Some Basic Statistics in Social Work: Derived from Data of Family Agencies in the City of New York 9780231890892

Citation preview

SOME BASIC STATISTICS IN SOCIAL WORK

SOME BASIC S T A T I S T I C S IN S O C I A L W O R K Derived from Data of Family Agencies in The City of U^ew Tork^

BY

PHILIP

KLEIN

WITH THE C O L L A B O R A T I O N

OF

R U T H VORIS

PUBLISHED

FOR

T H E NEW Y O R K S C H O O L OF S O C I A L W O R K BY

COLUMBIA

UNIVERSITY NEW

YORK

l933

PRESS

COPYHCHT 1 9 3 3 COLUMBIA U N I V E R S I T Y PRESS PUBLISHED I 9 3 3

PRINTED E i THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA B Y THE CF.ORCE GRADY PRESS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS T h e task of acknowledging our indebtedness to the four family agencies which have cooperated in the present study is rendered somewhat embarrassing by the fact that in a very real sense they have been not merely cooperators, but participants and colleagues. Without their full partnership the study could not have been made. It is fitting, however, that particular mention be made of the statisticians of those agencies who have been the actual coadjutors in the work. It is a pleasure, therefore, to acknowledge our very great indebtedness to the Association for Improving the Condition of the Poor and to Dr. Gwendolyn H. Berry of that organization, to the Charity Organization Society and Miss Helen I. Fiske; to the Family Division of the Catholic Charities and Mrs. Alice R . Crawford; and to the Jewish Social Service Association and Miss Miriam Cohen; as well as to the interested and helpful executives of those agencies, Bailey B. Burritt, Lawson Purdy, Father Brennock, and Frances Taussig. W e are also deeply appreciative of the sympathetic understanding of the objectives of the study on the part of Dr. Neva R. Deardorff, Director of the Research Bureau of the Welfare Council of New York, which has resulted in the willingness of the Council to continue the collection of statistical data inaugurated in the interest of the study, and in the provision of clerical assistance when the depression had increased the labor far beyond expectation. A further debt is due to a number of colleagues, both within the faculty and elsewhere, for critical and therefore helpful reading of the manuscript. T H E N E W Y O R K SCHOOL OF SOCIAL W O R K September, 1932

PHILIP K L E I N R U T H VORIS

FOREWORD In recent years social work has applied itself with increasing earnestness to the task of evaluating its place in the life of modern society. In its pioneer stage it was largely concerned with defining the problems of social pathology and with the promotion of programs for their solution. Increasingly, as such problems were defined, programs have been drafted and organizations financed to promote them. Rapidly a varied professional technique for carrying out social work programs was developed and has been given both recognition and support. Much pioneering remains to be done. We have arrived at a stage, however, when the critical eye must be turned not only upon conditions which require social work, but also upon the activities themselves, their appropriateness, effectiveness, and relative claims upon the public purse and attention. An obvious part of this self-analysis is the measurement of demand for social work and of volume of service. Such measurement implies a statistical technique appropriate in two ways: One to serve the measurement of social work within its own field; the other to facilitate comparison with statistics of other public services and with the study of social life as it is reflected through the media of the various social sciences. Social work statistics have not been notably useful for either purpose, and the undertaking upon which the following report is based may be regarded as one of the exploratory steps in the direction of devising and applying methods of measuring social work in a broad perspective. Other studies must follow before the necessary material for this critical self-analysis of social work will be adequate. Some of them will have to be quantitative, others analytical or descriptive. The selection of the particular area for this study was guided by reasons inherent in the field, as set forth by the

viii

FOREWORD

author. T h e results are especially timely now, when the unprecedented economic depression forces us to look at social work programs anew and to readjust our perspectives to the uncertain economic stability of our communities. The findings of the study may, therefore, have interest not only from the point of view of method which has been its first objective, but also from that of actual findings which happen to cover a period of more than three years, ending in October, 1931. PORTER R . L E E N E W YORK

December, 1932

CONTENTS FOREWORD

BY PORTER R . L E E

vii

I. O R I E N T A T I O N

I

T Y P E S OP SOCIAL WORK STATISTICS — PREVIOUS STUDIES — O B J E C TIVES OF STUDY — T H E TYPE OF AGENCY CHOSEN — STATISTICAL MATERIAL USED, DEFINITIONS — T H E SMALL AREAS USED II. T H E FAMILY AGENCY DEPENDENCY

IN

RELATION

TO

ECONOMIC 40

DISTINCTION BETWEEN F A M I L Y AGENCY AND RELIEF AGENCY — F A M I L Y SERVICE IN RELATION TO PROSPERITY — • INCLUSIVE NESS OF THE AGENCIES III. T H E

STATISTICAL

UNITS

USED

71

CASE LOAD, I N T A K E , APPLICATIONS, POPULATION RATES IV.

DISTRIBUTION OF T H E

DATA

BY

SMALL AREAS

.

.

.

.

91

H E A L T H AREAS — • COMBINED HEALTH AREAS V. S O M E

FURTHER

FINDINGS

109

T H E DEMAND —• V O L U M E OF SERVICE — DISPOSAL OF APPLICATION VI.

SUMMARY

AND

CONCLUSIONS

134

APPENDICES A . M A C H I N E R Y SET U P FOR COLLECTING THE D A T A B.

REPRESENTATIVE

C.

STATISTICAL DATA CLASSIFIED BY COOPERATING AGENCIES .

TABLES

D . FURTHER DATA BY COMBINED H E A L T H AREAS INDEX

147 169 .

.

.

191 203 211

TABLES 1 . I N T A K E , TOTAL AND UNDER CARE, F R O M J U N E , 1 9 2 8 , TO O C T O B E R , MANHATTAN

1931, S3

2 . N A T U R E OF R E Q U E S T S E M P H A S I Z I N G ECONOMIC NEED, IN A P P L I C A T I O N S RECEIVED F R O M N O V E M B E R , 1 9 2 9 , TO OCTOBER, 1 9 3 1 , M A N H A T T A N 3 . A V E R ACE N U M B E R OF APPLICATIONS PER M O N T H AND RATE PER P O P U L A T I O N , B Y COMBINED H E A L T H AREAS 4 . AVERAGE M O N T H L Y H E A L T H AREAS

INTAKE

PER

10,000

POPULATION

FOR

57

10,000 104

COMBINED IO6

5 . A N N U A L A P P L I C A T I O N FIGURES FOR A F E W HATTAN AND T H E BRONX

SELECTED AREAS I N

MANIL6

6 . R E L A T I O N B E T W E E N POPULATION CHANCE AND RATIO OF A P P L I C A T I O N S TO P O P U L A T I O N

120

7 . C A S E LOAD AND M A J O R CARE I N T A K E CASES PER 1 0 , 0 0 0 P O P U L A T I O N B Y . M O N T H , F R O M J U N E , 1 9 2 8 , TO N O V E M B E R , 1 9 2 9 , M A N H A T T A N .

123

8 . D I S P O S A L OF A P P L I C A T I O N S CLASSIFIED BY BOROUCH AND B Y N A T U R E OF REQUEST, B Y M O N T H , F R O M N O V E M B E R , 1 9 2 9 , TO OCTOBER, 1 9 3 1 , M A N H A T T A N AND THE B R O N X

128

9 . S A M P L E REPORTS S E N T TO COOPERATING AGENCIES DURING F I R S T OF S T U D Y

154

1 0 . S A M P L E OF R E P O R T S SENT PART OF S T U D Y

TO COOPERATING AGENCIES DURING

PART

SECOND 158

1 1 . A P P L I C A T I O N S B Y H E A L T H AREA, N O V E M B E R ,

1 9 2 9 , TO OCTOBER,

1931,

1 2 . A P P L I C A T I O N S B Y H E A L T H AREA, N O V E M B E R , T H E BRONX

1 9 2 9 , TO OCTOBER,

1931,

1 3 . T O T A L I N T A K E ( M A J O R AND M I N O R ) , J U N E , MANHATTAN

1 9 2 8 , TO OCTOBER,

1931,

MANHATTAN

1 4 . I N T A K E OF M A J O R CARE CASES, J U N E ,

170 174

176

1 9 2 8 , TO OCTOBER, 1 9 3 1 ,

MAN-

HATTAN

182

1 5 . M A J O R CARE CASES OPEN ON F I R S T OF EACH M O N T H , B Y H E A L T H J U N E 1 , 1 9 2 8 , TO N O V E M B E R 1 , 1 9 2 9 , M A N H A T T A N 1 6 . INDEXES OF A P P L I C A T I O N S AND I N T A K E , TOTAL AND UNDER M O N T H , J U N E , 1 9 2 8 , TO OCTOBER, 1 9 3 1 , M A N H A T T A N

AREA, 186

CARE, . . .

BY .

188

1 7 . C H A N G E S I N RATE OF I N T A K E PER POPULATION, B Y H E A L T H AREA, M A N H A T T A N , F R O M 1 9 2 8 - 2 9 TO 1 9 2 9 - 3 0 , AND F R O M 1 9 2 9 - 3 0 TO 1930-31

189

1 8 . A P P L I C A N T S ( N U M B E R AN'D I N D E X ) , B Y AGENCY AND B Y M O N T H , HATTAN AND T H E B R O N X

192

MAN-

1 9 . A P P L I C A N T S FOR R E L I E F , BY AGENCY AND BY M O N T H , M A N H A T T A N AND THE BRONX

193

xii

T A B L E S

2 0 . DISPOSAL OF APPLICATIONS B Y MONTH, ASSOCIATION FOR I M P R O V I N G T H E CONDITION OF T H E POOR, MANHATTAN AND T H E B R O N X . . 2 1 . DISPOSAL OF APPLICATIONS B Y MONTH,

CATHOLIC

CHARITIES,

HATTAN AND T H E B R O N X 2 2 . DISPOSAL OF APPLICATIONS B Y M O N T H , C H A R I T Y S O C I E T Y , MANHATTAN AND THE B R O N X

194

MAN195

ORGANIZATION

2 3 . DISPOSAL OF APPLICATIONS BY MONTH, J E W I S H SOCIAL SERVICE CIATION, MANHATTAN AND THE B R O N X

196 ASSO197

2 4 . APPLICATIONS ( N U M B E R AND I N D E X ) B Y COMBINED HEALTH AREAS AND B Y MONTH, MANHATTAN, N O V E M B E R , 1 9 2 9 , TO O C T O B E R , 1 9 3 1 .

204

2 5 . APPLICATIONS TAKEN UNDER CARE ( N U M B E R AND PERCENT OF TOTAL APPLICATIONS OF T H E M O N T H ) BY COMBINED HEALTH AREAS AND B Y MONTH, MANHATTAN, N O V E M B E R , 1 9 2 9 , TO OCTOBER, 1 9 3 1 . . .

206

2 6 . TOTAL INTAKE ( N U M B E R AND I N D E X ) B Y COMBINED HEALTH AREAS AND BY MONTH, MANHATTAN, J U N E , 1 9 2 8 , TO OCTOBER, 1 9 3 1 . . .

208

CHARTS AND MAPS 1 . P E R C E N T D I S T R I B U T I O N O F EARNED AND U N E A R N E D I N C O M E I N SOCIAL AGENCIES DEALING W I T H DEPENDENCY AND CHARACTER BUILDING, RESPECTIVELY, I N 1 9 AMERICAN CITIES

10

2 . M O N T H L Y AVERAGE OF TOTAL I N T A K E O F EACH OF T H E FOUR AGENCIES FOR T H E H E A L T H AREAS OF M A N H A T T A N , J U N E , 1 9 2 8 , TO M A Y , 1 9 2 9

31

3.

H E A L T H AREAS I N M A N H A T T A N AS ADOPTED BY T H E D E P A R T M E N T OF H E A L T H AND T H E W E L F A R E C O U N C I L I N 1 9 2 8 , AND T H E P O P U L A T I O N OF E A C H , 1 9 3 0 C E N S U S

37

4.

H E A L T H AREAS I N T H E B R O N X AS ADOPTED BY T H E D E P A R T M E N T OF H E A L T H AND T H E W E L F A R E C O U N C I L I N 1 9 2 8 , AND T H E P O P U L A T I O N OF E A C H , 1 9 3 0 C E N S U S

38

5 . T O T A L I N T A K E AND PERCF.NT THAT I N T A K E F O R M S OF ALL APPLICATIONS FOR T H E M O N T H , M A N H A T T A N , N O V E M B E R , 1 9 2 9 , TO OCTOBER, 1931

49

6 . U N D E R CARE I N T A K E AND PERCENT THAT UNDER CARE I N T A K E F O R M S OF ALL APPLICATIONS FOR T H E M O N T H , M A N H A T T A N , N O V E M B E R , 1 9 2 9 , TO O C T O B E R , 1 9 3 1

51

7 . P E R C E N T O F TOTAL APPLICATIONS BY M O N T H , M A N H A T T A N , F O R M E D BY REQUESTS FOR R E L I E F AND FOR J O B

58

1929-31,

8 . P E R C E N T OF TOTAL APPLICATIONS BY M O N T H , M A N H A T T A N , 1 9 2 9 - 3 1 , F O R M E D BY REQUESTS S H O W I N G E C O N O M I C NEED (ALL R E L I E F R E QUESTS P L U S REQUESTS FOR J O B O N L Y )

59

9 . D I S P O S A L , ALL APPLICATIONS COMPARED W I T H APPLICATIONS FOR R E L I E F , BY M O N T H , M A N H A T T A N , 1 9 2 9 - 3 1

60

1 0 . R A T E S OF CHANGE I N T H E M A J O R CARE CASE LOAD, I N T A K E , AND CASES CLOSED, O F FOUR F A M I L Y ACENCIES F R O M J U N E , 1 9 2 8 , TO OCTOBER, 1929, MANHATTAN

75

1 1 . I N D E X O F AGENCY I N T A K E (TOTAL AND M A J O R CARE) COMPARED W I T H I N D E X OF N E W Y O R K C I T Y M A N U F A C T U R I N G E M P L O Y M E N T , FOR T H E PERIOD J U N E , 1 9 2 8 , TO OCTOBER, 1 9 3 1

78

1 2 . I N D E X OF AGENCY APPLICATIONS AND I N T A K E COMPARED W I T H I N D E X OF N E W Y O R K C I T Y M A N U F A C T U R I N G E M P L O Y M E N T , FOR T H E PERIOD J U N E , 1 9 2 8 , TO O C T O B E R , 1 9 3 1

81

1 3 . T H R E E I N D E X E S O F E C O N O M I C CONDITION FOR T H E PERIOD F R O M J U N E , 1 9 2 8 , TO OCTOBER, 1 9 3 1

85

1 4 . R A N K I N G O F M A N H A T T A N H E A L T H AREAS BY I N T A K E AND I N T A K E RATE PER 1 0 , 0 0 0 P O P U L A T I O N , 1 9 2 8 - 2 9

88

1 5 . P O P U L A T I O N CHANGES I N S A M P L E H E A L T H AREAS I N M A N H A T T A N AND THE BRONX, 1 9 0 5 - 3 0

93

16. CHANGES

IN

RATE

MANHATTAN, 1930-31

OF FROM

INTAKE 1928-29

PER

POPULATION,

BY

HEALTH

TO 1 9 2 9 - 3 0 , AND F R O M

AREA,

1929-30

TO 95

xiv

C H A R T S

A N D

M A P S

1 7 . D I S T R I B U T I O N OP AVERAGE M A J O R CARE CASE LOAD AND TOTAL I N T A K E RATES INTO QUARTERS IN THE ORDER OF RATES, MANHATTAN, J U N E , 1 9 2 8 , TO M A Y , 1 9 2 9

97

1 8 . D I S P E R S I O N OF HEALTH-AREA INTAKE RATE IN DESIGNATED TERRITORIES

99

1 9 . APPLICATIONS B Y COMBINED HEALTH AREAS AND B Y M O N T H , M A N H A T TAN, N O V E M B E R , 1 9 2 9 , TO OCTOBER, 1 9 3 0 IT2 2 0 . T O T A L I N T A K E B Y COMBINED HEALTH 1 9 2 8 , TO OCTOBER, 1 9 3 1

AREAS AND B Y M O N T H ,

JUNE, 103

2 1 . AVERAGE N U M B E R OF APPLICATIONS PER MONTH PER 1 0 , 0 0 0 POPULATION, B Y COMBINED HEALTH AREAS, MANHATTAN, 1 9 2 9 - 3 0 AND 1 9 3 0 - 3 1 . 105 2 2 . AVERAGE M O N T H L Y INTAKE PER 1 0 , 0 0 0 POPULATION B Y COMBINED HEALTH AREAS, MANHATTAN, 1 9 2 8 - 2 9 , 1 9 2 9 - 3 0 , 1 9 3 0 - 3 1 . . . . 137 2 3 . APPLICATIONS TAKEN UNDER CARE, PER CENT OF TOTAL APPLICATIONS, H A R L E M AND MANHATTAN, N O V E M B E R , 1 9 2 9 , TO OCTOBER, 1 9 3 1 . 118 2 4 . AVERAGE N U M B E R OF APPLICATIONS PER MONTH PER 1 0 , 0 0 0 POPULATION, B Y HEALTH AREA, MANHATTAN, FOR T H E YEARS 1 9 2 9 - 3 0 AND 1 9 3 0 - 3 1 112 2 5 . AVERAGE N U M B E R OF APPLICATIONS PER 1 0 , 0 0 0 POPULATION B Y HEALTH AREA, T H E B R O N X , 1 9 2 9 - 3 0 AND 1 9 3 0 - 3 1 113 2 6 . CHANGE I N APPLICATION RATE BETWEEN HEALTH AREA, T H E B R O N X

1929-30

AND

1930-31,

BY 114

2 7 . AVERAGE TOTAL INTAKE PER MONTH PER 1 0 , 0 0 0 POPULATION, BY HEALTH AREA, MANHATTAN, FOR T H E T H R E E T W E L V E - M O N T H PERIODS, 1 9 2 8 TO 1 9 3 1 119 2 8 . AVERAGE M A J O R CARE CASE LOAD PER 1 0 , 0 0 0 POPULATION, B Y HEALTH AREA, MANHATTAN, J U N E , 1 9 2 8 , TO M A Y , 1 9 2 9 122 2 9 . R A T E OF CHANGE IN MAJOR CARE CASE LOAD AND INTAKE PER 1 0 , 0 0 0 POPULATION, B Y MONTH, MANHATTAN, J U N E , 1 9 2 8 , TO OCTOBER, 1929 3 0 . R A T E OF CHANGE IN APPLICATIONS, TOTAL I N T A K E AND UNDER I N T A K E , B Y MONTH, MANHATTAN, 1 9 2 9 - 3 1

124 CARE 125

3 1 . D I S P O S A L OF APPLICATIONS CLASSIFIED B Y BOROUGH AND NATURE O F REQUEST, B Y MONTH, N O V E M B E R , 1 9 2 9 , TO OCTOBER, 1 9 3 1 . . .126 3 2 . GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF APPLICANTS TO EACH AGENCY FOR

THE

M O N T H OF J A N U A R Y , 1 9 3 1 3 3 . I N D E X OF APPLICANTS B Y AGENCY AND B Y M O N T H , MANHATTAN THE BRONX, 1 9 2 9 - 3 1

198 AND 100

3 4 . P E R C E N T OF TOTAL APPLICATIONS, B Y AGENCY AND B Y MONTH, M A N HATTAN AND T H E B R O N X , N O V E M B E R , 1 9 2 9 , TO OCTOBER, 1 9 3 1 , FORMED B Y REQUESTS FOR R E L I E F 101 35.

D I S P O S A L OF APPLICATIONS, B Y AGENCY AND B Y MONTH, MANHATTAN 102 AND T H E B R O N X , N O V E M B E R , 1 9 2 9 , TO OCTOBER, 1 9 3 1

CHAPTER

I

ORIENTATION T Y P E S of SOCIAL W O R K

STATISTICS

Statistics of social work have not yet attained a very high degree of theoretical significance or of practical usefulness as guides for action. This deficiency rests upon a number of historical factors, some of which have persisted to our day. Social work agencies have generally come into existence upon the disclosure of community conditions of one kind or another that seemed to require remedial action. Usually these conditions were qualitatively defined and stated in terms of the specific remedy proposed, as well as in terms of the social or individual pathology that they represented. Not every agency in each community, however, owes its creation to independent discovery of needs. A variety of social work has been introduced from time to time, mainly by analogy with some other community which had shown the existence of undesirable conditions and decided upon appropriate remedies. The molds which have determined the nature of social service and the type of agencies for providing it were formed by such questions as: What type of evil exists and how can it be eradicated, or what type of service is desirable, and how can it be procured? The logic of the next question: How much of the evil is there, and how extensive should the proposed measures be, has been displaced by the more pressing question of how to make resources available. There are indeed some social workers who would hold that the availability of resources alone determines the amount of the work done, and that the quantitative expression of social work is ever a

2

ORIENTATION

measure, not of need to be met, but only of skill in obtaining resources or of the community's tradition in philanthropy or of progress in social legislation. It is common knowledge, at any rate, that some communities, because of the cultural tradition of their leaders, which determined the nature of legacies, abound in philanthropic agencies or have even a superabundance of special philanthropic facilities. It is also clear that the number of children, widows, and aged added to the clientèle of public social agencies in recent decades is due, not to greater destitution, but to new legislative provisions for the care of certain members of the social group. This lack of connection between the expressions of philanthropy and the needs requiring to be met, may be one factor in the indifferent development of social work statistics. Another factor that has entered into the problem of measuring social work in recent years is the disproportionate development between two main divisions corresponding to two somewhat distinct objectives of social work: one to help the substandard members of the group to attain and to k e e p an accepted normal standard, and the other to raise the general standards of life and behavior of the population to levels above those accepted as the norms of the day. T h e former, which we may call the rehabilitation type of social work, serves necessarily but a portion of the population and is amenable, if at all, to one kind of measurement, while the latter tends to become community-wide, and is subject to other types of quantitative statement. T h e extension of these latter services, embracing such fields as public health, recreation and mental hygiene, depends largely on educational propaganda, and for these activities at least there is substantial truth in the assertion that resources create or expand demand as well as meet it. In addition to these peculiarities of its own, social work shares with the entire body of the social sciences the basic

ORIENTATION

3

difficulties in the mathematical formulation of its complicated correlations which have been so clearly stated by Professors Robert I. Maclver and H. R. Kemp. 1 T h e following partial review of existing statistical material and methods in social work is an attempt to orient our small experiment with respect to the general status of social work statistics at this time, in so far as these are germane to the limited scope of our inquiry. Existing social work statistics may be roughly classified in four groups, tentatively designated as follows: 1. Bookkeeeping statistics 2. Sociological data in statistical form 3. Statistics for administrative control 4. Measurement of social work as a community function The data which, for the lack of a better name, we call bookkeeping statistics, relate principally to volume of work, and naturally vary in detail in the several fields of social work. In institutions such as orphanages, hospitals, etc., they are usually referred to as "movement of population," and comprise admissions, discharges and number remaining. Such figures are reported annually or monthly, and are developed in some detail with respect, for example, to type of admission and nature of discharge. In case-work agencies the material available includes figures on intake, closed cases, and case load, with their various subdivisions. Clinics and visiting nurse services emphasize "visits"; community centers count "attendance"; settlements report number of clubs and of membership; courts, the number of arraignments, convictions and so on. Frequently these data are considered in relation 1Scientific

Method in Social Science; M a c l v e r , R. I.; Kemp, H. R., The Application of Statistical Methods in Social Science. Memoranda submitted to the Committee on Scientific Method in the Social Sciences, of the Social Science Research Council, at its meeting in Hanover, N . H. Aug. 22-27, i9'7- Multigraphed copies on file in the office of the Council.

4

ORIENTATION

to cost of maintenance, usually on a per-capita or per-unit basis. Definitions of units have arisen in the several agencies and types of agency with little conference or consultation, and as a result there is a bewildering variety of connotations for the terms used in much of the bookkeeping statistics. This situation has made it practically impossible to add the figures of separate agencies, for larger territories, or frequently even for the same agencies over a period of time. Comparative statistics in this field have, therefore, been meager and of limited dependability until very recent years. Efforts have been made from time to time to attain a degree of uniformity. Progress has of course been uneven. The Federal census and the Committee on Public Institutions of the American Statistical Association have introduced some improvements in institutional statistics, and the Federal Children's Bureau has done notable work in the field of juvenile court statistics. An early and effective effort was the establishment of uniform definitions and methods of reporting for the field of mental hygiene and institutions for the mentally diseased and defective, devised by the National Committee on Mental Hygiene and now in general use. The introduction and distribution of uniform statistical cards for family agencies, sponsored by the Family Welfare Association of America (formerly the American Association for Organizing Family Social Work), and especially the recent experiments conducted by the Russell Sage Foundation's statistical division under the leadership of Dr. Ralph G. Hurlin, and with the cooperation of social agencies in several fields, have brought the statistical comparability of important data in case-work agencies to a new level of efficiency. 2 There has been some progress also in the statistical system for children's agencies carrying on non-institutional service, along lines ''For s o m e d i s c u s s i o n of t h e s e , see infra,

p p . 18-20.

ORIENTATION

5

devised for the Child Welfare League of America by Georgia G . Ralph, of the N e w Y o r k School of Social Work. T h e statistical system in use in clinics has been recast in recent years b y the Committee on Dispensary Development, and the financial federations, because of the nature of their task, have built up a system of fairly uniform statistics under the general leadership of the Association of Community Chests and Councils (now the Community Chests and Councils, Inc.) 3 T h e term sociological statistics comprises such information on clients as race, religion, color, age, sex, marital condition, nationality, birthplace, citizenship, occupation, previous connection with social agencies or institutions, medical history, education, psychological type or attainment, legal residence, number of years in the United States, height, weight, and so on. Reports of social agencies abound in classified figures of this nature. T h e recording and the periodical reporting of these facts are occasionally required by law, especially for penal and custodial institutions, and for courts. Administrative considerations determine the recording of some, and publicity and propaganda are facilitated by others. T h e existence of such material has only infrequently led to any important reforms or to the eradication of abuses. T h e use of the name sociological statistics for the data comprised in this class is perhaps no more appropriate than is bookkeeping statistics for the material discussed above. W e choose that term partly in view of the innocent assumption which has prevailed for years, that those statistics did actually carry important sociological significance; and partly because some attempt has been made, with occasional success, to use them for sociological purposes by comparison with 3 An

excellent discussion of some of the underlying principles and statistical problems involved in the question of uniform statistics is to be found in McMillen and Jeter's "Statistical Terminology in the Family Welfare Field," The Social Service Review, Vol. II, 1928, pp. 357-84.

6

ORIENTATION

similar data for non-social-work agency groups. But generally speaking, the sociological values drawn from them have been accidental rather than foreseen, and have been limited as much by the absence of comparable information for the general population as by the lack of uniform material for agencies or institutions. There has been, on the whole, but negligible progress in the study of what is sociologically useful in this type of material, how it might best be recorded, classified and reported. Neither sociology nor social work has come to grips with the subject. The simplest forms of administrative statistics — the third variety of our classification — have been known and used a long time in budgeting, especially for institutions carrying custodial responsibility. Recent practices in efficiency engineering and cost accounting have brought suggestions for the use of the statistical method in the qualitative control of administration in social agencies. M. J. Karpf experimented with such statistical control for a family agency, in the Jewish Social Service Society of Chicago.4 Sporadic attempts have been made by others, of which the most interesting because cooperative, is that contained in the statistical reporting of family agencies conducted by Dr. Hurlin in the Russell Sage Foundation.8 M . J., A Social Audit of a Social Agency, Jewish Social Service Bureau of Chicago, 1925. "Figures called in that study, Norms for Comparison of Administrative Practices, and based on averages "from which to measure variability," were computed by Dr. Hurlin from comparable data for a number of agencies. For the year 1928 administrative norms in this sense were quoted for: Percent of active major care cases each month given relief Percent of active major care cases each month newly taken up Ratio of client interviews outside office to each one in office Average amount of relief per month to cases receiving relief regularly Active major care cases each month per worker dealing with cases See "Statistical Studies of Dependency," by Ralph G. Hurlin, in Statistics in Social Studies, by Stuart A. Rice, University of Pennsylvania Press, 1930. Also cf. infra, p. 18.

4 Karpf,

ORIENTATION

7

Measurement of social work as a community junction would address itself to a question with which none of the three statistical varieties thus far discussed attempts to deal, namely: How much social work is needed? In a sense this is a new question. It has been asked, either by professional social worker or by interested layman, in recent years only. The social worker, lay or professional, has been propagandist, asking, persuading the public to establish and maintain agencies. The need seemed always pressing, the resources never sufficient. Thus the habitual emphasis of the social work agency is placed on seeking funds and incidentally on accounting for their use, in financial statements and in service accounting. But now that social work has been safely established, its techniques developed to a professional standard, its place in the community recognized, we are free — or forced — to face the general question: Is social work really needed, and if so, how much of it? This is not only an imperative practical question as it comes to the budgeting and money-raising personnel of community chests, but a basic question of social theory. Whether social work is needed resolves itself in part into questions of social policy, and in part into a matter of testing results; how much is needed becomes a task for quantitative measurement, in which ascertaining the need for service is a factor of at least equal importance with measuring the volume of that service. The fourth type of existing statistics in social work in our earlier classification refers to measurement of this kind: the work of the agency related to the need for its services as manifested in the life of the community. We use the term need, of course, in a somewhat restricted sense. In a wide interpretation, anything that is desirable may be called a need, and in this sense all social work, and much besides, may be regarded as designed to meet some

8

ORIENTATION

need. It is, for example, desirable that children receive social training and develop self-reliance and cooperation. It is also desirable that the family of an incapacitated wage earner receive aid for economic support and for readjusting the problems that arise from the loss of authority and self-assurance so easily suffered under such circumstances. Both kinds of desiderata become objectives of social agencies to meet ascertained needs. They typify the two major divisions of social work to which reference has already been made: one planned to raise the cultural level of the community as a whole, the other designed to readjust the lost or imperiled self-maintenance of its weakened members in a competitive civiliza'tion. Organized service of the first kind is rendered by clubs, recreation centers, settlements, organizations for health education; service of the second type is supplied by family agencies, children's societies, hospitals, dispensaries. The former can be stimulated and expanded to limits apparently determined only by cultural interest and the material resources which such interest can command. Resources for this type of service may, and actually do, to an appreciable extent, come from the clients themselves. The need for this service has not been and perhaps cannot be defined. It may be coterminous with the cultural ideals of the community. The amount of service rendered at any time may be perhaps the measure of the need recognized, of its appreciation by public opinion, and of the resources available for it in the community at that time. On the other hand needs created by economic destitution, temporary or permanent, by disruption of family life through death, disease or domestic conflict, by crises produced through behavior problems or delinquency, by ill health, accident or mental disorder, especially if they occur in that large bulk of the population where the economic margin is narrow,

ORIENTATION

9

are patently of a different order. They are not called into existence or stimulated into consciousness — they happen as an inevitable by-product of the social and material life of the community. As an individual event the occurrence of these needs is to all intents and purposes not preventible, though their massing can be affected by large educational and legislative measures. Their frequency and distribution is determined by the industrial, economic, and physical conditions of the particular community, and these factors define the nature and size of the need to be met. In this field of work, therefore, there can be—relatively—a logical definition and measurement of need and a corresponding evaluation of the service provided,both subject of course,to existing legislation, institutions, traditions and material resources. The difference between these two major fields or types of social work is interestingly brought out in the study of income of social agencies by Mr. Clapp, in which he differentiates between earned income (fees, etc.) and unearned income (taxation, endowments and contributions) for certain groups of agencies. Figure i shows the difference between two categories of social work, each exemplifying one of the major fields under discussion in terms of the sources of revenue, the dependency group being logically characterized by support from without while the cultural-social work activity is in a substantial degree self-supporting. It is in the second field — what we have called the rehabilitation type of social work — that the present study was carried on in response to the growing pressure of the question: How much social work is needed? As an experiment it is necessarily limited in scope and purpose, and seeks to take its place among other experiments which during the past decade and a half have been carried out with the same general purpose

10

ORIENTATION AGENCIES D E A L I N G W I T H DEPENDENCY , _ PERCENT PERCENT CITY EARNED UNEARNED Corrfon Akron Cleveland Dayton Indianapolis Rochester KansasCity Toledo Des Moines Detroit Wilkes Barre Buffalo Omaha Milwaukee Minneapolis Chicago St. Paul Grand Rapids Duiuth

FIGURE

I.

AGENCIES

6.4 67 7.4 7.6 6.7 0.4 10.0 10.7 11.3 12.0 12.7 13? 15.3 16.8 17 1 18.1 21.2 27.4 31.2

DISTRIBUTION W I T H

for

f r o m Study

Nineteen

made

up

Cities from

with

figures

on

OF

EARNED

DEPENDENCY IN

Adapted

mm 44.1 44 8 46 2 47 3 48 9 50.0 50 7 54.2 54 5 55 7 57 9 60.6 61-0 61 5 62 9 65.4 69.9 74 I 79. I

Chicago Milwaukee Wilkes Borre Corrfon S t Paul Cleveland Toledo Detroit Indianapolis K a n s a s City Des Moines Minneapolis Rochester Duiuth Buffalo Akron Omaha Grand Rapids Dayton

93.6 93.3 92.6 92.4 91.3 90 6 90.0 89.3 88.7 6-0.0 87.3 86.8 84.7 83.2 82.9 81 9 78.8 72.6 68.8

PERCENT DEALING

CHARACTER BUILDING AGENCIES CITY

0f

Volume

19

pp.

VII

Cost and

and

of

AND

UNEARNED

CHARACTER

AMERICAN

and

Introduction

AND

cm 55.9 55 2 53 8 52 7 5 M 50 0 49.3 45 8 45 5 44 3 42,1 39.4 390 38.5 37.1 34.6 30.1 25.9 20 9

INCOME

BUILDING,

IN

SOCIAL

RESPECTIVELY,

CITIES

Social

Work,

Illustrative

1924.

Charts—Raymond

Tabulation

of Clapp.

Income Tables

X.

in mind. For an intelligible exposition of the present study, it is desirable to review in brief the nature and achievements of other studies in this field that have either preceded it or have been conducted during the same period. 8 There has been considerable divergence in methodology and in immediate objective, but sufficient basic similarity in the general goal of these studies to justify their consideration as one group. Several implications of the concept of "need" must here be assumed, both for the present study and for some of those about to be reviewed. One of these is that it represents expressed need. W e cannot measure need in any other sense. In the first place, there is no accepted absolute norm for the standard of living by which to measure adequacy or deficiency, that is, absence or presence of "need." Even the minimum component of such a putative norm, that of physical sustenance, is affected by cultural, racial and ecological factors ' F o r ment

further in

Social

historical Work,

notes,

see

University

also of

C h a p . C h i c a g o

I

in

A .

Press,

W .

M c M i l l e n ' s

1930.

Measure-

ORIENTATION

II

incapable of exact measurement. Beyond that minimum there is infinite variation. Moreover, if a norm of self-maintenance in the standard of living could be defined, the measurement of the total deviation from it at any time would require a sort of perpetual inventory of the income, requirements and expenditures of the entire population that is little short of fantastic. We must evidently deal with occurrences in which persons experience a failure to carry on the minimum standard of living which they regard as socially approved, if not defined, and which they, therefore, bring before the community's agency designed for dealing with such occurrences. This assumption implies a public opinion recognizing and requiring the maintenance of a minimum standard of living, the existence in the community of some instrumentality for this purpose, a knowledge on the part of the public at large of the availability of the agency, and actual application to the agency in behalf of the persons in need. Need is, in other words, for purposes of agency statistics, equivalent to demand, and expressed by demand upon the agency. Several troublesome imponderables have dogged the social worker's steps whenever he has ventured into the field of measuring need or service. They are obstacles in the path of achieving the whole truth, and, being too indefinite to estimate, make the attainable parts seem futile. How can need be measured when so much of it is not known? Illness, poverty, distress of all kinds, become known only after they have crossed the threshold of their privacy. The unknown need may far outweigh that which comes to the notice of the potential helper. How can service be measured when so much of it is the unorganized help of friend, relative and neighbor? The whole of Dr. Chalmers' famous "invisible fund" remains beyond the purview of the statistician, and this fund may, as that original experimenter has shown, be large enough to

12

ORIENTATION

displace a substantial amount of organized aid. How can any one form of service be segregated sufficiently for measurement when social problems and social treatment are so involved and so inter-dependent? The areas of child welfare, family social work, medical social work, widows' pensions, for example, are separated only by artificial boundaries. How, therefore, can need be measured — even in a restricted sense — unless all agencies providing material aid in any form (and perhaps other types of aid) are included in the statistics? Have we any concept of need that has more than a superficial meaning, when we realize how each successive mass provision, such as mothers' or old-age pension, uncovers a vast potential need hardly guessed before and rendering the new clientèle hardly comparable with the old in volume? The scientific honesty which raises these questions and demands their consideration in the evaluation of findings must yield to a scientific modesty that recognizes the inevitable limitations upon any search for truth. It must content itself with small steps at a time in the hope of their cumulative value, provided that the limitations are not overlooked and are included in the statement of findings. Total needs cannot be known; that part which is latent cannot call for service and is, by definition, not part of the task to be met by corrective social measures. Similarly, the unorganized service of family and friends is not only beyond measurement, but irrelevant to that measurement that seeks to relate social, that is organized, service. That family social work, or even all outdoor relief, does not cover the entire field of need and service is true. But the task of measuring this part of the field is a long step toward measuring the whole of it. Other steps must follow, but their absence does not invalidate the one we have taken. On the contrary, it may lead to a comprehensive scheme, both by its recognized merits and by its obvious inadequacies. A

ORIENTATION

13

plan that is being discussed with increasing frequency, of building a complete statistical system around the function of the social service exchange, may find outdoor relief as its central feature. T h e changing concepts of clientèle that follow the creation of new social provisions, such as pensions, must also be accepted as and when they come. Their importance lies more in the field of definition than in that of measurement proper. Statistics must change as definitions change, but, within any existing definition, measurement may be possible and valid. In choosing the family agencies as a type of social work instrumentality for this statistical study, we make the further assumption (to be discussed more fully in Chapter I I ) that a major aspect of their work, and the one suitable for statistical measurement, is their function of meeting the demands made by those in economic straits, or in other difficulties associated with economic imbalance. There is no question here of measuring the nature of the factors responsible for the plight of the client, or the nature, adequacy, or philosophical basis of the family agency's treatment of its clients. Nor does the present study relate to any other of the numerous activities besides " f a m i l y " social work that are carried on by these agencies. W e concern ourselves with the extent of demand for family social work, and the numerical response to that demand by the agencies. PREVIOUS

STUDIES

The first to blaze the trail for interpreting statistically the social work needs of a community was D r . I. M . Rubinow. 7 Not only was he the first to experiment with the subject, but his study, reported in 1918, remains in our judgment the 'Rubinow, I. M., "Dependency Index of New Y o r k C i t y , 1914-17," Economic Review, Vol. V I I I , pp. 713-40, Dec., 1918.

American

14

ORIENTATION

most significant in the field, so far as the quantitative relation of social work to the community is concerned. T h e results were limited, owing to conditions beyond control, 8 but the basic concepts and tentative methods were sound. In the first place, Rubinow recognized the immiscible nature, from the statistical point of view, of social work whose primary response was to economic dependency and social work that sought general improvements in the social conditions or the personal life of the individual. This experiment was frankly directed to a dependency index. He did not, furthermore, confuse relief with case work, nor performance with need, even though the conditions of statistical material forced the use of performance as an index of need. The study was planned as the beginning of a permanent system for the routine collection of statistics and their conversion into indexes. A s reported, the material is incomplete and covers three years as a maximum. It should be judged, however, not for the data published, so much as for the plan and method intended. A t best, the design was to measure "not the total amount of existing dependency or relief given, but only the fluctuations in these activities, and, what is equally important, the fluctuations of demand for such relief." Despite the unfortunate discontinuance of the work and the frustration of the experiment, this represents an important contribution in theory and in method. The weaknesses of Dr. Rubinow's report are of the type that would very likely have disappeared if the work had continued. In the first place, he had to take whatever statistics ' U n d e r the administration of M a y o r John P u r r o y Mitchel of N e w Y o r k C i t y ( 1 9 1 4 - 1 7 ) , w h o w a s elected on a fusion ticket, an unofficial B u r e a u of Social Statistics w a s set up within the Department of Public Charities. D r . R u b i n o w w a s selected as its director and its w o r k w a s financed f r o m private c o n t r i b u tions. T h e termination of the Mitchel administration put an end t o the Bureau.

ORIENTATION

15

were available. There was no time to set up new machinery or to try new material. As the report states, "the only principle relied upon in the selection besides the availability of material was that in some way they [the statistics selected] should reflect conditions of economic need." For the family agencies, the number of new cases each month and the number of cases under care at the end of each month were obtained. We know now that if these figures had been used, a great deal of preliminary work on definitions would have had to be done to make sure that corresponding and comparable figures were obtained from all the agencies. It is reasonable to assume that similar difficulties to an even greater degree would be found with respect to figures of other groups of agencies, in most of which the standardization and definition of data have lagged behind family agencies. A second evident weakness of Dr. Rubinow's study results from the fact that, for lack of time and facilities, a general index was constructed from the several independent indexes by computing their simple averages. A brief glance at Dr. Rubinow's figures shows a set of exceedingly variegated fluctuations9 for which evidently extraneous forces were responsible and which render the several indexes not only different, but some of them actually contradictory. Moreover, this forcible compounding of indexes in some cases welded into one figure two manifestations of the response to demand by the same agency; one the applications, the other the acceptances; the former a sensitive index to need, the latter a lagging one, substantially influenced by administrative policy, available budget and staff.10 How serious these weak'Data were collected from eight groups of social work: family agencies, agencies for homeless men and women, municipal lodging house, free burials, commitment of children, dependent patients in private hospitals, dispensary patients, and small loans. 10 Cf. discussion of application vs. intake, as an index, Chap. I l l

i6

ORIENTATION

nesses of Rubinow's study were, it is difficult to gauge, and the question is only of academic importance, for he was aware of them and offered the report as merely the salvaging of some ideas and suggestive data from a short-lived though promising experiment of considerable theoretical importance. Three other statistical studies, or sets of studies, of outstanding importance in this field have been conducted since the publication of Rubinow's report in 1918. They are, in their chronological order: (1) Raymond Clapp's Study of Volume and Cost oj Social Work, issued in 1926; (2) Ralph G. Hurlin's studies in uniform statistical reporting begun in 1926; 11 and (3) A. W. McMillen's Measurement in Social Work, published in 1930. The objectives of these studies differ somewhat from Rubinow's. They are planned primarily in the interest of uniform and comparable statistics of social work agencies, on the theory that little interpretation is possible until adequate raw material is available in sufficient amount and variety. An additional objective in Clapp's and McMillen's studies is supplied, as we shall see, by the needs of community chests, and in Hurlin's studies by the efforts at standardization and administrative improvement in certain classes of case-work agencies. Clapp's study 12 covered a period of one year, the calendar year 1924, and was not intended for a continuous undertaking. " D r . Hurlin's w o r k has n o t been published in a n y comprehensive f o r m . S h o r t articles h a v e appeared, a m o n g w h i c h m a y be mentioned t w o in t h e Survey, N o v . 15, 1927, and F e b . 15, 1928, and short papers in the Proceedings of t h e N a t i o n a l C o n f e r e n c e of Social W o r k of 1928 and 1931. M u l t i g r a p h e d reports are available at the Russell Sage Foundation. F o r an article entitled " S t a t i s tical Studies of D e p e n d e n c y , " see supra p. 6. " I s s u e d in m u l t i g r a p h e d f o r m in t w o parts: " T a b u l a t i o n of I n c o m e f o r N i n e teen Cities w i t h I n t r o d u c t i o n and Illustrative C h a r t s , " M a y 26, 1926, a n d "Service S u p p l e m e n t , " containing a tabulation of services for the s a m e cities. It is called a " c o o p e r a t i v e experiment," and w a s conducted under t h e auspices of the A m e r i c a n Association for C o m m u n i t y Organization (later T h e A s s o c i a tion of C o m m u n i t y C h e s t s and Councils) and the W e l f a r e F e d e r a t i o n of Cleveland.

ORIENTATION

17

Income received by social agencies was given as a per-capita figure for each city, and was subdivided by source, that is, whether taxation, contributions, endowment or earnings. The data with respect to income were classified for six large categories of social agencies, those dealing with dependency, delinquency, health, character-building, coordination and miscellaneous activities, and each category was subdivided by important subgroups. With respect to income, the cities were arranged by rank both for total per-capita figures and for the order within each major category or important group of social work. For volume of service, absolute figures were given for each type of social work in units appropriate to the particular kind of service. No per-capita statement or arrangement by rank was attempted for the services. The major emphasis was upon the study and analysis of income, inasmuch as the entire study was primarily designed as an aid to intelligent budgeting, and the volume of service was in a sense explanatory and auxiliary rather than a matter of direct interest. The "ranking" of cities by the per-capita income of their agencies for social work as a whole, or for some particular section of social work, was deemed a useful instrument for securing progressive budgeting for neglected or ungenerously financed services—whether by the sheer force of the figures or by the implied appeal to community pride. Whatever the value to community-chest statesmanship, the study throws some exceedingly interesting light on the nature of our own search. While for federation budgeting the rank of one city compared with another may be of interest, for understanding of the relation between social work and community life it is, as Clapp's figures clearly show, patently sterile. In population the cities studied by him rank one way, in per-capita income another, in income per-capita for specified categories of work in still another way. There is

i8

ORIENTATION

little or no relation among the different rankings and no clue as to the reasons for the diverse positions of the several cities in the different groups, as shown in the table on the opposite page. If there is anything such tables show, it is that, though there must be factors that make for the differences in community action, other means are needed for discovering them than amounts expended for one form or another of social work. Inasmuch as no attempt was made to relate demand to service, and inasmuch as the measure adopted was that of income, there was also no occasion for rigid differentiation between rehabilitation and other types of social work. One of the most valuable phases of this study, the classification of agency income by sources, namely taxation, endowment, contribution and earnings, was fruitfully developed in later studies by Willford I. King, of the National Economic Research Bureau, and by the New York City Welfare Council. But the chief value of the undertaking, in the opinion of many workers, lies in the fact that it gave impetus to the development of uniform records based on common definitions of units in several fields of social work. It is this phase of Clapp's study that we find further developed by Hurlin, and later by McMillen. Hurlin's studies present several important characteristics: 1. Continuous data are collected from a number of agencies, making possible the comparison over a relatively long period of time. 2. Reports are made monthly, organized as promptly as possible, and the composite figures reported back to the cooperating agencies. 3. The several types of social work for which this central collection is conducted, are kept separate so that there is no chance of confusing or adding nonuniform data.

fco

•S

&

«

. R

M

k. O

JS S

O

C-l

, 0

aw 13~

eu Pi


•a;

a

m

PO

•S 2 o S H S. *

j í c CD

20

ORIENTATION

4. Before the collection of any statistics, consultations were held to insure uniformity of definitions and appropriateness of the units; further changes in definitions were made after some tests, and as the nature of the data demanded. Statistics have been collected over varying periods in the following fields: family case work, beginning with some forty agencies in January, 1926, and now covering 59 societies; outdoor relief, 81 cities, begun in 1929; hospital social service, begun in 1928; children's field; family relief; hospital social work; and mothers' assistance figures for the state of Pennsylvania, growing out of a special study inaugurated there in 1928 under the auspices of the Public Charities Association of Pennsylvania. If Clapp's emphasis was the interest of community-chest procedure, Hurlin's may be said to be that of agency efficiency, with respect to uniformity and comparability of service statistics, and the construction of certain administrative norms, such as for example relief per "allowance family," number of cases per worker, active or relief cases per total or per intake, etc. His work has provided an effective stimulus for the development of accurate and useful administrative statistics, and the material accumulating in his tabulations should eventually prove of great value for the correlation of relief and service data of "rehabilitation" agencies, with economic indexes covering a wide area. No attempt is made in these studies to relate any of the agency statistics to local community problems, needs or resources. They represent the best that has been done for the fields covered, in the way of "bookkeeping" and "administrative" statistics. McMillen's Measurement in Social Work, like Clapp's study, is a direct response to community-chest needs and

ORIENTATION

21

covers one year only, 1928.13 In several respects however, it represents an advance over the pioneering efforts that have preceded it. No attention is paid to what at first seemed important, the ranking of cities. While covering one year's figures, his study was intended to inaugurate continuous reporting in a "registration area" constituted by the cooperating chest cities, 14 and obtained monthly data as contrasted to Clapp's figures for a twelve-month period. The necessary crudities in the definition of data on volume of service of the earlier study were practically eliminated, first by profiting from Hurlin's studies, and then by carefully supplementing the already-existing definitions for the fields covered by Hurlin by consultations for similar definitions in other fields. This preliminary work was intensively conducted and preceded the actual collection of any data. Local supervisors were appointed in each of the cooperating cities, and various safeguards were adopted to insure accuracy and comparability. Agencies were classified into twenty-four groups, each with appropriate statistical units and definitions. T o qualify for inclusion in the "registrations" the cooperating cities had to report on a certain minimum of the possible total for the city, thus rendering the statistics for participating communities reasonably comprehensive. The whole undertaking responds to the keynote contained in the statement of its purposes: "Eventually the study was continued beyond the year, and finally taken over by the Federal Children's Bureau as part of its routine work. We should, therefore, have an increasingly valuable body of social work statistics in the coming years. " T h e study was conducted under the auspices of a Joint Committee for the Registration of Social Statistics, composed of representatives of the Association of Community Chests and Councils and the Local Community Research Committee of the University of Chicago, and covered 31 cities having community chests affiliated with the Association of Community Chests and Councils.

22

ORIENTATION

The primary objectives were, first, to obtain statistical measurements of the total volume of social service in a representative group of cities and, second, to relate this service, if possible, to the income and expenditure of the agencies providing it. Back of these objectives lay a desire to encourage agencies to develop better records and statistics and to stimulate communities to collect as a routine function data pertaining to social work. 15 T h e actual findings of the study are presented chiefly in terms of expenditure and volume of service, with some attention to administrative statistics, such as for example percentage of intake per month compared with cases carried forward on the first of the month. Expenditures are related to population and given as per-capita figures for the several departments or fields of social work. Volume is given mostly in absolute figures, but also, and for the first time in a general study, in ratios per population. 16 In this respect McMillen's study and the present experiment, both inaugurated at about the same time (1928), represent an interesting coincidence. This is, however, neither accidental nor deliberately agreed upon by the two enterprises, but rather an evidence that the stage in the statistical exploration of social work data was set for this next step in presentation. Much of the pioneering in social work statistics has now been done; expansion of the field and improvements in uniformity and comparability are well under way. A considerable amount of usable material is being accumulated. Refinements are constantly being introduced without, however, interfering with the gradual accumulation of data for time series. M u c h yeoman's work must still be done and is being done. There is some hope for the eventual establishKMeasurement

in Social Work, p. 9. at least one special s t u d y , such ratios h a v e been used before. See Welfare Conditions and Resources in Seven Pennsylvania Counties. D e p a r t m e n t of L a b o r , Children's B u r e a u , Publication N o . 176. 16 In

ChildU . S.

ORIENTATION

23

ment of some permanent system—governmental or private— under which the central collection of data and their regular publication may be effected, and in which the labors of these pioneer studies may find their fruition. OBJECTIVES OF THE S T U D Y

The present study was undertaken on the theory that the task of collecting and accumulating comparable statistics has advanced far enough to justify efforts now in a somewhat different direction, namely, that of relating social work statistics to local community life. The building up of statistics over a large area and for a large portion of the population is exceedingly desirable, but it will not serve the purpose of showing the relation between the life of a community and its social work. It will enlighten neither contributor nor social scientist as to the need for social work or the extent to which it is met by a given type of agency in a given community. With few exceptions, the needs to which the operations of the social agency are directed are local in scope; the resources with which to meet it must be obtained locally. The task of interpreting social work statistics in relation to community life is, in its nature, a sociological enterprise. It requires, in the first place, comparison with other social statistics for the same area. Beyond that, it should include dynamic studies in the behavior and interrelation of those social forces of the community to which the statistics give merely a partial symbolic expression. The first requirement for such interpretation of social work statistics is the availability of the necessary material. We are still in the stage of building up this basic material. The present study is an attempt to formulate, for one of the most important social work activities, statistics that are appropriate for expressing its task, are accurate and uniform, and are capable of being related to

24

ORIENTATION

community life. For the particular field chosen, namely, family social work, the problem may be stated somewhat as follows: The demand for family social work is intimately related to economic distress of the clients; the extent of the demand would presumably vary with the number of families threatened with economic troubles, and therefore with fluctuations in community prosperity. The volume of service should follow the same trend. If, therefore, we had some measure of the movements of local prosperity, and some means of portraying the fluctuations of demand upon the agency, we should be able to compare volume of service with these, as well as in relation to the population. A metropolitan area like New York City is, moreover, not only one community, but also an aggregate of smaller units, varying in size and nature, which behave in many respects as separate communities. So far as possible, the life of these smaller areas must be observed separately and pertinent statistics obtained separately. In the light of the problem as stated, and in view of the limitation in the scope of the study to the economic aspects of community life, and to part of New York City as its territory, its objectives may be formulated in the following questions: 1. Is the family agency, presumably related to the existence of economic distress as a major problem of its clientèle, responsive to fluctuations in economic conditions in its community, in this case New York City? 2. Are the agencies selected for our study representative of this type of social work, and sufficiently inclusive for the territory covered, to justify the conversion of their figures of operation into population rates? 3. What are the relative merits of some of the important statistical units in use for measuring the phases of basic im-

ORIENTATION

25

portance for the community function of the agencies, namely, demand and service? 4. Can the important statistical data desirable for community interpretation be obtained in the territory studied with a reasonable degree of accuracy, uniformity and completeness? 5. Can the data be obtained for, and distributed by, small local areas, as well as be presented for the aggregate territory? 6. Have the results of the study any significance beyond the immediate field of family social work and the boroughs of Manhattan and the Bronx in New York City, which served the specific focus of the statistical study? This enumeration of objectives makes it pertinent to give here, even before the presentation of any findings, some of the more important objections made to the report by persons who have generously read it in draft. The essential suggestions contained in these particular criticisms have not been incorporated in the revision, and it seems only fair, therefore, to state, if it is not quite possible to meet them. One critic questioned the practical value for social agencies of the findings of the study and, by corollary, the justification for the undertaking and publication of the report. It is true that no immediate perceptible practical results, commensurable with the labor involved, are likely to follow the study. Isolated instances of practical value have actually occurred, but these were, on the whole, of a minor nature. The study, we admit, was frankly theoretical in purpose, in the sense that its objective was clarity, understanding, and integration with the general field of social sciences. To have reorganized the report with a view to exclusively and immediately practical uses would have defeated our primary purpose.

26

ORIENTATION

Another critic judged the study to have been in fact not what it purports to be, but simply an inquiry focused on certain information relating to family social work statistics in New Y o r k City, and in that perspective justified. But the tone of methodological experiment assumed in the report seemed, in view of its meager contribution to statistical method in any sense, without justification. W e agree with this opinion so far as it pertains to statistical method. There is indeed here no new contribution to statistical method. W e have been thinking rather of the application of old-established statistical methods to the problems of social work and to the regarding of social work statistics in a wider sociological perspective. In this sense, the attention given to the appropriateness of units of measurement, to population ratios and localarea returns, seems to us of methodological import within the field of our study—especially in view of the still existing crudities of our social work statistics. A third critic did not agree that "these methods and finding open up the whole field of social work statistics." T h i s s t u d y , [in her opinion] centers in questions h i g h l y peculiar and special to f a m i l y w e l f a r e b o t h in content and method. T h e example of c a r e f u l l y compiled d a t a is its principal contribution toward the stimulation of other fields . . . and some other fields h a v e been much better c u l t i v a t e d [e.g., health conditions and delinquency].

W e do not dispute the statement that this study does not open up the whole field of social work statistics, for it is indeed only one of the many studies in that direction; and we agree that we are dealing with questions peculiar and special to family social work, but not so highly peculiar as to deprive them of their suggestive force for kindred fields. Children's work, medical social work, pensions, to mention a few important types, are amenable to the same type of study with respect

ORIENTATION

27

t o demand and volume, to the choice of units of measurement, t o geographical detail, and to the use of population rates. O n l y when each of the special fields of social work—within the "rehabilitation" type of service—has received the necessary methodological study advocated here, can the statistics of the several fields be combined for fruitful interpretation of social work with relation to the social sciences. As to health conditions, they have indeed, owing to their kinship with the more exact medical sciences, left the rest of social work far behind, while juvenile delinquency is being studied with the same objective in view, although it can hardly be classed with health statistics in the degree of progress. Finally one of the most important of the criticisms, among those that have not been incorporated in the revision of the report, is that it places relatively heavy emphasis on theoretical discussions as against statistical material,and that, specifically, it fails to carry through for the territory as a whole, or for the local areas, correlations with other statistics, such as delinquency, infant mortality, occupations, nationality, etc. T h e answer to this charge is "guilty on both counts." T h e study is indeed oriented to theoretical—or shall we say sociological—clarity. Statistics are only a means to an end, and social work statistics are as yet a poor means to that end. W e seek to improve it. T h e second phase of the objection seems to point the direction in which further studies ought, we think, to be made, and toward which the present effort is intended to contribute, but which it does not claim to have attained. One limitation on the validity of the findings of the study, more severe than any contained in these criticisms, is that imposed by "an act of G o d " — t h e depression which set in by the end of 1929. How far the results of the study have been affected and how seriously any of the statistical material is

28

ORIENTATION

invalidated by the depression, we have no way of estimating. It is important, however, that the reader bear this fact in mind, and we hope that our own awareness of the fact will be apparent in the course of the report. In presenting our results in the following pages, it has seemed desirable not to follow either a strictly chronological sequence or an absolutely logical succession of the parts. In a statistical study where a time series is of the essence, neither logic nor time can wait upon the other. We have had to change both procedure and detail of objective, as the material and its significance unfolded themselves. The remainder of the present chapter sets forth the choice of agencies for the study, explains the procedure, especially as it pertains to methods for procuring accuracy and uniformity, and describes the selection of the small areas. Chapter II addresses itself to the assumption which underlies the whole study, namely, that the family agencies are concerned primarily with persons experiencing economic difficulties and desiring therefore among other things, material relief. It is this assumption that makes comparison with economic conditions and the question of the "dependency index" appropriate for measurement of the work of family agencies. Chapter III examines the suitability of the statistical data from the standpoint both of the material itself, and of its relation to community comparisons; therefore, the relative merits of the several units of measurement used in family social work are considered with especial reference to comparisons with economic changes; with this view in mind, the use of population ratios, instead of absolute figures, is discussed. Chapter IV takes up the distribution of the agencies by health areas, and experiments with the delineation of combined health areas in homogeneous units, so far as the statistics produced by the study seem suggestive. In Chapter V further findings are presented, more for their sub-

ORIENTATION

29

stantive interest than as parts of the theoretical discussion; and Chapter V I attempts a summary of the findings in the light of the objectives of the study. Details of procedure, basic tables, special arrangements of the statistical material by agencies, and some additional data by combined health areas, are included in the Appendix. T Y P E OF A G E N C Y

CHOSEN

There were many reasons for selecting material from family welfare agencies as the basis for the present study. Family case work is conceded by most social workers to be devoted primarily to the task of rehabilitation, as distinguished from the type of service for the promotion of higher social standards in general. 17 It lay therefore clearly within the sphere of the proposed study. The history of family social work is indissolubly associated with remedial efforts of community-wide concern and it has contributed, probably more than any other type of agency, continuous data bearing on weak spots in community life. Its executives have been social engineers as much as case workers, and have usually taken leading roles in local emergencies, whether from disaster or unemployment, whether of short or long duration. Family case work has been less specialized than some other types of case work, and therefore more sensitive to general community changes; the caliber of work, the record systems, the statistics and the administrative procedures of family agencies compare favorably with most social work agencies and their terminology is relatively uniform and standardized. Moreover, their appeal to the public is, more clearly than that of other agencies, made on grounds of the diversity of its services rendered in response to varied manifestations of social maladjustment—to com"There is a body of representatives of the family case-work field w h o will not accept this statement, but we believe it holds for the majority of social workers.

ORIENTATION

3°

munity interest as well as to "charitable" inclination. Most important of all, the family agency is regarded as the place of logical appeal with respect to the call of those in economic distress. T h e family welfare agency is indeed, for these and other reasons, the representative social work agency devoted to the rehabilitation of individuals and families. THE

PARTICULAR

AGENCIES

STUDIED

It is obvious that for the purposes of the study, the inclusion of practically all "family social w o r k " within the territory selected for the experiment, was desirable. T h e importance of this factor is set forth elsewhere. 18 For purposes of describing the material of the study at this point, we assume that importance for the moment is granted. In the Borough of Manhattan in New Y o r k City, to which the study was at first restricted, 19 there are four major family agencies whose case work may be regarded as comparable, and whose total activities represent the body of such service performed within the territory. T h e y are the Association for Improving the Condition of the Poor, the Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of N e w Y o r k , the Charity Organization Society, and the Jewish Social Service Association.

T w o of these serve

their respective denominations exclusively, while the other two are nondenominational. 20 All but the Charity Organization Society operate in the Borough of the Bronx as well as in Manhattan, and the extension of the study to the Bronx eventually brought in the entire territory of all the four " C f . C h a p t e r I I , infra,

pp. 61-70.

" T h e s t u d y o p e n e d in M a n h a t t a n on J u n e 1, 1928.

It w a s extended t o the

B r o n x on N o v . 1, 1929. "Except

t h a t , b y a n acient

understanding,

J e w i s h clients in this

served e x c l u s i v e l y b y J e w i s h agencies, a n d a p p l i c a n t s of this g r o u p

field

are

coming

to the n o n d e n o m i n a t i o n a l a g e n c i e s are r e f e r r e d to t h e J e w i s h o r g a n i z a t i o n .

ORIENTATION

Association ' fnr

Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of NewYork

Imnrnvinrt

I1

I No cases opemd » ourmg Under

t/çor

! per month

Jewish Social Service

Charity Organization Society

BgfSm , and IMf^i

31

| H f | lOCMfonc/er IS

unders

5 and under

¡0

15 and

over

FIGURE 2. M O N T H L Y AVERAGE OF TOTAL I N T A K E OF EACH OF THE FOUR AGENCIES FOR THE HEALTH AREAS OF M A N H A T T A N , J U N E 1928 TO M A Y 1929. (BASED ON ORIGINAL TABLES NOT INCLUDED I N REPORT)

agencies. 21 Some idea may be gained of the geographical distribution of the clientèle of these four agencies f r o m the maps 21

The Catholic Charities did little work in the Bronx prior to April, 1930.

32

ORIENTATION

on page 31, indicating for each of the four agencies the average monthly intake for each health area in Manhattan, for the year June, 1928-May, 1929. This distribution may be regarded as practically free of duplications, owing to the highly-developed system of case clearance in effect. It is clear from these maps that none of the agencies, taken by itself, would give a representative picture of the distribution of applicants for family social work. The service of the four organizations taken together does, however, seem to cover all but a negligible part of the family social work to which the general population has access, and the fluctuation of the work of these agencies may, with certain reservations, be regarded as indicating the fluctuation of that type of service rendered to the community. An estimate of the inclusiveness of these agencies will be found in the succeeding chapter. STATISTICAL MATERIAL USED —

DEFINITIONS

Thanks to the pioneering work already referred to,22 the data, in terms of which to measure the volume of work under consideration, were fairly well defined, and seemed relatively accessible. Some changes in definition were made during the study, and some variations in interpretation were discovered which required considerable checking, but little that was not " S i n c e 1913, the C o m m i t t e e on U n i f o r m Statistics of the F a m i l y Welfare Association of A m e r i c a (then called the American Association of Societies for Organizing C h a r i t y ) has been concerned with building u p u n i f o r m terminology in this field. Its attention has been centered a b o u t the " f a m i l y c o u n t , " a figure that has been subject to serious differences in interpretation. T h e w o r k of this C o m m i t t e e w a s materially a d v a n c e d through the collection of f a m i l y agency statistics b y the Russell Sage Foundation, w i t h the constant checking of figures w h i c h suggest differences in practice or interpretation of terms. Three of the agencies included in this experiment were already accustomed to the use of the classification of cases into " m a j o r " and " m i n o r " in reporting t o the F o u n d a t i o n , and h a d been actively interested in the problems in definitions and reporting.

ORIENTATION

33

finally cleared up. More fundamental changes, however, were introduced later in the study, both in definition and in the basis of reporting, that will have to be borne in mind in a detailed examination of the statistics. At the time when this study was begun, the agencies included were classifying their cases under the two main divisions, "major care" and "minor care," both in their own records and in reporting to the Russell Sage Foundation. A major care case was defined as one "for which the Organization after careful consideration assumes a responsibility for making a social diagnosis and for carrying on a plan of treatment." All other cases were classed as minor care, and were divided into two groups: those which were interviewed and those which were not, the latter including reports on closed cases, investigations for out-of-town agencies, and others. These classifications had been devised in an attempt to obtain accurate and comparable information on agency work. This study, however, was concerned rather with the problem of measuring community demand for the services of the family case-work agency. Obviously, all major cases were within its field, but the place of the minor care group was less clear. We were not interested, for example, in cases which represented primarily services to other agencies, rather than to the families themselves. Consequently, only such of the minor care cases were included as were classified as interviewed. Homeless men were also excluded. In the fall of 1929, the study was extended to cover all families applying to the agencies. "All applications that really represent demands of families in the community upon the agency, irrespective of disposal" were to be reported. At about the same time, the Committee of Uniform Statistics of the Family Welfare Association of America adopted its new terminology of "under care," "incidental service" and "no case

34

ORIENTATION

made." In reporting disposal of applications for our study, the new terms and definitions were used. A n y case for which the agency assumed responsibility for some study and treatment was classed as "under care," a classification which, in theory at least, is somewhat broader than the old "major care." "Incidental service" cases are those for which the organization attempts only incidental or indirect service, and include the same categories found under the old "minor care" heading. For the purpose of the "total intake" series of this study, which includes the old "major" or new "under care," and the interviewed portion of the "minor care" or "incidental service" group, this change in definition does not appear to have a disturbing effect. For the first period of the study, we deal, therefore, only with cases actually accepted. The number accepted in any given month is the "intake" or "total intake." This is made up of two classes: "under care" or " m a j o r " intake, and "incidental service" or "minor" intake. Cases defined as "under care" or "major," when counted for a given time, as for example on the first of the month, constitute the "case load" at that time. N o "minor care" or incidental cases are counted in the case load. During the last two years of the study reported upon, all applications were considered. These also included, besides the total intake as already defined, the "no case made." Total intake, plus "no case made," constitute total applications. For this period no count was made of "case load." THE

SMALL AREAS

USED

With important definitions established, variations in their interpretation reasonably safeguarded, and provision made for the adjustment of figures and for such procedural changes as were necessitated by modifications in terminology and

ORIENTATION

35

definitions, the task was reduced to one of devising appropriate machinery for the collection or reporting of data and their distribution by small areas. This proved, in fact, a most difficult, laborious and expensive task. None of the data on which this study is based was obtainable from the current records of the agencies for the geographical units adopted. Three of the agencies operate in the Boroughs of Manhattan and the Bronx, while one covers only Manhattan. Two of the agencies have district offices, operate from them, and keep their statistics by district, while the two others operate—or did prior to this study and during the major part of its duration — from headquarters. The only small areas for which figures might have been collected were the districts of the two agencies that work on the decentralized plan. But these territories, having been devised for administrative purposes, are entirely different for the two agencies, have no common natural basis, and are of course of no help in reducing data of the other two agencies to smaller areas, even if such did exist. The four agencies do not keep monthly accounts of the same data; they do not assign items carried over from previous months on the same principles of classification. The agencies do not—or rather, did not prior to this study—keep routine record of applications, either as to number or as to cause. 23 Clearly, arbitrary areas had to be chosen and a bookkeeping and reporting machinery organized, by which regular monthly data would be provided for these arbitrary areas by each agency. As a result of the work of the City Census Committee (now Cities Census Committee), under the direction of Dr. Walter Laidlaw, there is available for New York City information, from Federal and state-census sources, of population data by sanitary districts or tracts—areas small "For details of the machinery eventually adopted for the collection and classification of the data, see Appendix A.

36

ORIENTATION

enough for statistical distribution. T h i s information has by now became available for the 1930 census. It seemed at first that by adopting these areas for the classification of agency statistics, we could construct our population ratios for each of the sanitary districts, or combine them for groups of sanitary districts. T h e 269 districts of Manhattan and the 511 districts in the Bronx give populations per district ranging from 35 to very nearly 25,000.

Apart from the extreme variation in

population, these districts are for most purposes too small to have much sociological significance, as well as too numerous for convenience. How can they best be combined? T h e preference would be for "natural areas." B u t these have not yet been determined if, indeed, they exist. Agency districts are not coterminous, and therefore are patently useless.

It might

have been necessary to carry through the cumbersome task of keeping separate count of 269 districts for Mahattan alone, had not the Health Department of the city, in cooperation with the N e w Y o r k Tuberculosis and Health Association and the Welfare Council, adopted a new system of "health areas" for the reporting of vital statistics, one that seemed likely to serve the needs of our study, as well as making for progressively useful future correlations between social statistics and vital statistics for the same areas and populations. These health areas were constructed by combining sanitary districts for which census data are given, into areas approximating populations of 25,000. N o sanitary districts were sub-divided, so that the census data can be used directly. 24 T h e health areas, 80 for Manhattan and 47 for the Bronx, were adopted as the units for volume and ratios for the present study (see maps on the following pages). " O n e health area in M a n h a t t a n and several in the B r o n x have been divided since the 1930 census.

HEALTH AREA

MANHATTAN

POPULATIOS

33,839 52,362 25,820 30,952 26,370

41

21,960

42

23,329

43 44 45

21,619 13,758 ",767

6

31,664

46

14,594

7 8

33,691 30,412 24,853 28,593

47 48 49 50

36,626 28,698 20,248 16,237

22,673 23,863 24,359 19,333 22,068

51 52 53 54 55

24,258 19,590 16,662 I7,5i8 21,580

1 2

HEALTH AREAS

P O P U - HEALTH LATION AREA

3 4 5

9 io

n 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2I 22

23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3° 31 32 33

34

35

36 37 38 39 40

27,252 24,356 25,048 24,810 30,696 15,659 25,962 34,785 24,472 26,586 18,314 36,907 21,468 25,589 17,518 38,653 33,843 21,222 22,017 26,738 32,853 23,906 22,088 22,576 22,632

56

26,342

57

23,616

58

21,742

59 60

14,255 17,114

61 62 63

15,226 26,076 14,621

64 65

23,943 15,609

66

14,732

67 68 69

23,529 14,779 20,814

70

13,459

71

16,938

72

15,259

73 74

12,524 14,757

75

20,589

76

15,953

77 78

26,279 21,923

79 80

i4,o47 17,992

FIGURE 3. HEALTH AREAS IN M A N H A T T A N AS ADOPTED B Y T H E DEPARTMENT OP H E A L T H AND THE WELFARE COUNCIL I N 1928, AND POPULATION OF EACH, I93O CENSUS

F I G U R E 4 . H E A L T H AREAS I N T H E B R O N X AS ADOPTED B Y T H E D E P A R T M E N T H E A L T H AND T H E W E L F A R E C O U N C I L I N 1 9 2 8 , AND P O P U L A T I O N OF E A C H , I93O CENSUS HEALTH AREA

POPULATION

HEALTH AREA

POPULATION

16

28,681

17

21,202

18

18,964 28,886

I

6,694

2 3 4 5

9.154 37,328 50.723 32,593

19 20

30,732

6 7 8 9

32.214

21

41,629

10

25.709

22 23 24 25

57,891 39,752 21,559 29,875 24,272

6,888

31.554 32,708

11

25.058

12

32,317

26 27

13 14 IS

26,980

28

19,621

22,220

29 30

32,042

37.6I6

27,429 51.344

HEALTH AREA

31 32 33 34 35

OF

POPULATION

14,695 18,190

49,881 16,577 26,862

36 37 38 39 40

22,183

41 42 43 44 45

22,396 24,199 15,527 23,649 I9,l6l

2 4,987 16,147

19,332 24,135

46

18,560

47

23,939

ORIENTATION

39

For the areas thus determined, the machinery of collection which was set up provided monthly figures for each of the four agencies as follows: From June 1, 1928, to October, 1929, inclusive: Case load Number of major care cases on hand at beginning of month Number of major care cases open during the month Number of major care cases remaining at end of month Intake Number of major care cases Number of minor care cases From November 1, 1929, to date (to October, 1931, so far as utilized in this report): Applications Number subdivided by source, nature of request, and disposal Intake Number of under care cases Number of incidental service cases A sample page of the combined figures for the four agencies for each period is shown in Appendix A.

CHAPTER

II

T H E F A M I L Y AGENCY I N R E L A T I O N TO ECONOMIC DEPENDENCY At the outset of the study, it was assumed that in selecting family social work agencies for the statistical experiment, we were dealing with a distinct field of social work differentiated, not only from other types of case-work organizations, but also from those usually referred to as "relief agencies." We assumed further that, while our agencies were not merely relief-giving organizations, their work did, nevertheless, respond to fluctuations in the economic conditions of the community as these conditions might be reflected in the extent of economic dependency. We assumed in the third place that the particular agencies covered by the study were sufficiently inclusive of the type of service which they rendered, to justify the conversion of their statistics into population rates. The progress of the study threw new light upon these hypotheses. It would seem desirable, therefore, to review here both the hypotheses themselves and the factual data bearing on their validity, which were gathered in the course of the study. As an agency employing the social case-work method in serving its clients, the family welfare society belongs to the group of organizations which includes, among others, the child guidance clinic, a psychiatric clinic attached to a court, a hospital social service department and a child placement agency. The major factor that is common to the clients of such bodies, is the inadequacy of their personal adjustment to their environment. The present study, however, emphasizes that phase of service related, not primarily to personal maladjustment as such, but rather to the emergence of eco-

THE

FAMILY

AGENCY

41

nomic dependency in the population. From this point of view, the family agency is classified with those organizations to which the client appeals in the first place for material assistance. While case-working agencies, such as hospital social service departments, children's aid societies or even child guidance clinics, are indeed not strangers to the incidence of economic need in the lives of their clients, their main function is directed to other types of demands. The principal organizations that share with the family agency the task of meeting demands for economic aid are the noncase-working relief agencies. The present study does not include the latter. It is necessary both to explain the reasons for this omission therefore, and to estimate the effect upon the statistics presented. D I S T I N C T I O N BETWEEN FAMILY A G E N C Y AND

RELIEF

AGENCY

Why were the family agencies selected for the study to the exclusion of the noncase-working or, to use the more generally current term, "relief agencies"? The principal reason, aside from technical considerations and the question of quantitative inclusiveness, lies in the history of social work during the past half century—and especially during the decades preceding the present depression—which has tended to set the family agency apart from the noncase-working relief agency. So many moot questions of policy and theory are involved in this differentiation that we shall limit our discussion to those ideas alone which were responsible for our regarding the family agency as distinct from the relief agency, even though, like the latter, it meets demands for economic aid. In the current social work ideology, the distinction between a relief agency and a family agency appears to lie roughly in the selection of clients and in procedure or treatment. The

42

THE FAMILY

AGENCY

noncase-working relief agency emphasizes economic distress and formal eligibility as factors of selection. It seeks merely to establish the presence of material need and thereupon to dispense suitable relief, provided the applicant comes within such categories of eligibility as it may have respecting residence, religion, membership in church, fraternal organization or trade union or, in some agencies, the pleasure of the charitable dispenser. The family agency, on the other hand, regards any type of family problem as entitled to its services. Economic distress may, often is, but need not necessarily be, present; procedure must be recognized as social case work; treatment may, but need not, include material relief as part of case work. On the question of whether relief should be given when no problems are present other than economic distress, representatives of the family agency field appear to differ (that such situations may exist is, however, a hypothesis skeptically regarded by most case workers). This, at any rate, is one of the moot points which render an absolute distinction as to the principles of selection between a case-working and a noncase-work relief agency difficult or impossible. But while absolute theoretical differentiation has been difficult, the tendency in the family agency has been clearly in the direction of minimizing economic distress as the cause of demand and the giving of relief as the method of treatment. In recent years this tendency has assumed the more clear-cut form of reinterpreting demand for relief into need for personal adjustment, and of relegating the effectiveness of material aid into the background. As a result, there has arisen a progressive divergence between the theoretical function contemplated for the future of family agencies by some of their representatives, and the actual activities of both case-working and noncase-working relief agencies. In various degrees, at different times, individual interpreters of the family movement have

THE

FAMILY

AGENCY

43

sought to define its functions as progressively disassociated from the demand for economic relief, and as identified rather with the task of emotional rehabilitation of its clients, family or individual. Not a little of this accent has been due to the influence of mental hygiene. Thus, in part, because of an effort to build up this conception of their function, many family agencies have come to emphasize, not only the casework process itself, but also the quantitative importance in their clientèle of cases in which service only is given as distinct from relief, and of applications in which problems other than those of the economic type are presented by the client. The argument implied in showing this increasing ratio of "service only," as compared with "relief cases," is that the agency is primarily a case-work instrumentality intended to deal with the general problems of personal maladjustment, whether or not these result in economic difficulties, and that there exists a need for case work in families where economic distress may not be present, or, if present, not paramount. Differences seem, in other words, to lie both in the conception of the demands as having greater or less economic significance, and of treatment as consisting mainly or only incidentally in the provision of relief. The efforts to emphasize this distinction between the two types of agencies—both as contemporaries and as evolutionary steps in social treatment—have been intensified and complicated by the fact that public "outdoor relief" agencies in this country have often found it difficult to change from being purely relief agencies, to improve the quality of their service, or to free themselves from political control, while private agencies have been responsible for most of the progress in the philosophy and technique of social case work. Thus theoretical differences between relief service and case work, as partially contrasting concepts, have been complicated and

44

THE FAMILY

AGENCY

confused by the question of the quality of performance, and of public versus private management. It was inevitable that the tendencies alluded to would result in diverse theoretical formulations of the functions of the family agency. Several of these may be presented as typical in recent years, and as justifying a conception of the family agency which sets it apart from the relief agency of the noncase-work type. One of these formulations may be summed up as follows: A family agency, descended as it is from the earlier relief agencies, is primarily an organization to provide or to arrange for the provision of material relief to those of the community who find it impossible either temporarily or permanently to maintain their economic independence. Its clients are particularly those for whom no provision has been made by such special means as, for example, pensions of the various types, insurance, compensation, or by aid from church, fraternal organization, labor union or employer. In selecting cases for service of this kind and in rendering that service constructive rather than ephemeral or even pauperising, the case-work method is used by the family agency within the limits of the budget and so far as permitted by emergencies. Another position might be stated thus: The family agency is intended primarily for the readjustment and the rehabilitation of families whose integrity as exemplars of that social institution (the family) and as the setting for the emotional life of its members is threatened, but not yet destroyed. This readjustment is to be effected by the case-work method, which dominates its processes. There may be other functions that the family agency must, for the present, be ready to perform, such as assistance to those requiring material relief, or to the unemployed in an economic depression; but such functions are either in their nature secondary, as concomitants of family

THE

FAMILY

AGENCY

45

rehabilitation,or are unavoidable interferences, under present conditions and by historical tradition, with its primary function as a case-work agency dealing with family problems. Still another and widely current formulation holds as follows: It is true that the family welfare society of today came into existence for the purpose of dealing with problems of poor relief; its obligation to the continuance of that task is obvious and fundamental, and its financial support by the philanthropic public has been and is predicated on that function. It is also true, however, that the very existence of the family welfare society, different in name only from the charity organization society of yesterday, is due to the recognition of the fact that relief in itself not only is no cure for poverty, but may actually aggravate or perpetuate it in the individual case; that in many instances economic need is merely a symptom, often in itself unimportant, of a disorganization which goes deep into the personality problems of the family members and which can be treated, if at all, only through psychological study and guidance of the individuals. Relief then becomes important or immaterial to the degree that it may affect the chances of a complete adjustment of the client, and the agency's obligation to provide material relief is merged in its function as a case-working agency. In many instances the personality assets of the client are found hopelessly inadequate, this point of view holds, and he becomes the pensioner of a society unsuited to his needs, and in that sense responsible for his condition. The task of serving as a pensioning instrument of such persons is one not attractive to family agencies, is often an impossible burden both to them and to private relief agencies, and is eventually transferred to the taxpayer. In other cases personality assets are practically intact, and material relief supplied in time and in adequate amount and form will take care of the client's

4-6

THE FAMILY

AGENCY

problems. In such cases no "case work" is required. It is the group between these extremes that, in this definition, constitutes the major task of the family agency. Family social work conceived in these terms becomes intensive case-work service that consumes a great deal of time and requires a personnel with increasingly intensive training. It automatically reduces the number of clients that may be treated by a given staff and inevitably raises the question of restriction and selection of intake. Inasmuch as the agency cannot afford to provide intensive case work for all its applicants, the task of selection tends to establish a dual division in the body of clients: namely those that constitute problems of personality adjustment requiring intensive case-work service, and those who may be served by a more simple process of giving advice, information or material relief, or, being deficient of reasonable assets, are shifted to whatever place can be found for them. These different interpretations of the function of the family agency have, incidentally, no relation to the specific agencies included in the present study. They represent the field as a whole, and are presented in an effort to interpret the background on the basis of which the study selected family agencies as a distinct type. The above formulations are no more and no less true of New York agencies than they are of organizations in the rest of the country. The increase in the number of family case-work agencies in the half century that followed the inauguration of the charity organization movement in America has been accompanied by no diminution in relief agencies. While some, especially among the church-sponsored relief organizations have been gradually turning into social case-work agencies, the number, size and importance of relief bodies have increased through the creation of public outdoor relief departments, mothers' assistance, old age pensions, work-

THE

FAMILY

47

AGENCY

men's compensation, veterans' compensation and

similar

agencies that have tended in many cases and in their earlier stages to be relief

organizations

rather than

case-work

agencies. T h e tendency is in the direction of more, rather than less, relief in this sense (that is, for persons of special eligibility), and the recent major employment emergencies have strengthened the demand for renewal or extension of public outdoor relief for the general body of those economically upset beyond capacity for self-support. While, therefore, the importance of case work, and of all that it implies, has gained increased recognition, and its theoretical and technical content has advanced to proportions undreamt of by Octavia Hill or Josephine Shaw Lowell, the importance of material relief, and the recognition of its claim by an increasing body of clients as a social and legal right, have enhanced its status in the scheme of social work practice and social theory. These facts have largely contributed to the difficulty of defining the theoretical function in the present-day community

of

the

family

welfare

agency.

It

set

out

to

restrict and minimize the place of relief in the treatment of applicants for relief, to apply and improve the case-work method, largely as a substitute for relief, and to organize the community resources for more effective cooperation in social work. A f t e r passing through many intermediate stages, the family agency finds its public, its clients, the ineluctable economic facts, and its own internal development, pressing for relief and more relief. Having adopted the case-work method as an instrument in the treatment of the economically dependent, more effective than the mere giving of relief, the family agency has developed and encouraged the perfection of the case-work method until, with the advent of mental hygiene, it has become a method of personal rehabilitation tending to

48

THE

FAMILY

AGENCY

emphasize innumerable other issues than economic distress alone. Meanwhile, the financial support of the agency and its acceptance by the community at large continue to rest mainly on its relief function, rather than on that of service for emotionally maladjusted individuals and families. Were it merely a question of theory, it might not matter whether the relief function is primary or incidental in the family welfare agency. But basic questions of the acceptance or rejection of whole classes of applicants, of division of labor among agencies, or changes of program between normal times arid emergencies, of training and disposition of staff, of relations to governmental function, and of financial support, are involved, all of which must be settled before many years, as the controversial concepts become more clearly defined and pass from discussions by professionals to the general public. A full discussion of the far-reaching questions implied in the unsettled interpretation of the family agency in a fast-changing society is, of course, not relevant to the present study and cannot be undertaken here. What does concern us is whether, having been thus influenced by philosophical and technical considerations, to regard the family agency as a distinct type, we were justified, by the analysis of the community's demands upon it, in treating it apart from other types of relief agencies. Our statistics do not seem to justify the line drawn between the two, so far as the nature of the demand goes. F A M I L Y SERVICE I N R E L A T I O N TO PROSPERITY

With respect to the extent of demand and the quantitative service response, our figures are strongly suggestive. They show, first, that the fluctuations in volume of work of the family agency vary directly with the economic prosperity of the community. This fact is clearly shown in Figure n . The

THE

FAMILY

49

AGENCY

volume of agency service, as represented by the intake figures, responds to changes in the economic status of its potential clientèle, as suggested by the curve for manufacturing employment corrected for seasonal movement. Although it appears that seasonal variation in the volume of agency work is affected by other than economic factors, it is clear that the movement in agency intake does correspond closely with cyclical changes in business conditions. There is no reason to assume that this would not hold true for less violent swings in the business cycle, as well as for one of the emergent proportions that started in the fall of 1929. In fact, the resources of the agency in a time of more moderate demand would be more nearly adequate to meet the calls made upon it, and there would be less tendency for intake to resist pressure. T h e figures of our study show that increased demand upon the agency is accompanied by a reduction in

1 1 11 1 r

s

v.

fNUM BEF

100

1

90 80

»

M

PE

CE NT OF AL L A P P LIC ATION

s

70 60

50

s ^

f

\

*

1

- «

1

N D J

F M A M J

1929-30

A S O N

D J

F M A M J

\

\

V

40

t J

\

J

1930-31

FIGURE 5. TOTAL I N T A K E AND PERCENT T H A T I N T A K E F O R M S OF ALL A P P L I C A TIONS FOR THE M O N T n , M A N H A T T A N , N O V E M B E R , 1 9 2 9 , TO OCTOBER, 1 9 3 1 . (BASED ON' MATERIAL I N TABLE 8 )

50

THE

FAMILY

AGENCY

the proportion of that demand to which attention can be given. This contrast between intake, expressed in number of families added, and intake expressed as a percentage of all applications, is shown in Figure 5. During the twelve months from November, 1929, to October, 1930, a period considerably less affected by the current depression than the next twelve months, the percentage of intake to applications varies but little from an average of 70 per cent. We have no criterion by which to judge whether this margin of 30 per cent should be regarded as evidence of good work or poor, or whether even this percentage may be higher than normal. In view of the many legitimate principles of selection and the sound reasons for not accepting particular applications, there is no basis at any rate for regarding the figure as unreasonable. During the four months following October, 1930, we have variations from the above average that are strongly suggestive of the direct effect of economic pressure, 1 for while the actual number of cases in the intake continued to grow, the ratio to applications fell from 70 per cent to 44 per cent in November and 48 per cent in December, 1930. In the next two months, the figures climb upward again to 56 and 61 per cent respectively. This would seem to mean that as applications rose in the winter it was impossible for service to keep pace with need, even to the extent of merely accepting cases for initial scrutiny—that intake, in a sense "resisted" pressure. The same kind of behavior is found with respect to "cases under care." These, as will be recalled, represent clients for whom some substantial work is done, over a period of time, ' P e r h a p s " e c o n o m i c pressure" is n o t an accurate term here: pressure of applications m a y be more nearly correct. It m a y h a v e been due in part to economic changes and in part to the publicity given to the E m e r g e n c y F u n d of $8,000,000 raised b y the Prosser C o m m i t t e e and devoted in large part to the w o r k of the E m e r g e n c y W o r k B u r e a u , w h i c h at first received a considerable part of its applications v i a the f a m i l y agencies.

THE

FAMILY

AGENCY

51

as against others receiving only incidental service. Figure 6 shows that while the absolute number of "under care cases" increases, because of greater distress, the percentage which they represent of applications actually decreases with the heaviest months, and only turns up again some three or four months later. During the two year period from November, 1929, to October, 1931, the chart shows an "under care" percentage of somewhat over forty at the maximum and some thirteen at the minimum. In other words, never over forty, and sometimes as few as thirteen, out of every hundred applicants who come to our family agencies expecting aid, are either deemed suitable for service or found acceptable in view of their resources, and the lower percentages appear consistently to correspond to greater pressure and greater absolute numbers. MA J DR ; A F E 1NT/

NL/MB E R 100 80

Y

r \

S

»»

> PEF

CENT OF AL L A » P I _IC M ) N .

V

-N *

\

*

A

\

N D J

F M A M J J

1929-30 FIGURE 6 .

A

S O N

/

_/

r -

f

/

«Ä

>| S

r

\ \

D J F M A M

J

J

A

S

O

1930-31

U N D E R CARE I N T A K E AND P E R C E N T T H A T UNDER CARE I N T A K E

OP A L L A P P L I C A T I O N S FOR T H E M O N T H , M A N H A T T A N , N O V E M B E R , TO OCTOBER, 1 9 3 1 . ( S E E T A B L E 8 )

FORMS

1929

52

THE

FAMILY

AGENCY

It is possible of course, that this tendency is entirely spurious, that we deal, not with intake resistance, but with unusual and sudden increase in applications to the family agencies, associated with the opening of Emergency Work Bureau offices. However, the same tendency is shown over a longer period, including the relatively "normal" year 192829, by a comparison of "under care" intake with total intake (instead of applications) from June, 1928, to October, 1931. 2 For the period from June, 1928, through March, 1930, the percentage of total intake which was taken "under care" averaged 50.3 per cent, varying from 43.0 per cent to 58.2 per cent, and showing a deviation from the average of from -7.3 to 7.9. In the period of heavily increasing pressure from April, 1930, on through October, 1931, the "under care" intake averaged 39.0 per cent of the total, in contrast to 50.3 for the earlier period. The percentage ranges from 29.7 to 47.9, and the deviation from the average is -9.3 to 8.9. Statistics more clearly relevant to the relation of family agency function to the economic conditions of the community, especially as reflected in the public mind, emerge from an analysis of the applications with respect to the nature of the service asked for, and the type of disposition made by the family agency. Unfortunately, again, our data are available only for a period that happened to lie in the midst of the most serious economic depression of the generation; without comparative figures for a more normal period, the validity of inferences from these data also is subject to an incommensurable margin of error. This fact must be borne in mind, 'Not until Nov., 1929, did wc have figures on applications. In a rough measure, the ratio of "under care" to total intake shows the same tendency as that of "under care" to applications, namely a greater fluctuation, and lower percentages, as the excessive demand of the emergency makes itself felt. Cf. Fig. 14 and Table 1.

TABLE I INTAKE, TOTAL AND UNDER CAKE, FROM JUNE, 1928, TO OCTOBER, 1931, MANHATTAN UNDER CARE INTAKE MONTH

TOTAL INTAKE Number

1928 June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. 1929 Jan. Feb. March April May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. 1930 Jan. Feb. March April May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. 1931 Jan. Feb. March April May June July Aug. Sept. Oct.

1,138 992 920 754 895 1,013 i,327 1,251 1,019 1,017 959 1,094 955 985 943 816 1,044 1,284 i,735 1,901 1,490 1,604 2,009 i,799 i,742 1,894 1,624 1,421 1,871 2,616 3,946 3,638 2,95i 2,966 2,55i 3,405 3,230 3,269 2,461 2,264 3,005

531 471 481 371 419 S" 571 728 538 553 48S 527 425 453 412 382 605 717 1,004 1,014 766 779 742 831 744 750 706 538 708 856 1,172 i,330 i .415 1,213 978 i,i79 1,402 1,481 1,054 793 1,009

Per Cent oj Total Intake 46.7 47-5 52-3 49.2 46.8 50.5 43 0 58.2 52.8 54-4 50.6 48.2 44-5 46.0 43-7 46.8 S8.0 55-8 57-9 53-3 5i-4 48.6 36.9 46.2 42.7 39-6 43 5 37-9 37-8 32-7 29.7 36.6 47 9 40.9 38.3 34-6 43-4 45-3 42.8 35-0 33-6

54

THE

FAMILY

AGENCY

and must render only tentative and suggestive most of the generalizations attempted at this stage. How much of the appeal to family agencies is made primarily for economic assistance, as compared with requests for other types of service, such as aid in behavior problems, situations of domestic infelicity, problems of physical and mental health? Is this question of any significance? If so, can it be answered from the figures based on the current type of statistical data, as kept by the agencies? Can it be answered by depending on the stated request by applicants, as recorded in the course of the present study? When material relief is asked for by the applicant, does it necessarily mean that that is what he needs? When no material assistance is provided by the agency, even contrary to the applicant's opinion as expressed in his application, does it mean that none is needed? Does it mean that material relief, while needed and provided, does not necessarily come from the family agency? What is the relation between the nature of requests made by applicants and the nature of the service that is, or can be, given by the family agency, in keeping both with the nature of the demands and with the principles of case work? These are some of the questions pertinent to the determination of the actual function of the family agency in the community, toward the clarification of which statistics should contribute their share. Our study suggests some ways in which such statistics may be used for that purpose. The annual figures reported by our family agencies, in the relatively normal period when this study began, showed that out of all the cases under care, roughly half or a little better, were classed as "relief" cases; the others were designated as "service only." 3 The following table indicates that two of the agencies show an increase in relief cases during the emergency. "Complete data on this distribution could not be obtained for incidental service cases, but the percentage receiving relief is definitely lower in this class of cases.

THE

FAMILY

AGENCY

55

Under Care Relief Cases Per Cent of Total Cases under Care

Agency*

Association for Improving the Condition of the Poor 1928-1929 1929-1930 1930-1931

52.3 73.5 84.4

Charity Organization Society 1928-1929 1929-1930 1930-1931

59.5 66.7 83.0

Jewish Social Service

Association

1928

53.7

1929 1930

53-7 5i-7

These figures are often interpreted as meaning that roughly 50 to 85 per cent of the cases served by the agency need material relief, while the rest need only advice, guidance or intensive case work. That, however, is not intended as the meaning of the figures. Of these "service only" cases, many are supported, or partially supported, by municipal, state or Federal funds, churches, fraternal organizations, or by other social agencies. "Service only" does not mean needing or receiving no relief; it means only receiving no relief from the reporting agency, within the fiscal year covered by the report. What proportion of the "service only" cases are economically dependent, in whole or in part, we do not know. How prevalent is the factor of economic dependency, as shown by the statistics of applications? Five causes of appli*The Catholic Charities do not have this material available on an annual basis.

56

THE

FAMILY

AGENCY

cation were specified in the schedule used in the present study.* Two of these at least would seem to be directly indicative of disturbance in the economic equilibrium of the family: expressed need of material assistance or relief, and request for job. There are of course instances where the latter does not automatically imply economic dependence. But in view of the existence of employment agencies, both commercial and non-commercial, and in view of the public acquaintance with the operations of the family agencies, the number of these, especially during a depression, is negligible. The ratios of job and relief requests, considered separately, appear to act very queerly unless interpreted in the light of their relative interchangeability and of certain events that would seem to have influenced the form of request as between job and relief. In the accompanying charts, the usually crucial month of October shows a sudden falling off of requests for relief, when we would expect an increase (and actually have an increase) in total applications. On the other hand, with employment conditions increasingly unfavorable, the corresponding spurt in job requests would seem at least queer. Actually, the relief work made available to the agencies at this time by the funds collected under the so-called Prosser Committee, made it possible to give limited work opportunities and the change in the nature of requests from relief to job immediately followed. It is evident that a great many applicants ask for both relief and job. Moreover, the line between the two types of request in a depression is rather thin and unstable. In Figure 8, T h e y were: relief, job, medical aid, behavior or domestic adjustment, other. There is legitimate question as to the uniformity with which answers to these questions might have been entered in the several agencies. But both the simplicity of the terms and the absence of marked differences in the four agencies that are not attributable to other causes render this doubt rather theoretical than practical. But the doubt does exist and is legitimate.

TABLE

2

N A T U R E OF R E Q U E S T S E M P H A S I Z I N G E C O N O M I C N E E D , I N A P P L I CATIONS R E C E I V E D FROM N O V E M B E R , OCTOBER, 1 9 3 1 ,

APPLICATIONS

TOTAL MONTH

Relief

Sumber

1930

1931

Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. March April May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. March April May June July Aug. Sept. Oct.

specifying:

Relief and J o b (Duplicates Removed)*

Job

APPLICATIONS

1929

1 9 2 9 , TO

MANHATTAN

I,78S 2,229 2 >3 73 I >949 2,050 2,610 2,400 2,388 2,567

2,198 1,893 2,947 5,858 7,840 6,05s 4,432 4,it>3 3,693 5,428 4,724 4,725 3,764 3,5i8 6,382

1,099 1,613 1,612 1,364 1,417 1,435 1,377 1,439 1,662 1,465 1,276 1,495 2,440

4,243 4,273 3,098

2,938 2,486 3,342 3,I6S 3,465 2,785 2,569

3,217

Percent ol Total Applications

61.6 724 67.9 70.0 695 55-0 574 60.3 64.7 66.7 674 50.7 42.6 54-1 70.6 69.9 71.6 67-3 61.6 67.0 73-3 74.0 73-0 504

Number

602 875 1,087 966 953 1,465 i,253 1,164 1,356 1,084 816 1,822 4,178 5,842 4,i93 2,835 2,456 2,402 4,059

3,241 3,337 2,649 2498 5,185

Percent ol Total Applications

13-7 39 -3 45-8 49.6 46.5 56.1 52.2

48.7 52.8 49-3 43-1 61.8 73 0 74-5 69.2 64.0 59-9 65.0 74-8 68.6 70.6 704 71.0 81.2

Sumber

1,282 1,823 1,891 i,595 1,66S 2,129 1,899 1,847 2,044 1,727 1,484 2,504 5,417 7,370 5,586 3,992 3,580 3,249 4,9U 4,083 4,258 3,384

Percent ol Total Applications

71.8 81.8 79-7

81.8

81.2 81.6 79.1

77-3 79.6 78.6 784

8S.0 92.5

94.0 92.3 90.1

87.3 88.0 90S 86.4

90.1

3,no

89.9 884

5,943

93-1

* Duplication was avoided by combining all applications specifying the need of relief and those specifying job only. There was a sprinkling of requests for job combined with some other service, such as behavior or domestic adjustment, which was negligible. On the other hand, no requests for medical care were included, although a considerable number of these might have been considered as economic in nature.

PERCENT 100

PERCENT 100

• RELIEF REQUESTS •

- 90 •

80

70 -

• 70

60-

-

m

5040 -

PI

6 0

- 50 • 40

30-

- 30

20 - I

-

20

-

10

•

0

10

J < 2 1929


3 3 U J U O O Z 2 ~>

O

-I

L-

PERCENT 100

PERCENT 100

- J O B REQUESTS

70 60 50 -

n i n m

40 -

i

30 20 10 -

FIGURE

>

u

z

7.

P E R C E N T OF T O T A L A P P L I C A T I O N ' S

BY M O N T H ,

F O R M E D B Y REQUESTS FOR R E L I E F

MANHATTAN',

A N D FOR

JOB

1929-3I,

THE

FAMILY

AGENCY

59

therefore, these two types have been combined and duplications eliminated by adding all applications specifying relief to those requesting job only, thus giving a total of applications for economic assistance. Our graph shows that at no time during the period covered were the applications for economic aid less than 72 per cent, while at the height of the emergency in which seasonal and cyclical influences exerted a combined effect, the ratio rose to 94 per cent and went no lower than 90 per cent (November, 1930-February, 1931). That leaves to the total requests for aid involving only other, that is noneconomic, forms of service, such as behavior adjustment, health care, etc., a maximum of 28 per cent of applications per month and a minimum of 6 per cent. That is as far as the figures, in their present form, permit of interpretation.

FIGURE 8 .

PERCENT OF TOTAL APPLICATIONS B Y M O N T H , M A N H A T T A N ,

1929-31,

FORMED B Y REQUESTS S H O W I N G E C O N O M I C NEED ( A L L RELIEF REQUESTS P L U S REQUESTS FOR JOB O N L Y )

6o

THE FAMILY

AGENCY

Not all applications to a social agency are, of course, accepted. This is true for family agencies, as it is for others, and it is true for emergencies as for normal periods. If the family agencies were working on the principle that requests involving merely economic distress, without case-work service, were not properly subject to their care, and if this principle were carried through the emergency period as well as under normal conditions, we should expect to find a large percentage of rejections, increasing as the depression multiplied the number of those showing merely economic troubles, rather than general problems of adjustment. These rejections should, moreover, be especially noticeable in applications where relief alone is requested, and these, we have seen, constitute by far the majority of applications. Our figures show no such tendency. In Figure 9, all acceptances, whether "under care" or incidental service (i. e., the total intake) are counted, and the percentages are given for each month on the basis of all applications and on the basis of relief applications exclusively. There appears to be no proof in either graph that, in the actual operation of the family agency, its historical function

FIGURE 9 . DISPOSAL, ALL APPLICATIONS COMPARED W I T H APPLICATIONS FOR RELIEF, B Y M O N T H , M A N H A T T A N , 1 9 2 9 - 3 1 (SEE TABLE 8 )

THE

FAMILY

AGENCY

6l

of relieving economic distress has been abandoned. On the basis of these figures, at least, no definition of a family agency which omits the concern with economic dependency as a major factor in the selection of clientèle can be true to fact. The indications are, on the contrary, that there is a strong tendency for the work of the family agency to respond to demand arising from economic distress, and to fluctuate, therefore, with the community's economic prosperity. INCLUSIVENESS OF THE AGENCIES

Distinct as the family agency may be from other agencies that dispense outdoor relief in New York City, there might be no justification for segregating statistics of their operations and reducing them to population rates if they did not represent a reasonably large percentage of the total service rendered in meeting the type of demand which usually calls for "outdoor relief." Whether the figures for the four agencies are comprehensive enough for this purpose, cannot be decided by a priori postulations. We shall try to estimate their validity so far as available data permit. The following criteria served to guide the inclusion or rejection of agencies for the study: 1. For practical reasons, the geographical limit of the borough of Manhattan was adopted, to which later we were able to add the Bronx. 2. Only family social work agencies were to be selected, for reasons already discussed. 3. Those agencies were to be included, which serve the general population, rather than agencies serving exclusive groups such as trade union members, the blind, the unmarried, etc. (this does not refer to denominational specialization,

62

T H E

FAMILY

AGENCY

which has, in practice, an administrative, rather than selective, significance). 4. The clients of the agency must represent demand arising within the territory covered by the study. 5. The work of the agency should serve a group in the community that would, hypothetically at least, be responsive to economic fluctuations. 6- It was assumed, of course, that the statistics of the agencies selected would be made available, and that the conduct of the study as planned would depend upon the cooperation, to this end, of a sufficient portion of the eligible agencies to render the statistics representative. The experience of the study has raised serious questions on the validity of the second and third of these criteria. The question of the difference between family and relief agencies has already been discussed. The quantitative seriousness of omitting this group must still be estimated. Similarly, the exclusion of at least one agency, the Red Cross Home Service, on the theory that it serves a special group, seemed less valid as the study progressed than it had appeared

at the

outset.5 ' E v e n t s attributable to the economic depression provided further disturbing elements in the study. I t is difficult to estimate, for example, how far the organization of the Emergency Work Bureau, opened in October, 1930, affected the dependability of application figures, especially at times when administrative changes, or the opening or closing of its offices for further applications, became known to prospective clients. Questions also arise about the completeness of our figures as a result of activities inaugurated to deal with the emergency. The majority of those registered with the Emergency Work Bureau were sent through the family agencies, and did not represent additional applications. It is less easy to appraise the effects of the Mayor's Official Committee or of the city's made-work program, although many on the latter pay roll were transferred from the Emergency Work Bureau. The two special Harlem offices, opened at the instigation of the Welfare Council and the Home Relief Bureau of the Department of Public Welfare, were not in operation during any of the period covered by this report, but their work will effect the meaning of family agency figures as their reporting is continued.

THE

FAMILY

AGENCY

63

W h i l e it might have been an impossible task to include all the relief agencies together with the family agencies, had w e wished to do so, the exclusion of several important organizations requires more detailed explanation, as well as an estimate of the statistical results of the omissions. T h e most important of those omitted are: T h e Board of Child Welfare The Red Cross Home Service The Travelers' Aid Society Department of Public Welfare, outdoor relief for veterans and the blind T h e Board of Child Welfare administers public outdoor relief in the form of mothers' pensions, for the City of N e w Y o r k . It serves a specified clientèle, namely, mothers legally qualified, having children between certain ages, if the male head of the family is dead, or totally incapacitated in specified ways, and if "economic dependency" can be proved. 6 Though dealing exclusively with clear cases of dependency, this agency attempts to conduct its work along case-work lines, and thus comes within the group of the family social work type. T h e number of cases served by the Board is very large, but its intake is (as we shall see) relatively small, in comparison both with its own case load and with the intake of the four family agencies studied. The primary reason for omitting statistics of the Board of Child Welfare was our failure to obtain access to the data requested. Otherwise they would have been included, despite the limited eligibility of clients, the narrow fluctuation of intake, and the fact that many of the Board's cases are also served by the cooperating family 'Instances of types of incapacity recognized by law are: father insane, or in prison for a specified minimum number of years, or deserted for specified length of time, or hospitalized for tuberculosis. These constitute between 20 and 25 per cent of the new grants and about 10 per cent of the total case load of the Board's work.

64

THE FAMILY

AGENCY

agencies and would thus, in the elimination of duplicates, have failed to increase the totals materially. The omission of this agency was therefore not deliberate, and rather regrettable. We shall have to estimate the seriousness, for our purposes, of the absence of its figures. No attempt was made to include the Red Cross data in our study. At the present time the service of this agency is available only to disabled veterans, for whom temporary aid and assistance is given in presenting their cases to the Federal authorities. One cannot be certain whether exclusion on these grounds clarifies or obscures the picture. While the total eligible class, namely the disabled war veteran, is an absolute datum, or at least cannot be increased, the number of these who apply for aid does fluctuate with conditions, and the theory of temporary aid only, pending adjudication by Federal or local relief authorities, is given a flexible interpretation. Thus the applications and intake of the Red Cross Home Service in Manhattan and the Bronx amount to a considerable number and show marked fluctuation, not unlike those of the four family agencies studied. The depression of the past two years renders this omission more serious than it would have been in relatively normal times, and the theoretical exclusion of the Red Cross from the study on the basis of "special clientèle" appears in retrospect less justifiable than it did in planning. Arrangements are being made to include Red Cross figures in the statistics being collected by the Welfare Council as a sequel of our study. 7 The Traveler's Aid work is by definition intended for nonresidents, and automatically falls outside our immediate province. Special groups, like agencies dealing with unmarried 7

In the course of these arrangements, facts have been disclosed that would t e n d to support the original judgment with respect to the quantitative importance of the Red Cross statistics.

THE

FAMILY

AGENCY

65

mothers, are not inherently different from family agencies, but their clients present quantitatively an unimportant factor. Outdoor relief dispensed by the Department of Public Welfare, of the type represented by the mandatory legislative provisions for veterans and special relief to the blind, have been omitted, chiefly because of the limited eligibility, which shuts out from their benefits the general population. In the administration of these services, administrative and statistical procedures hold little kinship with those of the family agencies, the Board of Child Welfare, or organizations like the Salvation Army. They are, indeed, rarely if ever classed with the family agencies.8 Estimates of the comprehensiveness of our agency figures in the field of social work which they represent, may be made on four different bases, depending upon one's interpretation of how distinct a social agency type the family society represents. 1. What proportion do they represent of the combined outdoor relief work, which includes family agencies and relief agencies, public and private? 2. What proportion do they represent of private outdoor relief alone? 3. What proportion are they of all family social work, including public agencies, but excluding relief agencies? 4. What proportion do our agencies represent of all private family agencies serving the general population? In answering any of these questions we may wish to make an estimate in terms of: (a) expenditures, (b) case load, or (c) incidence, in the form of intake or applications. "In the Family Section of the Welfare Council, these services are only indirectly represented by unofficial delegates of the Department of Public Welfare as a whole. Fourteen agencies for the city are officially represented, and two, including the department, unofficially. Of the total disbursements for outdoor relief by New York City in 1929, that for the Veterans' Relief was a little over 10 per ant, and the amount for adult blind was approximately 2.5 per cent. Some 83 per cent went to the Board of Child Welfare.

66

T H E

F A M I L Y

AGENCY

For judging the quantitative importance of our agencies in relation to all outdoor relief, only one form of comparison is available, that of expenditures. Even to this end, data are meager, and only an approximation is possible. From figures of the Welfare Council, it would appear that our four agencies spend at least one-quarter of the total outdoor relief dispensed in the area they serve.9 There are some serious objections, of course, for using expenditures as a guide for this purpose. A few only need be mentioned: the impossibility of separating the continuing load from expenditures on new cases, the widely varying standards of relief by the different agencies, both as to amounts and as to items provided for, the legally prescribed rates in public agencies, and the generally accepted principle that the unit of social work is the client, not the dollar. If private agencies giving outdoor relief are to serve as a basis, we are still unable to estimate in terms other than the unsatisfactory one of expenditures, including the entire city. Considered on this basis, expenditures would indicate that family agencies represent 75 per cent of all private outdoor relief. This figure is a more reasonable basis of estimate than the first, because it excludes the enormous sums "Separate figures f o r M a n h a t t a n and the Bronx are not available, but a reliable estimate m a y be made f r o m data f o r N e w Y o r k C i t y as a whole. W e may assume that the percentage for M a n h a t t a n and the Bronx, where this w o r k is more thoroughly organized, is at least as high as that of the greater city. According to these data, given in the following table, " p r i v a t e " family agencies expend 25.9 per cent of the total outdoor relief administered in the city. Agencies so classified for this territory consist of our four agencies and the Red Cross, the latter accounting for some 4 per cent of the 25.9 per cent, or 1.04 per cent of the total. A m o u n t s expended in N e w Y o r k C i t y during 1929 For outdoor relief, service and administration A l l agencies giving outdoor relief (public and private) $12,414,000 All private agencies giving outdoor relief 4,306,000 All private family service agencies 3,219,000 F r o m the Welfare Council's study, Financial Trends in Organized Social Work.

THE

FAMILY

AGENCY

67

dispensed by the Board of Child Welfare to cases not originating within the year, but representing the accumulated load of years. For estimating the inclusiveness of our data for family agencies, whether for the whole field or private agencies alone, we need not, fortunately, resort to the use of data on expenditures, but can use figures relating to clients served. 10 These may be considered in terms of case load or of incidence of demand. While the former has proved to be relatively insignificant, 11 if not misleading, as portraying the response of the agency to community demand, the reader may prefer to have both types of data for a basis of estimate. The list of family agencies, both public and private, which serve the area considered, includes the four private family agencies of this study, the Board of Child Welfare and the Red Cross. For the twelve-month period between September, 1928, and August, 1929, the average case load for Manhattan of the four family agencies studied, compared with the Red Cross and the Board of Child Welfare, was as follows: 12 " T h e Board of Child Welfare has accounted for so large a percentage of the public expenditures for outdoor relief in ordinary times (some 83 percent of the total in 1929) that the combined expenditures of that agency, the Red Cross, and our four societies represent all but a small portion of the entire outdoor relief outlay for the area. Whatever estimate is made in terms of case load or incidence, therefore, still relates to a generous base. u C f . Chap. III. " T h i s particular twelve-month period was used because it was not possible to get the Red Cross figure before Sept., 1928, nor the Manhattan case load figure for the four family agcncies after Oct., 1929. The selection, therefore, was purely a matter of availability of material, rather than being due to any special significance in this particular year. The reports of the Board of Child Welfare cover all of the five boroughs of N e w Y o r k City, and no separate figures by boroughs are available from that office. Since there was no reason to assume that pressure in one borough was heavier than in another, the Board of Child Welfare figures have been pro-rated, on the basis of population of the boroughs according to the 1930 census. The New Y o r k chapter of the Red Cross works both in Manhattan and the Bronx, and the records are not given separately for the two boroughs. However, the organization itself estimates that probably three-fourths of its work is done in Manhattan, and the figures in their reports have been modified on that basis for these comparisons.

68

THE

FAMILY

AGENCY

Red Cross Board of Child Welfare Four family agencies

Average Cost Load 1,221 3,214 5,474

Total 9,909 Percentage which four family agencies form of total 55.2 The most telling basis of comparison would be that of applications made to the agencies. Unfortunately, data of this kind are not available. But figures for intake provide a reasonable approximation.18 The following table shows the intake of the agencies under consideration for two periods, of which the first corresponds to the twelve months for which average case loads are shown above, and the second covers the calendar year of 1930. A glance at the table that follows, compared with the figures above, will show how entirely out of line with the intake of an agency is its case load. w • ^ ^ Average under Care* Average Major Care* Month Jntake pgf Intake per Month, Manhattan and Manhattan the Bronx Agency {Sept., 1928-Aug., 1929) {Calendar year 1930) Red Cross 67 no Board of Child Welfare 56! 113! Four family agencies 500 970 623 Percentage four family agencies form of total 80.2 per cent

1193 81.3 per cent

•These terms are identical in significance, and correspond to the terminology used during the respective periods. fEstimated for boroughs according to population. "For discussion of the relative merits of application and intake in measuring demand on family agencies, see the succeeding chapter.

THE

FAMILY

AGENCY

69

On the basis of intake, then, the four agencies studied represent roughly 80 per cent of the possible total family social work in the territory covered. 14 When our four agencies are judged according to the degree to which they represent private family social work, the Board of Child Welfare is omitted from the above summary, and the percentage is based on the remaining total. In terms of case load this would be approximately 82 per cent as compared with the 55 per cent of all family agencies, and in terms of intake 88-90 per cent as compared with 80.2-81.3 per cent. In estimating, therefore, the comprehensiveness of the statistics of the four family agencies for calculating the incidence of family social work in the population of the area studied, it is reasonable to place it as high as 85 per cent. On a still stricter interpretation of the family agency as a distinct and self-contained type, one whose services are generally available to the population as a whole, the four agencies would come close to covering the entire field. In view, however, of the practical approximation by the Red Cross of the field of activity represented by the four agencies, the earlier figure is more realistic. It is not without interest to note that in constructing his index for 1 9 1 4 - 1 7 , Dr. Rubinow used the same agencies for the family social work data in the territory under discussion, except for the Catholic Charities, which had not, at that time entered upon its family service on the present scale. The Board of Child Welfare did not begin to operate until January 1, 1 9 1 6 .

The figures being collected by the

Welfare Council of the City of N e w York in gauging the effect of unemployment on social agencies during the present "It must be recalled, however, that a certain, though undetermined, percentage of the Board of Child Welfare cases actually appears in the intake of the four family agencies, rendering this percentage somewhat conservative.

70

THE

FAMILY

AGENCY

depression also come, for the territory under consideration, from these four agencies with the addition of the Red Cross Home Service. It would seem fairly reasonable, therefore, to consider the statistics of these four agencies as representing the major part of family case work carried on in the territory under consideration, in so far as such work is available to the general public rather than to special classes, and in so far as it is subject to fluctuations of a seasonal or cyclical type, similar to that of the economic life of the community. 15 With respect to that phase of the present study, which bears on the use of the ratio per population instead of absolute figures, the validity of the results depends upon the validity of this assumption. "Despite the fact that the Salvation A r m y is not, strictly speaking, a "family agency," its unique position in the field of relief justifies some specific estimate of the effect of omitting it from the study. F o r administrative reasons, only a suggestive test was possible: the intake of cases for an "average" month (Sept., 1930) was allocated according to health areas in Manhattan. The result shows that the total representativeness would, by the inclusion of the Salvation A r m y in the base, be reduced by 8 to 10 per cent. The rate would be entirely unaffected in somewhat under half the health areas. In the remaining forty-four of the areas, increases in rate of intake range from a fractional unit to as many as ten per 10,000 population, the latter amounting to an increase of about 5 1 per cent.

CHAPTER T H E

STATISTICAL

III UNITS

USED

C A S E LOAD, I N T A K E , A P P L I C A T I O N S , P O P U L A T I O N

RATES

"Extent of demand" and "volume of service" in social work have never been consistently distinguished. The confusion of these concepts is easy to understand, and is even, to a degree, justified. It is possible that the measure of service corresponds more or less to the measure of demand, if we may assume that when demand actually represents need, it is so recognized, and the necessary resources for meeting it are always made available. The assumption, though apparently naive, has in fact been a generally accepted hypothesis, and there is some reason to believe that it has not been altogether wrong. The strongest support of this hypothesis lies in the fact that the volume of service has actually fluctuated in consonance with changes in conditions of a kind that would indicate changes in need. Thus there have been consistent seasonal and cyclical fluctuations showing increasing volume of service during winter months, during economic depression, during industrial disturbances.1 Inasmuch as volume of service—especially when it involves material relief—depends on resources, the hypothesis already mentioned implies either that these resources represent a sort of reservoir that may be tapped as the needs demand, or that the contributing public is ready and willing to meet increasing needs as they are manifested in growing demand. Neither HDn the other hand, we have no dependable data for the effect on volume of long range changes in real wages, of the introduction of pension systems for widows and aged, or of compensation for victims of industrial accidents or disease, or of wide improvements in public health.

72

STATISTICAL

UNITS

implication is entirely right or entirely wrong, any more than the hypothesis itself is altogether ungrounded. It is a question of degree. To what extent, and how uniformly does volume of service measure demand, or to what extent at least, are the fluctuations in volume reasonably parallel with fluctuations in demand? To answer these questions it is necessary to find some practicable measure of demand, or at least of its fluctuation. So far, we have had no such measure. The only available guides to the fluctuation of need, even of an indirect nature, are the business or prosperity indexes or employment curves.2 A more direct guide, one still subject to limitations, but at least approximately satisfactory, might be supplied by the number of applications for material assistance received by social agencies. No statistics of applications have, however, been available, and it became part of the present experiment, as already indicated, to inaugurate the routine collection of statistics of application in the cooperating agencies. Recognizing that statistics of volume of service have been used, with some justification, as if they did present also a measure of demand, it will be the task of the present chapter to examine the relative merits of some of these statistics of volume as possible indexes of demand. Three types of statistical units have been most frequently used for measuring volume of service and, presumably, as indications of need: data on expenditure, chiefly for material relief; data on case load, either as total served annually or as monthly averages; and data on incidence of service, principally in the form of intake. "Special indexes, such as those of evictions, foreclosures, consumption of certain staples, etc. have not yet been sufficiently standardized or tested by experience to serve as independent indexes of economic fluctuations.

STATISTICAL THE

M E A S U R E M E N T OF

UNITS

73

EXPENDITURES

It is a curious fact that, despite the sedulous efforts of family agencies to interpret their work as an educational process rather than as the provision of material relief, they have persisted in using statements pertaining to relief expenditures as a conspicuous part, or even as an index, of their work. This habit is evident in annual reports of agencies, and in some of the statistical studies reviewed in an earlier chapter. 8 One need not be an extreme partisan of "case work versus relief," to recognize that statistics of relief expenditures are hardly the most appropriate expression of the nature and volume of family social work. Relief is indeed of primary importance in a great proportion of the cases coming to family agencies, but it is of secondary importance as an index of service performed, and less as an index of need. The total amounts available for relief depend on many community factors that are practically independent of changes in economic conditions, as studies of Clapp, Hurlin, and McMillen clearly indicate. The amounts granted to families for relief 3 In

recent years there has been what amounts almost to a revival in the attention paid by family agencies to the subject of expenditures, and more particularly of "relief expenditure." Relief figures have played an important rôle in budget discussions in community-chest cities, and have given rise to some actual or threatening controversies in the social-work program of several communities. Of the many statistical fallacies which lurk in such a use of monetary measures, not the least are the generally rising standards of living and consequently of standards of relief in recent years, the changing conception of the place of relief in case work, and the changing purchasing value of the dollar. Of the studies now in progress or recently completed and bearing on this point, Dr. King's figures for New Haven and the income-and-expenditures study of New Y o r k City agencies being conducted by the Welfare Council are illuminating. Unless allowances are made for change in population and wealth and for changing purchasing power of the dollar, direct comparisons in monetary terms prove quite misleading. (See King, W . I., Trends of Philanthropy, especially pp. 65 and 70; and Huntley, Kate, Financial Trends of Agencies Engaged in Giving Outdoor Relief in New York City.) The present depression has introduced another set of changes, which it is as yet too early to evaluate.

74

STATISTICAL

UNITS

by different agencies vary enormously with agency tradition and case-work policies, as does also the proportion of total cases receiving relief. For the month of January, 1931, to take a random example, the Russell Sage Foundation figures relating to the operation of family case-work departments in 59 cities show the ratio of relief cases to total active cases under care to vary from 97 per cent to 25 per cent; the amount per case to vary from $55.40 to $5.28, and the amount per "allowance case," for which Mr. Hurlin reports a tentative "norm" for 1928 of $32.34 per month,4 to be between $61.67 $I2.38.5 T H E CASE LOAD AS AN INDEX OF D E M A N D

It has long been recognized that, despite its orderly fluctuations, especially of a seasonal character, the case load also has serious limitations as a sensitive index of the community demand for service. First of these is the budget. While agencies can and do raise additional funds or, if need be, borrow money when under extraordinary pressure for funds, the tendency and desire to stay within the budget act as a bar against completely sensitive response to increased demand. The case load, moreover, does not take account of applications not accepted or of those not formally "made a case." Thus rejections, and emergency and incidental services, the number of which tends to increase with economic pressure, are not directly reflected in the case load, or show 'See Hurlin, Ralph G., "Statistical Studies of Dependency," in Statistics in Social Studies, p. 54. 'For the agencies covered by the present study, the corresponding figures are given as: Amount of Relief Relief cases, Per Relief Per Allowance Per Cent of Active Agency under Care Cases Case Case $24-75 $4°-53 69 A. I.C. P. 26.77 51-51 C.C. 56 23-5° C.O.S. 61 51-58 45.00 J.S. S.A. 56 5614

S T A T I S T I C A L

U N I T S

75

only after a lag produced by the accumulation of uncompleted investigations. The "case load," being composed of major care cases (by later definition and nomenclature designated "under care cases"), would increase more slowly than the "minor care" or "incidental" cases which are not included in the usual case load count, and many cases that would normally be "under care," are permitted, under pressure of numbers, to remain "minor" or "incidental." 6 A further factor, NUMBCAOr

NUU8CROF

1928

1929

F I C U R E 1 0 . RATES OF CHANGE I N T H E M A J O R CARE CASE LOAD, INTAKE, AND CASES CLOSED, OF F O U R F A M I L Y AGENCIES F R O M J U N E , 1928, TO OCTOBER, 1 9 2 9 MANHATTAN "For an excellent discussion of this s u b j e c t see "Statistical T e r m i n o l o g y in the F a m i l y W e l f a r e F i e l d , " b y A . W . M c M i l l e n a n d H e l e n R . Jeter, in the

Service Review, Vol. II, Sept., 1928.

Social

76

STATISTICAL

UNITS

of opposite tendency, is the fact that under pressure of accumulated work the closing of cases, which is a process requiring time and administrative attention, is necessarily neglected. A suggestion of this fact is contained in Figure io.T As the intake swings up in this chart, the closings diminish. For two months following the upswing of intake, the case load shows no decided change. But soon the failure of closings to keep pace with intake is manifested in the tendency of the case load to stay high in response to the increased business. Only slowly does the case load curve recede again with the seasonal reduction of intake, for closings are still tardy, owing probably to the continued pressure of work. It would be possible of course to interpret the lag in closings as due to the same economic pressure that brings an upswing of new cases, that is to the fact that many families already under care are unable to regain their economic independence, and continue to be dependent on the agency for assistance longer than they would otherwise. No doubt there is some truth in that interpretation; but testimony of the workers supports the other view. To whichever point of view the truth may incline, there is at any rate ample reason why the case load cannot be regarded as a very sensitive instrument for recording the community's need for the agency's services, as its economic life creates or brings to the surface those needs. It is, on the other hand, one of the most important measures of the volume of service. 'The figures on case load and intake appear in Tables 14 and 15, in Appendix B. Details of number of cases closed, by health area, appear in unpublished tables and monthly totals for Manhattan are as follows: June Dec. June 618 381 45» July 668 Jan. July 5°2 452 Feb. Aug. Aug. 558 399 S79 March Sept. Sept. 551 sss 62s April Oct. Oct. 518 457 449 May Nov. S82 403

STATISTICAL

UNITS

77

T H E I N T A K E AS A N I N D E X OF N E E D

Would the fluctuation of intake be more accurate an index? A priori one would say yes, in that it more closely portrays the incidence, especially if total intake is considered, including "incidental service" cases as well as "under care" cases; but, on the other hand, intake also depends on budget and on size of staff. There is, as the preceding chart shows, a serious difference between the curves of case load and of intake. How does intake compare with an independent index of conditions? T h e following charts give the indexes of major care intake and total intake (including minor care cases) in the four agencies studied, for the period from June, 1928, to October, 1931, compared with fluctuations in unemployment in manufacturing industries. 8 In the first of these charts, the three sets of index figures are shown without any adjustment and the general movement of all three is somewhat concealed by seasonal variation. It is obvious at a glance that, while the two intake curves show similar seasonal characteristics, those of the unemployment curve are quite different. A t least two factors may be responsible for this. Our unemployment curve is based on manufacturing alone, and we do not know what the seasonal movement of employment would be if stores, offices, the building industry, and all the other groups of occupations at which the workers of a large city are employed, could be included in our index. In addition, it is probable that the month-to-month changes in agency intake are affected by other than economic factors, such as weather and holidays. In order to get a clearer picture of the correspondence between the general movement of intake and that of unemployment, seasonal variations should be eliminated. This has been done by the method of the twelve-month moving average "For discussion of the unemployment curve, see infra, p. 83.

F I C U R E I I . I N D E X OF A G E N C Y I N T A K E (TOTAL AND M A J O R C A R E ) C O M P A R E D W I T H I N D E X OF N E W Y O R K C I T Y M A N U F A C T U R I N G E M P L O Y M E N T , FOR T H E PERIOD J U N E 1 9 2 8 TO OCTOBER I 9 3 I . ( S E E T A B L E 1 6 , A P P E N D I X B , FOR A C E N C Y FIGURES)

STATISTICAL

UNITS

79

and the resulting smoothed curves appear in the second chart on the page. It gives a more usable chart for purposes of comparison, even though in this way the first six months of the index are lost. Both intake curves show a general correspondence to the unemployment curve, with two conspicuous exceptions. The intake curves begin to go up before the unemployment curve, and it is difficult to suggest a reason for this, unless it be that manufacturing is not representative of all unemployment with respect to cyclical, as well as seasonal, changes. Also, while the unemployment index continues to rise steadily to the end of the period, total intake, although rising with equal regularity through June, 1931, then falls off abruptly. Major care intake increased steadily from the middle of the summer of 1929 to the spring of 1930, when it remained at very nearly the same level for a few months and then increased almost as rapidly and steadily as the other curve through July, 1931, when it also dropped abruptly. 9 This chart indicates, even within the limitations imposed, that intake shows an approximation to sensitive response and a decided tendency to accord with the economic life of the potential clientèle of the agencies in the community. It is not possible to make a comparison between the rates of increase of the agency curves and the manufacturing curve, since the latter has been made into a representation of unemployment by reversing the employment curve and increasing its scale for the sake of ease in visual comparison. It can be said, however, that with respect to steadiness of increase, the total intake curve shows more relation to it than does the major intake curve. 'It was possible to continue these curves through October, since the six months beyond which figures are needed to complete the monthly averages, were available before the report reached publication.

8o

STATISTICAL

UNITS

APPLICATIONS AS AN INDEX

It had been felt by those associated with the study that the nearest practicable approximation to a measure of need for family social work would be one based on applications to the agencies. As a general idea and a fond hope, the use of application statistics had been considered before by statisticians and executives of family agencies. Test studies had been made from time to time by some of these agencies, but no routine collection and study of them had been attempted. T h e reason, of course, is obvious: the amount of work involved in such a system has tended, in view of the always pressing clerical tasks of the agencies, to postpone such an undertaking. It speaks eloquently of the scientific interest of the cooperating agencies that the proposal to inaugurate the reporting of applications as part of the study, came from their own statisticians. T h e amount of extra labor involved in that proposal, especially in view of what the agencies had already committed themselves to for this study, would have made the request for this new task unreasonable.

Coming from the

agencies, the proposal was eagerly accepted b y the research staff. T h e details involved in this new phase of the study are discussed elsewhere. 10 Beginning with November i , 1929, complete monthly figures have been made available by the cooperating agencies of all applications made. T h e information obtained for each application included address of the applicant, nature of the request as made by the client (classified under five headings), source of the applications, and disposition by the agency. For the moment, we are concerned only with the totals of applications, by month, and with their relation to figures for intake. I0 Sce

Chap. I, pp. 33, 34, and Appendix A.

STATISTICAL

UNITS

8l

Figure 12 shows the course of applications, 11 compared with total intake and the "unemployment curve" for the period from June, 1928, to October, 1931. Unfortunately it is not possible to make as satisfactory use of a smoothed applications curve as of that for intake, 550

1 II U I I L I I I 1. 1 U 11 Applications to Family A gene ies — — - Total Intake of Family Agencies « — New York City Manufacturing Employment Reversed.. (.Adjusted for Seasonal Variation)

500 450

. Averaqe

400

June

t928~Mau

1

j

1 fl

1929'100

1 300

J

i

11

3

t

iL V ! t-

i 1,

z -

i i

jl jf

350 £

1

\\

J

250

OK -Pi

200

;

t

¡1


u. a «t

"o ^

«e co o

0£6T

a ) ® a J O . « ! 3 3 3 © o IE6I

131

CDWCvJO>-H C-- Tf IfltOH^HtOQlOlO C » TC H> (Dto00«oOD • N O) 00 N " 1Qrff«O oo" «O 0> tO° aCDi N o c í D r t a t - t ^ t o ü r í « o c t> «-. t.>. C r-l hû CX +-> > O C o ® ce © w o. O) 3 3 3 ID O o © 3 2 o -> Z a -3 u. a 3 1 < til O 6261

SS T£6T

0261

132

© >» • -M S d ï P" ^ 3 3 3 © O T5t

s

œ M too o> o io t - ct o 00 (O CO t o IQ U} c*t o i ß CM ( (O" 10 10 CM

to m

O r t i - I C M T f l O C ^ C O ^ H t O r - t C ^

O O t ^ ^ ' t O ' f t O N t D O t D ^ O

ci ^

I ß ^ t t ^ C - t D t ß C ^ ^ C B M n w ^ ^ u) «

to' to' r i

l O O ® ^ ' C O C D O > t Q t O

• w • S f ï t !

0C6I

l

>»

• 4->

•

CHAPTER

SUMMARY

AND

VI

CONCLUSIONS

In our opening chapter we offered the present study as an attempt to f o r m u l a t e , for one of the most important social work activities, statistics appropriate to its task, accurate and uniform, and c a p a b l e of being related to c o m m u n i t y life. W e defined the specific objectives of the inquiry as g r o w i n g out of this general purpose, in the form of a series of questions, ( p a g e 2 4 ) , then dealt with the relation between economic conditions and the operations of the family agencies, the nature and inclusiveness of the Organizations studied, the merits of statistical units e m p l o y e d in measuring their w o r k , the possibility of obtaining a c c u r a t e and uniform statistics and of distributing them by small areas, and finally the applicability of the findings of the study b e y o n d the immediate field of f a m i l y social work or the particular territory covered by our agencies. A s might be expected, the answers to these questions are not uniformly definite, nor indeed w a s the study adapted to the clarification of all of them.

equally

M o r e o v e r , the

depression which ensued shortly a f t e r the inauguration of the study, distorted facts and significances to a degree t h a t renders the task of discounting its effects upon the

several

answers impossible. In the following pages, we attempt to summarize the results of the study in so far as they relate to these questions. A G E N C Y O P E R A T I O N S A N D F L U C T U A T I O N IN

LOCAL

ECONOMIC CONDITIONS

Responsiveness of the work of family agencies to

fluctua-

tions in economic conditions is evident, both in their volume

SUMMARY

AND

CONCLUSIONS

135

of service and, to a greater degree, in the demands made upon them. This may be shown separately for changes in aggregate case load, intake and applications, and in the nature of requests and their disposal. On the whole, the case load is a relatively insensitive index of the agency's response to fluctuations in local prosperity (page 74). It represents a cumulative and residual burden of service and seems to be affected by other factors, such as agency policy and immediate resources available, as much as directly by changes in economic conditions. It is in the total intake and in application to agencies that we find the reflection of economic movements. Total intake which, as we have seen, is indicative both of volume of service and of demand, shows a remarkably faithful correspondence to the direction and changes in the rate of employment (page 79). Applications to agencies give a curve which also moves in the direction of the trend of unemployment, but shows more violent increases and greater fluctuations (page 82) as unemployment grows. Judged by the nature of the requests of clients and by the disposal of these requests, the family agency appears to deal chiefly with clients showing economic distress. This emphasis increases with the progress of the depression until it becomes virtually exclusive at its height, showing at the peak a percentage of some 94 for requests for economic assistance, while never, within the period of the study, going below 70 per cent. The fluctuation in the percentage of requests for economic assistance reflects the movement of economic prosperity in agency statistics in much the same way as do intake and applications (page 59). NATURE AND INCLUSIVENESS OF THE FOUR AGENCIES

On one principle of classification, that of major technique and procedure, the family agencies are grouped with social

136

SUMMARY

AND

CONCLUSIONS

case-work organizations, as distinct, for example, from agencies devoted to group work or social propaganda. On the principle, more germane to our own purposes, which differentiates the rehabilitation types of social work from the remainder of the field, family agencies are classified as dealing with dependency and more particularly as belonging to the group dispensing outdoor relief (page 41). Within this general classification, a rough division into two classes has been recognized, namely case work or family agencies, and relief agencies, differing from each other in philosophical outlook and with respect to the importance attributed in their procedure to the case work process. There has been an assumption also, though not one definitely established, that some difference exists in the economic status of the clients of the two classes of agencies dispensing outdoor relief, with a higher average for family than for relief agencies. We have no reason to question the validity of the distinction between that group of outdoor-relief agencies which emphasises case work, to which the family agencies belong, and those organizations, usually called relief agencies, in which case work is relatively unimportant. The outdoor-relief group is unquestionably distinct from other fields of social work, and within that group the family agencies occupy a position of recognized status (pages 41-47). The representativeness of our agencies, and more particularly their inclusiveness of the field to an extent justifying the use of population ratios, must be judged with respect to the total outdoor relief as well as with respect to the more strictly circumscribed field of family social work. Four, out of a possible six family agencies operating within the territory studied, have been included. Among the agencies not so designated, and omitted from the study, the Salvation Army and the Veterans Relief of the Department of Public Welfare are the only comparably large outdoor-relief organizations.

SUMMARY

AND

CONCLUSIONS

137

The inclusiveness of the work of our agencies, with respect to the total amount of work performed in their territory, was estimated on four bases, and, so far as possible, in volume of service as well as by the less relevant factor of expenditures. These estimates may be summarized as follows (pages 65-69): ( 1 ) With respect to total outdoor relief, including family agencies and relief agencies, public and private, only the unsatisfactory comparison by expenditures is possible. B y this test, our agencies seem to represent 25 per cent of the total volume of work. (2) Excluding all public outdoor relief, the four agencies —judged still on the only available basis, namely expenditures—represent 75 per cent of the total. (3) Of the class of outdoor-relief agencies designated as conducting family social work, including public and private, and representing roughly 70 per cent of the total in terms of expenditures, the four agencies studied are responsible for (a) 55 per cent of the work if estimated in terms of case load, which we have considered an inappropriate basis of count; and (b) 80 per cent of the work if estimated in terms of intake, which we regard as the most satisfactory of available bases of estimate. (4) Of the private family agencies alone, excluding from this estimate only the Board of Child Welfare, the four agencies cover 96 per cent, in terms of expenditures, 82 per cent in terms of case load, and 90 per cent in terms of intake. RELATIVE M E R I T S OF STATISTICAL U N I T S USED

Four types of statistical units may be considered for measuring the work of family agencies: expenditures, case load, intake, applications. They may be judged with respect to the measurement of volume of service, or of incidence of demand. Our interest is primarily with the latter, as more

138

SUMMARY

AND

CONCLUSIONS

relevant to changes in economic conditions and, by inference, to community life and to its relation to the work of family agencies. ( 1 ) Expenditures are only a rough guide, subject to too many extraneous and irrelevant factors, such as agency standards, community traditions, basic agency and community resources, the proportion of continuing cases, especially "allowance" cases, and legislative provisions. They are, therefore, only an indifferent measure of volume, and even less a measure of demand (page 73). They do not, moreover, deal with the substance of the agencies' work, namely people, clients. They are but an indirect reflection of one of the forms of treatment given to clients—cash or its equivalent. The other units are all expressed in terms of number of clients. (2) Case loads do reflect one phase of the volume of service, the continuing burden of treatment. Allowing for qualitative and philosophical differences, which are statistically imponderable, case loads would under normal circumstances give a reasonable measure of the volume, total or cumulative, of service of an agency but not of fluctuations in response to changing conditions. Under conditions of stress changes in case load may be even more sluggish, for the increasing time consumed in selection of intake must affect the personnel resources available for the case load. The increase of case load during the depression is probably not commensurate with the volume of service rendered (page 74). At any rate case load is a very poor measure of demand, as judged by comparison with intake, applications or employment statistics. (3) Intake has been considered in two forms: total intake and under care intake. Both show a striking similarity in movement to the general trend of economic conditions, though the latter moves, of course, on a much lower level (page 79). Owing to uncertainties of interpretation, the total intake is

SUMMARY

AND

CONCLUSIONS

139

a more dependable figure than under care intake. Theoretically, total intake should be a measure of volume of service only, particularly volume as signifying rate of response to demand, rather than total volume or burden borne by the agency. It is necessarily affected by agency resources, though to a lesser degree than case load or under care intake, and should begin to lag behind the steep rises in unemployment. Actually, our figures give a curve of intake that is fairly faithful to the fluctuations of unemployment and may, so far as the deficiencies of unemployment data permit of judgment, be regarded as being for abnormal, as well as for normal, times a reasonably dependable index of demand (page 79). (4) Theoretically, applications are the truest measure of demand upon the agency. While subject to certain influences, especially to publicity and to the effects of important emergency measures, such as the opening or closing of emergency bureaus, the theoretical pertinence of applications to the measurement of demand is inescapable, although the figures we have are less significant than they would have been if initiated well before the onset of the depression. During the depression, applications have seemed less sensitive to changes in economic conditions than intake, and might, therefore, be thought to be a poorer measure of demand, despite their incontrovertible theoretical position (page 82). In mitigation of this dissonance between applications and unemployment, the following considerations are relevant. First, applications advance more violently than unemployment; this seems a reasonable consequence of the cumulative effect of increasing and continuing unemployment upon the resources of the unemployed and their families, relatives and friends (page 84). We may assume, as the earlier part of the curve would seem to indicate, that this would not be the case in relatively normal times. In the second place, the disturbing

140

SUMMARY

AND

CONCLUSIONS

effects of emergency measures and of publicity (page 82) would presumably not affect the theoretical correspondence between demand and applications, even though they distort the actual curves in the study. Our measure of demand should be provided by the course of applications, and these should parallel the fluctuations in economic conditions. In attempting to portray these fluctuations, we found available indexes to be unsatisfactory, and the one selected as most appropriate to be subject to serious limitations (page 85). Using this index (the New York City employment curve reversed) as a guide, applications showed differences from the index that could be tentatively accounted for, but not satisfactorily weighed (page 82). Whether, in relatively normal times, such differences would disappear, we may guess, but cannot foretell. Total intake, which should theoretically be a partial measure of volume of service, showed a remarkable similarity to the course of unemployment, and would seem to act more as an index of demand, if the curve of unemployment is a reasonable index of the basis and occasion of incidence of demand. To a certain degree, both intake and case load are measures of volume of service, representing the immediate response and the continuing responsibility respectively. Our data for volume of service are, therefore, faulty on several counts: first, we have case-load figures for seventeen months only, as against the total of forty-one months for intake, and a nonidentical total of twenty-four months for applications (page 121). With respect to case load, moreover, our agencies are only 55 percent inclusive of family social work (page 68), as compared with at least 85 per cent of intake. For adequate figures of volume of service the inclusion of the Board of Child Welfare, and possibly, in the future, of the Old Age Security Service, is indispensable. Our attempt to obtain data

SUMMARY

AND

CONCLUSIONS

14I

for the former were unsuccessful. The latter did not operate during the major part of the study, and its omission in the past is not so serious as it might be in the future. Thus far we have considered case load, intake and applications, as possible measures of demand. T o the crucial question as to whether we can get separate data for demand and for volume of service, our study can give only an inconclusive answer. This is due, we think, chiefly if not entirely to the distortion of conditions brought about by the catastrophic nature of the depression which set in in 1929. We offer with considerable hesitancy whatever suggestive guidance is contained in our findings. They must be accepted only with important reservations. FEASIBILITY OF ACCURATE AND UNIFORM STATISTICS

Granting the relative merits of the statistical data as set forth, can they be obtained with a reasonable degree of accuracy, uniformity and completeness? No figures were available at the inception of the study that could be combined, either on a monthly or on an annual basis, for identical territories and for the same periods of time. It was the first task of the experiment to make such figures available, and it was achieved by means of the system described in the report. Cumbersome as the procedure was, it did produce the desired data accurately and with reasonable promptness. The advantages of having such data were recognized in the course of the study, by the agencies and by the Welfare Council, and the latter had arranged to take over the system of collection organized for the study. When budgetary difficulties threatened the discontinuance of the arrangement, the agencies voluntarily assumed the task of supplying and organizing the data in the manner adopted for the experiment, leaving to the Welfare

142

SUMMARY

AND

CONCLUSIONS

Council the task of combining the figures and returning the consolidated data to the agencies. Monthly combined figures of the family agencies operating in Manhattan and the Bronx have thus become routinely available, and are being reported by health areas in accordance with the plan worked out in the course of the study. These figures are given for applications, total intake, and under care intake. DISTRIBUTION BY SMALL AREAS

One of the objectives of the study, that of obtaining and distributing the essential statistics by small health areas and converting them into population ratios, has been found feasible even if laborious. Our data were reported by health areas averaging 25,000 population, numbering 80 areas for Manhattan and 47 for the Bronx (pages 37, 38). The statistics were converted whenever desirable into population rates, for the entire territory, for health areas, and for combined health areas tentatively defined as suggestive for further sociological study. The health areas do not, of course, represent final areas of sociological significance, nor do family service rates for these areas provide a basis for the final classification of the areas. Health area statistics are an instrument for statistical analysis. They are raw material for sociological study, and for the definition of "natural areas" if such exist, provided additional social statistics not attempted in the present study, are collected and collated on the same statistical plan. This study is a first step in that direction, possessing eventual usefulness to a degree determined by the number and intensity of "next steps" and of their integration with one another, and with similar material beginning to emerge in print. Its particular importance may lie in the fact that it contributes peculiarly

SUMMARY

AND

CONCLUSIONS

143

"social work material" in a form in which it may be utilized in combination with material that may be available in the other social sciences. GENERAL APPLICABILITY OF THE RESULTS

It may perhaps be thought outside our proper sphere to define the extent to which the results of the study are applicable, beyond the stated "limits" of the inquiry itself. Time and the reader should tell. Definite opinons of such contradictory nature have, however, been expressed on this question by various readers of the manuscript that we may be permitted a brief statement of our own conclusions. The chief limitations that have been thought of as affecting the general applicability of the results are: ( 1 ) that the study was based on family agencies alone; (2) that it was restricted to New York City, an atypical community; (3) that it was conducted chiefly during the recent severe economic depression, which distorted most if not all of the factors involved. Several aspects of the study may be recognized, it seemed to us, as not subject to these limitations and as presumably having more general applicability for that reason. One of these is the plan of obtaining and reporting statistics by small areas, and experimenting with larger combinations of these areas; another is the general use of population rates; still another is the intention of relating social work statistics to community life. These phases of the study point, quite independently of the specific limitations, to the desirability of further studies of local community and neighborhood life, to the reporting of more and more social work statistics and of other social statistics by small areas, and to the integration of social work with sociological data. To what extent do the limitations mentioned affect the more specific findings or suggestions growing out of the study?

144

S U M M A R Y AND

CONCLUSIONS

Differentiation between demand and volume of service would seem to be a concept applicable to all social work, of the rehabilitation type at least, and certainly to all social agencies dealing with clients presenting economic needs. Its direct relevancy to outdoor relief can hardly be questioned. T h e observations pertaining to differences between case load, intake and application as measures of demand and volume, would also seem to apply to all agencies in which these units are or may be used. The principal difficulty with the restriction of the study seems to us to lie, not in the narrow validity of these ideas, or the practicability of these statistical measurements, but rather in the fact that family agency statistics are a part only, and a variable part as between communities, of the demand for economic relief and of service intended to meet it. Even though a very substantial part of combined family and relief agency, it omits economic needs as seen, for example, through children's agencies, and free medical care. The answer to this question is, therefore, that family agencies will show a substantial—and some incomplete inquiries would indicate a major—part of the community demand for material relief and a smaller amount of the service given to meet it. The total of demand and service await the extension of the use of such statistics, and the introduction or perfection of the type of machinery used in the present study for the elimination of duplications. When this has been done, perhaps through social service exchanges, we shall probably have the necessary material for a dependency index. The second major limitation is said to be the atypicality of New York City. So far as we can tell, this atypicality becomes important chiefly from the point of view of quantity. All large cities of this country have a number and variety of family agencies, sometimes public and private, sometimes denominationally or otherwise separate, and sometimes

S U M M A R Y AND C O N C L U S I O N S

145

divided along lines purely traditional or historical. Every city would require some machinery for eliminating duplications. Few, if any, cities are so organized that all requests for material relief funnel into a single agency. The delicate task of disentangling the aspects of economic dependency from cases in children's, medical or psychiatric service, so as to obtain a total amenable to translation into a dependency index or to comparison with the course of economic or social life, would seem hardly less complex outside New York City than in it. The substantive facts of the study are, of course, for two boroughs of New York City; but that is no more than an accident of time and place. The limitations imposed by the depression permit of no gainsaying or minimizing. We have endeavored to keep them constantly before the reader. Only one further remark seems justified in that connection, namely, that it constitutes the strongest argument for continuing and expanding the type of statistics we advocate, so that we may have such facts after the depression, as well as for part of its duration.

APPENDIX A MACHINERY SET UP FOR THE

DATA

COLLECTING

APPENDIX

MACHINERY

A

SET UP FOR

COLLECTING

THE DATA One of the purposes of this study was to experiment with the possibility of reporting social work statistics by small sections, rather than for the city as a whole. T o this end, none of the reports compiled by the agencies were suitable. No plan of utilizing tabulated figures of the agencies met the conditions of the study for combined data for common geographical areas. The only method that promised to be practicable was to obtain the data case by case, and combine them for the areas eventually agreed upon, as part of the research procedure. A card was made out in the agencies for each major care case open on June i , 1928. (See card Number 1.) The name and current address of the family was entered on

DO NOT USE T H I S SPACE

1.

A s s o c i a t i o n f o r I m p r o v i n g t h e Condition of t h e P o o r 4. LAST NAME

5.

MAJOR CARE

(CHECK)

ADDRESS:

FIRST NAME

MINOR CARE

-

(CHECK)

• DO NOT USE SPACE BELOW 6.

MONTH

OPENED

7

THIS LINE

MONTH

CLOSED

NEW YORK SCHOOL OF SOCIAL WORK. RESEARCH

CARD N O . I

DEPT.—LA

APPENDIX

A

each, and then allocated to the appropriate health area by street and house number. This was done with the aid of a guide constructed for the purpose, and based in part on the original house-number guide by sanitary districts prepared by the City Census Committee. When our study was extended to the Bronx, a similar house-number guide had to be prepared for that borough. In its preparation we consulted the City Health Department, and also received considerable aid from the Association for Improving the Condition of the Poor. Before the completion of this study, the Welfare Council assumed the responsibility for the publication of a final corrected guide for both boroughs, and the preparation of similar guides for the remainder of the city. We were able to use these more accurate guides during the latter part of the study. After the tables by health areas had been compiled for each agency separately, the cards of all four agencies were filed together by street and house number within each health area, thus locating and eliminating duplication between agencies before the combined table was made. These cards formed the beginning of a complete file of major care cases which was kept current throughout the first part of the study. At the end of June, and of each month thereafter, the cooperating agencies sent additional cards for each major care case opened or reopened during that month, together with a list of the cases which had been closed. The new cards and the cases reported on the closed list were allocated to their health areas ("districted") in the same way as the original cards. By adding the cards for the new cases and removing cards for those reported as closed, the new figure for case load at the beginning of the next month for each health area was constructed. The new cards were counted separately for intake. Provision was made for keeping record of the move-

APPENDIX

A

ment of the families under care through the change of address slips sent by each agency to the Social Service Exchange. Because of the nature of minor care cases, as defined by the agencies, they were counted only as intake and not included in the case load figures. T h e latter covered only major care cases. At first, and to some extent for the duration of the earlier part of the study, difficulties were experienced in avoiding a double count of minor care cases carried over from one month to the next. These were not eliminated entirely until the second stage of the study, which was based on the reporting of all applications. In the tables used for the present report, however, the duplications of minor care cases were practically eliminated by a final check. Since we were interested in the intake figure as a measure of demand, only those minor care cases classified as "interviewed" were included. Cases which were the result of inquiries from other agencies, whether out-of-town or local, and those which were initiated as part of an agency campaign, were omitted. At the outset of the study, the figures reported by the Association for Improving the Condition of the Poor included its health-center work which was not, properly, family case work. All these cases have been eliminated from the tables used in this report. Beginning with October, 1929, the agency itself made the same distinction in its own reports, so that figures from that time on are for family social work cases exclusively. Beginning with November, 1929, the emphasis of the study was changed. T h e count of case load was discontinued and applications and their disposal reported instead. This method of handling the study continued to furnish figures on intake as at first, but in place of case load on the first of each month, a new set of figures was provided, namely: number of applications and method of their disposal. The data collected are shown on the card reproduced below. In the new arrange-

152

APPENDIX

A

ment, again case-by-case reports were made, on individual cards. (See card Number 2.) Final disposal of an application was not always determined by the close of the month during which it was made. It was the practice of one agency to class such applications as pending, and report later on their final disposal. T h e other agen-

1.

Jewish Social Service Association,

2. Date

Do not use these •pacea

district 3 . Need of Applicant (check appropriate item)

4. N a m e

I^aat name

First name

5. N u m b e r Relief

Job

Medical Aid Behavior or domestic adjustment

..

6. A d d r e s s 7. Source of Application

8. Disposal

Agency

Case under care

Individual not connected with agency

Incidental service case

Personal

N o case made

(check appropriHte item)

(check appropriate Item)

Other

CARD

n o .

2

cies ordinarily included these applications in their incidental service group, transferring them later to the under care group,, if necessary. These changes and delayed classifications were reported to us in the month when the decision was made, and, while they obviously did not affect the number of applications for the month, they did have to be considered in making up the total intake and the under-care intake. Each month's under-care intake was made up of current applications taken under care, applications of earlier months on which the decision to take them under care had just been reported, and cases transferred from incidental service. Total intake for

COLLECTING

THE

DATA

15I

the month included both those of the month's applications which were taken under care or given incidental service, and those earlier applications which were assigned to either group during the month. T h e system of cumulative tabulation was so designed as to eliminate possible duplications which might have arisen from changes in designation of incidental service cases of one month to those under care in another. T r a n s f e r s between health areas in the earlier part of the study did not affect the intake for the borough, since they had already been counted in the intake of some health area in an earlier month. T h e method of individual case reporting was adopted originally to obtain information by local areas. It served the added purpose of making possible the elimination of duplication between agencies, and this use of the cards was of increased importance when the study was changed to cover applications. Definite rules of procedure had to be adopted for handling duplicate applications, since differences in checking the items on the cards for the same applicant, but coming from different agencies, were to be expected. On the new card made out to replace the duplicate originals, all requests checked by either agency were included. W h e n a difference presented itself in the checking of the other two questions, namely source and disposal, only one could stand, and an attempt was made to keep as close as possible to the probable facts. In disposal, what might be termed intensity of service took precedence. If either agency took the application under care, the card was so checked; if either gave it incidental service and the other did not take it under care, it was classed as incidental service; and if neither agency did anything, it was counted in the no-case-made group. When there was a difference in checking the source of application, the preference was in the following order: personal, individual not connected with agency, and agency.

«Uh JÜ o ^

s

a

s

s

m

¡ s ^ a a s i W -

g


s o ç o fe H ffj< « H H O w n S c d

C OCT)C V 3 ^CT)CT)C O fi C O^ — i C IV J r H H i r H r H

O)r H c oC J ) ^L OC Oc oC O 010 ^ C ^C c o« D r H r H r H r H H i r H r H

H

s

r H

< -# C \ 1

r H r H r HC Or H C O

r H

0 3r H O C JO O H r J r H O J H i O J C ^0 3r HC O ^ c C O 0 30 C O \ jL Oc oO C D C OC D

r-i

g

C O O J r H C V J C O O J ^ H iC O r HC O

H C D r 0 5

I OC O

C OL OC Ot >C V J ^C C V J r HH V J 0 3 1 0 03^^03^ C O ^ O l< H

C V J r H 0 J 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 « H r H r fr H r H r H 0 3 C V J

C V C JV C JO

H iC V J

^CT) t» OC L O OC 0 D >C C O DL 0 O 3 ^ O C V 3 0 3 C Ot >C C OC Of HC Oo C OC CT) I O io c o r H H rC V l

r HC V JC O «t io c oC -C OO )O

g =

C V J

=

155

0 3 < H r H O I C V J c O r H

3 D C * ^0 C -C C ^

L OC OC OCT)^

fi C V 3Ç O^L OC D£ fi > •0 O 3 D C O 0) O L OC OC -0 0 O) Q 0 3C V J0 3C V J0 3C V 30 C 3 O C V J C O 0 3C O C Oc oc o to c o to to

CJ1C003

0303

COCOrH

r H C - r H CO 0 2

CO CO rH CO O OD 0 3 IO rH 0 3

1 o

COC-rHCOtOCOrH-^OO D-O-COC^-'tO'tlOWÇQ l0lOrHl003«t 0 3 r H LOCO iH-^l00303rH05

o> 0 3 t 0 0 1 * i , r - C D rH rHCOLOC-OOOl rH

C O - H 1 0 0 3 0 C - - C - 0 1 C - 0 3 **C0 CO rH 0 3 rH rH iH

«^COfH CDO rH

^ L O l D ^ O l O

X>

o

^ ^ O l

CV3 C^- 0 3 LO LO CO CO CO t o o CO 0 0 O CO CD CO c o i o CVJ l O LO D-LO CO O O l 0 0 O l CO I O 03rHCV3rH rHOJrH iHrH r H r H 0 3 r H 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 rH CO rH CV3 rH ^ t

°

0 3 c o LO O rH r H i H CO i H I H

o

s

1

o

0 3 « t O CO ^ c o IO CO O l OI t > C - OÌ CVJ rH CD 0 3 CD C - rH CO CO CD 0 3 IO r H ' T i — 1 0 3 0302 03rH02 0 3 0 3 CO CO C\3 CO CO

Ò5> bö? rH 0 3 CO O l 0 3 CO OI O) CO O O C^ 0 0 rH ^ rH rH rH O i—l»H O ) 0 3 Ol CD Ol«—IcOLO 0 3 O LO C - OI 0 3 c o IH i o 0 1 rHrH rH rH rH

* * CO O) O l O r H C O «H O) C D r H CD ^ rH rHCV3 rH C V 3 0 3 0 3 rH

0» C D ^ ^ C D L D O r H C - ' ^ f O » t rH CO CO O rH 0 3 0 3 O t > ^ i o o CD CD c o ^ CO CO Ol 0 3 0 3 rH rHrH rHrH rH

CO CO CD 0 0 CO 0 3 iH

rH r H C » O 3 l O C 0 t 0

CDCV3

o

2

O

C

s

ll

o

5

o

oc

rHrH

CO

CV3

03 I S CO CO CO CO i o rH J> CO • s ^ i O ' H ' t

0>r-0)03Ck-

rH o 03 "tf rH rH

rHCOCOiHrHrH

0 3 * 1 * 1 0 CO

rHtOrHOÏ

«^03

COIOC003

t o «H 03 03

rH

rH

rHrH

>H ^ 0 3 CO CV3 CO CV3 I O CO CO rH I O rH 0 3 rH rH rH 0 3 CV3 0 3

rH

iH«trH03

03rHrH

rH

03-H

rHrH

1 s

1 o

o

1

1

CDiOOÌ

0303

rH ^ CO 0 1 0 3 LO O l CD O CO 0 3 CO CO CV3 LO t> CO c o i o CO O l 0 3 CD i o c o 0 3 ^ 0 3 rHrH iHrHrH rH 03

CO CO rH

i—1 i Q i — I C 0 0 3

rH^fHCOOlO 03t0 «H03C-

co r H 0 0 C * - O > ^ l O rH •H l O LO CO CO 0 1 rH

^C-Ol IO O l

rH {>-CO O CD • « t o c o o o i n «o c o c o t > CO 0 3 £> CO LOCO r H ^ r * rHrH rHrH lO^>HLOC\3CO rH

rH c o c o o> CO ^ CO IO o COCO 03iHrH rH rH

rH»H O ) «tf C - t o CO rH CO ÇV3 CO rH CD rH O ) O O ) LO rH r H r H 0 3 r H 0 3 r H WCV3CDCO MOOrHCtfOt^COt*-tO COlO03tOC0"tfrHC>tO0} CO CO 03 >H CO 0 3 ^ 0 3 rHrHrH rH rH 03 tO tO rH lO CO ScOtOCO-tf 0 ) ^ O 3 ^ r H rH rHrH rH rH

t>

CO CO CO CO CO ^ - H CD CO CO rH COCMOCO lOt>-lOlOCOtO rH tO CO CO 1000103 If? CO OirHCOtOC-CO^OlOCO rH C0O3^rH rHrH rHiH03COlOCv3lO ^T lO 0> 03 tO IS lO 03 O lO C^- S 03 CO rH CO tO CO ** O rHWt^ rH rH rH

CQ

rHiH

^

CVjrHfHiH

C- tOrHCOCD

03iHC\3t0rH rH rHrHrHr*rHrHC3lS

rHCOrH 0303rHiH03

03 03 rH 00 CM ^ tO rH

rfCOrH

rH rHiH

rHiH*j"C0"H

to 8 O

I

COrHCO-tfrHrH

1,377

CO

2,468

|

J

COrHCO WtOCOOSCO^CO »t^J-LO

3,836

1 ""

CCt

C\J •

CO IS rH Oi CO lO CO •«i to lOri* 03 C- CO CJ5 IS rH to IS rH CO iH03lOrHD3*i,COCDCO'> CD

COrH

N

CMCMtOOJOJrH^fWCNJCJ COiHCvJOJ'tCOr-i

H M N C D H H O I O H ^ COOJCOLOCO.HCO'^lOCD ¡H .H rHrHrHrHtOrH H H NHNHN rH

1 1"

W •4

r-i

ssaasiûssssïâ

«

1 i

OJlOWCOrHOiOJrHC"-

Total

I

^"^SSTÜSS sssssssssa

SSSSSSgggS

sgggœsffig SSSSäSSSgggä

SgümSWS S8S55SSKSSS SgSSigSÊëSg PPPSiSiet^SSS •PO

150

cateto©

itiì

OJ u>f* «HFÎfvj

»

HP) cvj(0«-t(0 K)CM«-t(Ml/)

l'ïi

Sô

NH

OJ

rOiHcvj

rH

ÎO-H

â u m o g

3

9

S S3 Sa

S o

r* OJtO CO Ci CJ«HU3 Iß

g t HH iM'-t'H to OOJ

.

b « -c

gm Hs sa m as fc « » £ s

s « s w « E «

rH^tHCJ intCl^ r;tOKlOO> CM