Library Collections: Document: Full Text

To give or not to give out-door relief is the first and greatest problem in municipal charity. Shall the city undertake to provide provisions, fuel, clothing, rent, and other necessaries to needy families in their own homes, in addition to maintaining hospitals, almshouses, and other institutions; or shall it limit its activities to the latter function, leaving the assistance of the poor in their homes to organized charities, churches, and benevolent individuals? The problem is not a new one; in fact, it has been discussed at greater length than probably any other phase of municipal charity. Extended experience has been had by large cities on both sides of the question. The fact that several of the largest cities in the country have given no out-door relief for a quarter of a century, and that it is the impression and belief that the poor in those cities are as well cared for as in the cities giving out-door relief, may be said to have shown beyond question the practicability of abolishing public out-door relief in large cities. Those who favor the continuation of public out-door relief in the few large cities in which it still persists -- Chicago, Boston, and Buffalo -- would doubtless claim that in New York the absence of out-door relief, while probably a good in itself, has led to other evils, notably the sending of large numbers of children to institutions. The fact that the absence of out-door relief in other large cities -- Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington, and others -- has not led to this result indicates that other factors must be regarded as primarily responsible for the large proportion of destitute children in New York City. The question of public out-door relief in large cities in this country was ably presented to the National Conference of Charities in 1900 by Mr. Frederick Almy, secretary of the Charity Organization Society of Buffalo. The experience of American cities during the three and a half years since the date of Mr. Almy's paper tends to strengthen the position of those who favor the abolition of public out-door relief in large cities. During this period no city which had discontinued public out-door relief has re-established it. Societies, churches, and individuals seem to have proved their ability to meet the situation in different cities and under varying conditions, not perfectly, but certainly as well as it is met by public action. Each year which passes without the resumption of public out-door relief in any large American city strengthens the argument for its abolition in the small number of large cities in which it still exists.

It is interesting to note that although the past three years have shown a very marked swing of the pendulum towards a more general recognition of the important part which material relief must play in the help of needy families in their homes, this fact has not in any locality, so far as we know, led to even a discussion of the question of the resumption of general public out-door relief. It has led charitable societies to strengthen their relief departments, seek new sources of income for relief purposes, give larger amounts, and yet it has not in any case led to an agitation for the return" of what was once the well-nigh universal custom of public out-door relief in all our cities, large and small, as well as in rural districts.

The few years that have elapsed since Mr. Almy's paper was written have, moreover, served to accentuate the very great advantage of this division of the field as between public and private charity. The responsibility for the adequate relief of needy families has been more keenly felt, and this has strengthened the societies and agencies established for such work. Municipalities have fewer but more definite responsibilities, and have improved the management and material condition of their hospitals and almshouses.

The trend of the past decade in regard to public out-door relief in American cities is all the more interesting by reason of the recent ominous increase in dependency in London. The London Spectator, of January 2, 1904, devotes a leading editorial, under the caption of "The Rising Tide of Pauperism," to the extremely serious recent increase in the number of both out-door and in-door paupers in the Metropolitan district, the figures on Christmas day, 1903, being higher than for any corresponding date since 1871.

II.

We may place as second in the present problems of municipal charity, because of its important bearing upon all phases of the situation, the question of dealing with able-bodied persons, casual lodgers, tramps, vagrants, etc.

In former years we heard much about "able-bodied paupers." We hear the term but seldom nowadays, because most of the class who formerly were able-bodied paupers are now able-bodied prisoners. Able-bodied pauperism is a misnomer. So long as able-bodied persons were admitted to almshouses upon application and upon their own declaration of destitution, or even, as in some cases, committed by magistrates to almshouses for definite terms, the almshouse necessarily took on more or less of a correctional character. It is not too much to say that at the present time in cities whose municipal charity is generally considered as well administered, no able-bodied persons are admitted to almshouses or to any other charitable institution for extended care. Whatever else should or should not be done for able-bodied persons who declare themselves destitute and unable to find work, there is general belief that they should in the first instance be admitted to a lodging-house for temporary shelter. Under the plan which prevails in New York City and which seems to stand the test of experience, all able-bodied persons applying for assistance, whether temporary or permanent, are sent to the Municipal Lodging-House. The most evident features of this institution are enforced bathing and cleanliness, fumigation of clothing, and in general sanitary conditions and regulations. Still more important, however, from a social point of view, are the careful questioning of each lodger as to his recent employer, previous residence, length of time in city, etc., and the paid force of investigators who, on the following day, visit these references for the purpose of ascertaining the facts so far as possible as to the character, habits, and circumstances of the lodger. A large number of the lodgers come only once or twice. Those who come three times or more and who by investigation have been found to be tramps or vagrants, or who have given false references, or have been disorderly in the lodging-house, or seem to be "suspicious characters," are taken before magistrates for commitment as vagrants, and if the magistrate is convinced that such course is proper are sent to the workhouse, a correctional institution. The officials of the lodging-house must make out a case to the satisfaction of the magistrate.