocratic in a sense. I have heard it said that the Buffalo C. O. S. "puts its face into everything," and I have been called a boss, but if so I mean to be a good boss. I want everyone who has influence to have power also, but I want him to have a mighty uneasy seat, so that if he misuses his power he can be put out quickly.

8. Professor Park said, in conclusion: I agree so fully with everything that has been said on both sides of this question, I haven't much to say in rejoinder. I agree that we shall continue to have the "human interest" stories in the newspapers, but I don't think we should confine our newspaper publicity to those cases of personal delinquency or personal distress that have what newspaper men call "human interest."

I believe that we ought to encourage men to write opinions over their own names, but I believe that we want to get a great many more facts in the papers. One reason why, in my opinion, a larger number of newspaper men now write over their own names is not because we are expanding the editorial at the expense of the news-columns, but because the editorial man is beginning to realize that he is not all-wise and we now are beginning to demand that the news shall be interpreted by men who are experts and have special knowledge.

Finally, one point has been made here with which I cannot agree. I do not believe that democracy is a state of mind in the sense perhaps that Boston is a state of mind. Democracy is, to be sure, a state of mind, but behind it there is or should be a set of fundamental habits and habits are important. They are quite as important to society as they are to individuals—without them there would be no routine and no efficiency. A great deal of what we do as individuals or as groups of individuals must be done automatically. If we had no habits most of us would not get out of bed in the morning without a moral struggle!

Revolution is a glorious experience no doubt, but perpetual revolution is impracticable. The acquisition of habits and routine represent, therefore, a great and necessary economy.

ORGANIZATION OF SOCIAL FORCES OF THE STATE R. E. Miles, Director, Ohio Institute for Public Efficiency, Columbus

If there were such a thing as a bureau of vital statistics relating to organizations instead of to human beings, I hazard the assertion that its records would exhibit a very high birth rate during the past few years. As a nation, we might almost be said to have adopted the motto: "Count that day lost whose low descending sun sees no new organizations formed." As an indication of desire for accomplishment, this activity is admirable; for its efficiency, less can be said. In not a few instances it has seemed to be a case of—"We don't know where we are going, but we are on the way." Have we not now reached the "thrift" stage, when economy should be practiced in organizing as well as in spending? The need for effective social accomplishment is and will be greater than before; the man and woman power will be less. From these conditions there can be but one conclusion: through the best possible organization and planning of work, effort must be made to count for the most. How can we bring this about?

I have but a portion of this subject to discuss: The Organization of Social Forces of the State.

First, what are the social forces? The recent change of name of this National Conference is testimony to the expanding conception of what should be included within the term. A glance at the list of divisions of the present program indicates that the social worker's interest is no longer limited to charities and correction, but includes public health, mental hygiene, and industrial and economic problems. This is distinctly to the good, showing as it does that the social worker intends that his angle of vision shall cover his entire field.

In a battle or campaign, the center of conflict often shifts from one point to quite another, and the commanding officer must be prepared to transfer his troops and supplies to meet the new line-up. Social generalship must do the same, and I venture to predict that, more than ever before, social forces, if they wish to be at the center of conflict, must turn resolutely from the relatively negative and remedial, and must push forward the positive—they must drive for better economic and industrial conditions—public health, both physical and mental, education and recreation.

To what end shall societies toil ceaselessly to alleviate poverty, if the cost of living is found to outrun income? Why the vast effort devoted to bearing a burden of sickness which should never have occurred and of poverty and crime springing from mental defect which might have been prevented? How maintain and raise the community's ideals and efficiency, but through better schools and higher types of recreational activities?

Breadth of Purpose Advocated My first plea is, therefore, that the organization of social forces must be of a broad and positive character, with clear recognition of the increasing importance attached to the standard of living, health, education, and recreation. Through closer working relations between the national bodies, the National Conference of Social Work, the National Educational Association, the American Public Health Association, the National Recreation Association, the National Chamber of Commerce, the American Federation of Labor, and between the local bodies affiliated with them or having like purposes, the organized relations of the social worker should be such as to constantly remind him that no proposals aiming to raise the standard of living, improve the public health, offer enlarged opportunities for education and recreation, can be foreign to his interest and action as a social worker.

In a second way, also, the organization of social forces must be inclusive, in that it must harness public and private agencies in the same team to an increasing degree. The time is past, if it ever existed, when each could successfully pull its own load alone. What more potent social forces than departments of health, school boards, and industrial commissions? By no means the least valuable of the services of the Mitchel administration of New York City was the shining example under the leadership of Commissioner Woods of what the police can do as a social force when mobilized for that purpose.

Day by day sees the functions of government added to. That these government activities, new and old, shall be carried on efficiently, adequately, and in harmony with private efforts, needs no demonstration. The attempt by the present mayor of New York City to dismember the department of health rightly stirred the social forces of New York to active effort to defeat it, as a serious menace to the city's welfare.

In many places, inadequate appropriations, red tape, interference by politicians, or other adverse conditions, cause skepticism as to whether the public agency can measure up to the demands upon it. The present trend, however, is unmistakable. Government will be charged with increasing responsibilities. The social worker, therefore, must align himself with the agencies that are striving to make government more efficient in a broad sense. City charters, legislative and administrative reorganizaion, budget and accounting systems, taxation, and many other similar measures must be recognized as properly claiming the social worker's organized attention.

In a word, therefore, the social worker must more than heretofore concern himself with industry, health, education, and recreation and with the success of governmental activities. The organization of social forces must definitely recognize this necessity and provide requisite machinery.

Advantages of the State as Unit of Organization

To those who aim at fundamental social improvement, the state, in this country, offers itself as the territorial unit for which in many respects working plans prove most practicable. The underlying reason for this is that the state is the basis of our legal structure. The federal government is a combination of states, and possesses only such powers as have been delegated to it by expressed or implied provisions of the constitution, the other powers of government remaining with the state. In the opposite direction, cities, counties, townships, and school districts are created and controlled by the state through its constitution or statutes. Thus the principal regulations in industry, health, and education are found to be embodied in the state law.

For practical reasons, also, the state is found in many respects to be the most feasible unit to work with. For example, few local communities can afford to maintain institutions for mental defectives or the insane; state control and management of all minor penal institutions is now advocated as offering advantages which can not be secured under local control. A further consideration is that an advance step can be taken in a single state without waiting for the entire country.

In the organization of social forces, therefore, our attention must be given to the state as being an important, if not indeed the most important unit, especially in the positive type of program which must now be urged.

What form shall the state organization of social forces take? What usually happens in a state is of course that various groups spring up from time to time, each with its own special interest. Thus, we find state charities aid associations, state prison associations, state mental hygiene associations, state social hygiene societies, state public health associations, state tuberculosis leagues, state rural life associations, state child welfare societies, and others.

So far as funds permit, each maintains its own office and executive staff, and tends to develop its own program largely without reference to the others. In many instances, the same individuals are found in several organizations, being interested in the different subjects. The practical result is, to a considerable degree, duplication of expense, and competition instead of co-operation.

The condition thus developed is similar to that of the allies on the western front, where each was playing his own game, though presumably co-operating with the others. The remedy is the same—centralized leadership.

The method which I have to urge is that of a single comprehensive state organization, equipped with a specialized staff; relating its work with the various specialized national organizations on the one hand and with local organizations, whether general or special, on the other; making its office the assembling point and clearing house of social information and data and the headquarters for discussion of social programs; determining through discussion the most advantageous "priority" among the various measures claiming support. Such an organization should not attempt to replace or diminish the activity of local organizations, but on the contrary to stimulate them and make them more effective by getting them to pull together.

Ohio Institute as Example

The Ohio Institute for Public Efficiency has already made a beginning, though only a beginning, along the lines laid down. Its Department of Social Service, under the direction of Mr. Fred C. Croxton, actively promoted a number of measures before the last Ohio legislature. Among those passed were the following: