Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

CHARITIES

The Official Organ of the Charity Organization Society of the City of New York.

VOL. V.

CONTENTS.

Principles of Co-operation..

MARY L. BIRTWELL.

A Radical Proposition.....

JULY 14, 1900.

I

4

[blocks in formation]

A clergyman once said that the story of the Good Samaritan illustrated the ancient method of charity; the modern method would have been to clear the road to Jericho of thieves. It is, indeed, no less a task than this that we have set for ourselves,-" working toward our own extinction," but not our day will the need cease for the work of the Good Samaritan.

It is of the utmost importance, however, that every worker should understand, at the outset, the relation of curative to preventive measures, the relation of relief to the work of charity organization as a whole, and to the whole field of charitable endeavor. Relief work is of great importance, but in the words of Prof. Warner, we must not

No. 7.

become "so busy with immediate needs as to have no time to prevent their recurrence."

It is to reduce the danger of this to a minimum that many of our charity organization societies adhere so strongly to the policy of holding no funds for relief. It is merely a matter of emphasis, and we must be sure to put the emphasis in the right place.

But not only should the professional charity worker understand wise principles of relief; all givers and workers in a community,-individuals, churches, relief societies, public officials,-should hold sound principles in common and act in accordance with common convictions. Otherwise we shall work at cross-purposes, and defeat the very ends at which all are aiming.

Now it is the need, or the supposed need, of relief, that generally brings a family to our attention in the first instance; and it is the planning of relief and friendly assistance for individual families that opens the way to practical co-operation, bringing us into contact with fellowworkers, promoting mutual understanding, offering an opportunity to illustrate the utility of our methods, and to explain our broader aims.

Let us consider some of the prin

ciples by which all all should be governed. If careful and thorough initial inquiries have first been made, and every effort to avoid the necessity of relief, by wiser use of existing resources, or by the development of new resources within the family, have proved unavailing, what principles should govern the administration of relief?

First. Relief should be part of a plan for permanent improvement.

If it does not look beyond the relief of present distress, it is not worthy the name of charity; it is merely almsgiving. Our plan must be elastic; we must be quick to see the need of readjustment to new developments. It must be a plan

of concerted action. There is always room for a difference of opinion as to the most important principle involved in any serious situation. The successful worker must have the imagination to see and understand points of view with which he does not wholly sympathize. He must have the courage of his convictions when important principles are involved, but he must himself be open to conviction as well. He must have patience and tact and good judgment. He must have the insight into human nature that will enable him to draw from each coworker the best service of which he is capable, as well as to understand the poor themselves, whose co-operation is the most essential of all. Especially must the head of the family be included in our scheme of co-operation. We have learned by sad experience that plans that leave

him out merely perpetuate the miserable conditions from which we would save a family.

Second. Relief should be adapted to the highest need of the recipient.

The form of aid given should be determined by its influence upon the habits and character of the recipient. The reason we do not aid a lazy man is not primarily because he doesn't deserve it, but because such aid would probably only make him lazier. We should treat people according to their needs rather than their deserts. Our decision should be based not on "worthiness" or "unworthiness," but on the course of action best calculated to lead to improvement.

If we would do creative, constructive work, we work, we must not be bound by preconceived ideas and meaningless rules and traditions, but consider every problem with a mind unprejudiced by precedent, asking what course of action is best, and then bringing all our courage and energy and enthusiasm to bear to make that course possible.

Third. Relief should come from one source, if possible, or through one channel.

Natural resources, relatives, friends, neighbors, employers, should be drawn upon to the utmost. We can do little more valuable work in the community than enforce upon relatives their natural obligations. There can be little doubt that if all charitable agencies acted in harmony in this direction, refusing all aid whenever relatives legally respons ible are able to support, an appreci

able decrease in pauperism would soon result. There would be less neglect of old age, and the effect upon the growing generation would have great educational value.

The cheerfulness with which employers look upon themselves as a legitimate source of relief shows an appreciation of faithful service and a growing spirit of sympathy in the business world not without signifi

cance.

The church may be regarded, perhaps, as another "natural" source of relief, but such relief has peculiar dangers. "The chief function of the church," Dr. Pullman says, "is not charity, but the awakening and strengthening of a spiritual life." The giving of relief should not be allowed to crowd out this higher function by putting intercourse between pastor, or other church representative, and parishioner on a relief basis.

Opinions may differ as to whether private aid from a stranger is preferable to that from a relief society; but all would agree that relief should be given as privately as possible, and in such a way as to lessen the temptation to rely upon it for the ordinary contingencies of life.

It may be that public outdoor relief will be abolished everywhere at some distant day, as has already happened in some of our large cities; but since for many years to come public relieving officers will have large sums of money at their disposal, the lax administration of which will create more poverty than it will relieve, and more than most

philanthropic agencies can remove, co-operation with such officers is of vital importance.

The ideal plan would seem to be that the state should care for the permanently incompetent and the incorrigible, who should be under entire control, and that private charity should care for the remainder in their own homes. In order to bring about this classification, private charitable agencies must demonstrate their ability to care wisely for the latter.

[ocr errors]

Fourth. Relief should be adequate.

The most strenuous effort on the part of every member of the family should be expected however. Especially should aid to widows with children be adequate. We can not expect satisfactory physical or moral results when frail women attempt to be both bread-winners and homemakers. It may be that the method, common in England, of relieving a mother of the entire care of some of the children when the number is too large, is best; though it seems to me the commonly accepted principle that poverty alone, except in extreme cases, does not justify the separation. of mother and children, is the only one consistent with our constant effort to strengthen and preserve the ties of blood. The recent work of the New York Charity Organization Society shows what can be done to preserve family life when energy and determination are brought to bear on the problem. It is always to be remembered that every question of relief is a social as well as individual problem. The effect of

charitable aid can not be confined to those who receive it. We must bear in mind not only that the family is the unit of society, but that families are set in communities.

Relief work on these principles involves co-operation at every step. Every inquiry made, every letter written, every consultation held, may aid in the diffusion of knowledge in regard to the real meaning of our work. We should always make it clear that the object of an inquiry is not to learn all the evil we can but how we can help. To any citizen asking an investigation we should report not a list of the short-comings of a family but a sympathetic statement of the whole situation, the kind of task laid upon us, the principles involved in such action as may be taken, the resources that are available and those that may be lacking to meet the situation. How else can he learn the difficulties with which we have to cope, and the service we are rendering to the community? Co-operation does not mean doing other people's work for them. church, no private individual has less to do because of our existence.

No

The office of the charity organization society is not a place for anybody to unload his charitable bur dens. On the contrary it is our aim to stimulate members of the community to greater activity, and to induce them to join hands with us, that all may work more effectively.

The more our friendly visitors come into close personal touch with the problems of individual poor families, the more they and other

workers meet for the discussion of these problems, the more widespread becomes the knowledge of actual social conditions that must precede wise measures for their improvement.

We may thus strengthen many a good cause and gain strength ourselves. Through this many-sided co-operation co-operation we obtain a general knowledge of the charitable work of a city that is invaluable. We see the growth of evils little suspected, perhaps, by the individual citizen, and measures to check their growth may be devised that would otherwise never have been thought of.

New social conditions may require new charitable methods, but whatever developments the future may bring, knowledge will always be necessary for intelligent action, co-operation will always be necessary to harmonize social forces, and make progress possible; and a thousand years hence it will be as true as it is to-day, that sympathy and friendship are of more value than material gifts. The ground seems firm under our feet, therefore, and our faces are set in the right direction. Let us continue to seek the newest light, from whatever source, eagerly joining hands with any and every force in the community that makes for peace and righteousness.

A RADICAL PROPOSITION.

G. P. Putnam's Sons are the publishers of a book by Dr. W. D. McKim on "Heredity and Human Progress" which is an expression of the extreme of pessimism with reference to the the value of religion,

philanthropy, and law against the weakness and depravity of the race. The author reviews the treatment that has thus far obtained of the defectives and criminals, adducing an array of evidence for his contention that thus far the efforts of religion, philanthropy, and law for the reduction of crime and pauperism have been entirely futile.

no

That the problem is a most serious one, and that the energy expended, especially in charitable charitable and reformatory endeavor, has seemed to be disproportionate to the results in people made selfrespecting and moral, and helped to economic efficiency, we have wish to deny; but that it has been absolutely futile there is every reason for denying. The evidence which Dr. McKim cites for his theory is painfully one-sided, and it is evident that he has not considered at all other evidence that he might have found in, for example, the reports of charity organization societies, associations for the improving of the condition of the poor, and other charitable societies and institutions. Furthermore, the fact that the measure of success of charitable effort does not seem proportionate to the energy expended does not necessarily impeach the wisdom of such effort, but may rather indicate that the method of that effort is imperfect. It would

be

strange indeed if what has come to be termed scientific philanthropy, or charity, with its few years of existence and with its limited opportunity of giving scientific training to charity workers should have become perfect.

And this contention is equally true with respect to treatment of the criminal class. Scientific penology has even more to contend against than has scientific charity, by virtue. of the fact that it has thus far been utterly unable to relieve itself of the

incubus of politics, and the efforts of humane and scientific penologists have been stultified, not only by lack of knowledge of the best methods but by the selfishness of politicians.

Dr. McKim certainly has a skilful pen, and there is much in his stoic advocacy of death as the remedy which wins admiration if not sympathy. It is undoubtedly true that human life is over-valued in this age, that it is not always a thing sacred and inviolable, and that it is mere baseness to hold it despite the broad welfare of humanity. Indeed one can almost conceive himself as agreeing in a measure with Dr. McKim's contention that the irretrievable criminal shall be gently put to death, but there is too vast and sacred an array of evidence in the history of religion, of education, and in the recent history of charity-too many myriads of instances of the reform of the vicious, the strengthening of the weak, and the inspiration and making effective of the spiritless and inefficient, aside from the ineradicable instinct in the human heart of the sacredness of life and of the divine possibility of all effort for human good, to make such a suggestion as Dr. McKim's, of the arbitrary destruction of the criminal and weak, possible of acceptance.

S. H. B.

ALMS, CHARITY, AND SUBSTITUTES FOR CHARITY.

BY FREDERIC ALMY.

[Introductory paragraphs of a paper on Public Out-Door Relief read before the Summer School in Philanthropic Work.]

I feel sometimes as if the first commandment of modern charity. were supposed to be "Thou shalt not give." On the contrary, the commandment is "Thou shalt give." Give more, not less, but give your

self instead of alms. Give time and thought first, and money if necessary, but as a last resort. It is

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »