Library Collections: Document: Full Text

Aid from Relief Agencies

For more than a quarter of a century the blind people of Massachusetts have urged the General Court from time to time to grant a "pension" to the needy blind residents of the Commonwealth. This claim is based upon the conviction that there is a large amount of poverty which may be traced directly to the handicap of blindness. Since this poverty resulting directly from blindness is due to no fault of the individual himself, the blind people, feel that it should be relieved in some direct way which will carry with it no social stigma. Furthermore, it should be associated with none of the indignity which so frequently accompanies a searching social investigation. Not being social workers, and not being trained in the modern principles of organized philanthropy, an easily obtained flat rate "pension" to all needy blind persons seems to them the simplest and most effective solution of the situation. It is admitted by the advocates of the "pension" that it may result in a certain amount of fraud. But the sums of money received by fraudulent means, it is contended, will not be likely to exceed the cost of a thoroughgoing system of investigation. It is further contended that the unsophisticated needy blind persons are no more likely to make incorrect statements of their condition than are the "high-salaried" investigators who feel that it is incumbent upon them to make findings which will justify their employment.

The granting of relief by moderns organizations is an effort to relieve poverty not on the basis of pity, but on the basis of justice. If this be true, it is a reflection on the efficiency of this machinery that there should be connected with the reception of such relief a stigma which tends to degrade the individual who is so placed that he must continue to receive the alms and bear the disgrace. Perhaps nowhere in the country is the reluctance to become a "pauper" stronger than in New England. This, of course, has its beneficial effects in restraining persons who might otherwise endeavor to impose upon charitable agencies, but there can be no question that it works a hardship upon certain persons, some of whom are without sight, who are compelled to sell their respect in this connection in order to obtain the necessities of life. It is the half-conscious conviction of the public of the injustice of this situation which made the authors of the Mothers' Aid Law declare the recipients not to be "paupers," while at the same time prohibiting such mothers from obtaining settlement in any town while receiving this public aid. This is why we have "pensions for the blind" instead of "blind relief." It is an effort to attach to the reception of blind relief that sense of just due which has grown up in the public mind around the soldier's pension. This, however, is a subterfuge which carries with it dangers of a fundamental nature. It is an effort to relieve certain classes from the effect of a certain error in the administration of charity without attacking the error.

Whether or not Massachusetts is in need of a special blind relief law is a question upon which I, in my short visit, was not able entirely to satisfy myself. I feel certain that unless those most competent to solve these problems work out some general plan for the relief of the needy blind in a way carrying with it no stigma, the lay friends of the blind are going to take matters into their own hands. Special "blind pensions" and "blind relief laws" seem to be the order of the day throughout the country. They have been hastily drawn by persons who have made no thoroughgoing investigation into the operation of similar laws in other States. Blindness makes its own strong appeal, and, if I mistake not, the people of Massachusetts, in the long run, are not unlike those in our States farther West.

An effort is being made by the Massachusetts Commission to let the real facts regarding the granting of relief to blind persons by the various towns of the State. The information available at the time of my visit, indicated that in a few districts overseers of the poor had taken into acccount the special needs of the blind in fixing the amount of relief granted, but in most cases the sums allowed to the blind applicants are the conventional amount doled out to paupers of the community.

It cannot be denied that the handicap of blindness forces the most efficient sightless person down far nearer the poverty border line than he would otherwise be. Consider, for example, the case of a man with a modicum of vision, which enables him to take his place in the community in some inferior position. He may have intelligence and energy slightly superior to his associates, and by the exercise of ingenuity and unflagging industry is able to earn a wage amounting to possibly two-thirds of what the average man with sight would be able to command. The limitation in his wage means self-denial amounting in many cases to inadequate food, clothing, and medical attention. He cannot select occupations which will be healthful, and must many times work under unsanitary conditions. He cannot save against the "rainy days" which are bound to come to him sooner than to other men. The first sign of breaking throws him upon the public. Such a man should not be forced into an almshouse, nor should he be compelled to submit to the disgrace usually associated with town relief.