through the efforts of the social worker, could be placed in institutions where they belong for the safeguarding of society and their own protection.

Francis Bardwell, Inspector of Almshouses for the State Board of Charities of Massachusetts, has summarized these suggestions for the improvement of the almshouse, as follows:

1. The common necessities-shelter, personal cleanliness, food, clothing, and medicinal attendance, including nursing;

2. The following_comforts-kindly attendance, quiet and decent quarters, reasonable freedom from objectionable fellow-inmates, and the opportunity of receiving visits from friends; and

3. Some form of recreation-the privilege of attendance at religious services at least monthly, employment suited to the inmates' age and physical_condition, the right to protest, without detriment to the inmate, any hardship he may feel that he is suffering.

The superintendent should possess executive ability; he must be honest and kindly, and he should conduct the poorhouse for the welfare of the inmates.

He suggests that, since many times the friends of inmates are working at the regular visiting hours during the week, that there be provided visiting hours on Sundays and holidays.

He suggests that the superintendent and the board in charge of the poorhouse should secure the coöperation of various church societies. and fraternal orders to provide entertainment for the inmates, such as talks, concerts, simple treats and illustrated lectures or moving pictures. Papers, books and reading matter should be provided; also games, Christmas celebrations and an annual picnic.

He suggests that in every poorhouse an attempt should be made to restore the people to self-support. He estimates that among men admitted for the first time at least one-fourth could be restored to independence.1

TOPICS FOR REPORTS

I. Almshouse Conditions in Certain Parts of the United States. Ellwood, Proceedings, National Conference of Charities and Correction, 1903, p. 386 ff.

2. Some Results of Promiscuous Mingling of Different Classes in the *Proceedings, National Conference of Charities and Correction, 1917, pp. 357

Almshouses of England. Johnson, The Almshouse, New York, 1911, App. I.

3. The Cleveland Almshouse. Cooley, in Proceedings, National Conference of Charities and Correction, 1912, p. 437 ff. Cooley, "A Substitute for the Poorhouse," Outlook, Apr. 22, 1911.

4.

A New York County Almshouse. Lane, "A Rich Man in the Poorhouse," The Survey, Nov. 4, 1916, pp. 101 ff.

CHAPTER XIV

PRIVATE AND PUBLIC AGENCIES FOR DEPENDENTS— A COMPARISON

HISTORICALLY, private care of the pauper arose first. In our

survey of the development of the care of the poor, we have seen that for centuries there was no public poor relief. In the United States, however, organized private poor relief developed later than public. This was for the reason that public poor relief was brought over by the colonies from England and thus became established in the early laws of this country. In the United States, private relief developed later.1

In any comparison of the relative merits of private and public agencies for the relief of dependents, we must start with the consideration that to be fair the comparison must be made between the two in the same general social situation, which usually means in the same region. It would not be fair to compare private relief in an old city like New York with public relief in one of the newer states of the West. Moreover, any comparison worth while must be made on the basis of experience. Evaluation of the two systems must rest on the results of a fair comparison. Furthermore, any program for the care of the dependent should endeavor to take the best out of both the private and the public agencies.

PUBLIC AND PRIVATE AGENCIES ARE NON-COMPETING

In any rational plan for the care of dependents, public and private agencies should be looked upon as not competing, but as supplementing each other. Each has its advantages and its disadvantages. In many cases the strength of the one is the weakness of the other. Partisan bias for or against either should not blind our eyes to the merits and demerits of each.

Moreover, the comparison cannot be made on the basis of theory only, but must be made on the basis of ascertained results of experience, and in view of the existing conditions in American life. Mr. 1 Devine, Principles of Relief, pp. 314-357.

1

Francis McLean, on the basis of his experience in Montreal, Canada, which has no public relief agency, says: "With no public institution as a place for final refuge, the usual standards have to be done away with. Now differentiation and classification are nowhere better illustrated than in private charitable institutions. But place the public burden upon private charity, and these two of its shining excellencies are crushed under the weight without at the same time its satisfactorily performing the additional duties." 1

COMPARISON OF THE VARIOUS FIELDS IN WHICH EACH

PREDOMINATES

In the care of chronic dependents, public agencies are most widespread. The New York Association for Improving the Condition of the Poor early in its history conceived its mission to be to help those whose condition could be improved by relief. Says Devine: "The mark which visitors of the Association were asked to recognize as indicating their own poor was the possibility of alleviating the moral and physical condition of the applicant." This policy relegated to the public relief authorities all the so-called hopeless cases and rested upon the assumption that public relief did not attempt to rehabilitate. Such a program assumes that there should be a division of function between public and private relief, based on the theory that public relief cannot be expected to do constructive work. By this program the association emphasizes a neglected side of public relief work, but if public relief actually becomes constructive in its efforts, then this division of labor would not hold, and another would have to be made. However, in the face of American conditions as they actually exist to-day, such an assumption is sound.

For special classes of dependents, such as the insane, defectives. blind and vagrants, public care is the more usual, on the theory that the improvement of these classes is rather hopeless; and, in the case of the insane, defectives and vagrants, that the proper treatment depends upon the exercise of public authority.

In the care of incipient paupers we have no figures to indicate whether public or private agencies are caring for the greater number. The probabilities are that wherever public outdoor relief is established, larger numbers are relieved by public than by private outdoor relief.

In the care of the sick poor, it is probable that private agencies are Proceedings, National Conference of Charities and Correction, 1901, p. 142. ง Devine, Principles of Relief, p. 319.

more numerous. Publicly supported hospitals are not so frequent as private. However, in a great many cases the bills are paid out of public funds.

Skilled service is met much more frequently in private agencies than in public agencies, especially for the care of dependents-adults as well as children. Private agencies have led in the introduction of skilled workers, for the private agency is usually the pioneer in experiments.

ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST EACH METHOD

For the private agency it is argued:

(a) That private relief is more personal and less mechanical. The private agency has a smaller clientele, and can select its cases, while the public agency must take all who come to it.

(b) More emphasis is laid upon service and less upon relief. The endeavor is made to cure the dependency, therefore constructive service is made primary and relief only a means to accomplish that pur

pose.

(c) Less stigma attaches to private relief than to public relief, hence private relief can help some who would shrink from public relief. These are the very ones of whom there is hope of rehabilitation.

(d) On account of this fact, private relief is less pauperizing than public. No one can claim relief from private agencies as a right, therefore private relief can be more discriminating.

(e) The private agency can make experiments; so that if one constructive method does not solve the problem of relief, it tries another. On the other hand, the public agency works on fixed lines laid down by law or established by custom and cannot so easily change. On the other hand, private relief, having usually less funds at its disposal than public, is less adequate in times of crises. Moreover, since a slighter stigma attaches to such aid, it may be easier for people to learn to depend upon somebody else than themselves in private than in public relief, which is avowedly deterrent in its purpose. (f) It is claimed that private relief is less open to political corruption. This is true so far as outdoor relief is concerned. As we shall show later, in the chapter on "Public Subsidies to Private Agencies," it is not true for the institutional care of public wards by private institutions.

(g) It is also claimed for private relief that because of its empha