institutions to the new State organization. This development was very slow in getting under way in the rest of the States, after the initial interest. Thus, by 1900 only 15 other States appear to have established a central welfare agency, making a total of 23 States. By 1920 this number had increased to 45, and the remaining 3 States have since established welfare agencies. (See fig. 9.)

The major revolution in State welfare administration came in 1917 when Illinois in its Reorganization Act proposed not only to abandon the old names in favor of "public welfare" but also to scrap the older administrative structure, abolish the board, and substitute a single director of public welfare to control all the welfare functions of the State government. By 1927 Professor Breckin ridge noted 11 States that "have ostensibly created departments generally using the name 'public welfare'." 43 A counter trend set in during the depression with the creation of a variety of special relief agencies to function independently of the existing governmental organization of welfare. Many of these agencies were designedly temporary in purpose and appear now to be more or less definitely receding from the field in favor of the trend toward the integrated management of the State welfare functions, especially in view of the strong preferences of the Federal administration for responsible State supervision of the local administration of the social-security program.

44

In addition to the management of welfare institutions the States have begun to assist and stimulate local welfare work by means of the grant-in-aid device. This method of raising the level of local welfare appears to have been first used in connection with mothers' aid (or pensions) which were provided in Illinois and Missouri in 1911, and spread rapidly among the other States, by 1920 having been adopted in 38 States and in all but 2 States at the end of 1932. In their first form these mothers' aid laws were merely permissive (i. e., localities could provide assistance) and quite inadequate in the amount of aid that was available, but the tendency has been toward meeting the needs of the family and increasing the scope of coverage to include more children (reflected in the change in name from "mothers' aid" to "aid for dependent children"). At the same time a number of States appointed special children's commissions to investigate childwelfare conditions, starting with Ohio in 1911 and spreading to 36 other States by 1930. In some States the special commission became a bureau of child welfare, while in other States they secured the enactment of child welfare legislation. The whole course of child welfare has been strongly influenced by the activities of the United States Children's Bureau, its research and consultation facilities, the "Children's Year" of 1919, and the provision of grants-in-aid for maternity and infancy welfare under the Sheppard Towner Act, which was in effect from 1922 to 1928, and later incorporated in fuller form by the Social Security Act of 1935.45

Old-age pensions were much slower in getting under way, despite the fact that a number of States had appointed special investigating commissions in the early

Breckinridge, op. cit., p. 557. The "board of public welfare" originated on the municipal level, in Kansas City in 1910. See E. C. Lindeman, "Public Welfare," Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, XII, p. 688.

The development of legislation providing for mothers' aid and dependent children has been as follows: 1913, California, Colorado, Idaho, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Utah, South Dakota, Washington, and Wisconsin; 1914, Arizona; 1915, Kansas, Montana, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Wyoming; 1916, Maryland; 1917, Arkansas, Delaware, Maine, Missouri, Texas, and Vermont; 1918, Virginia; 1919, Connecticut, Florida, and Indiana; 1920, Louisiana; 1923, North Carolina and Rhode Island; 1928, Kentucky and Mississippi; 1931, Alabama and New Mexico. See U. S. Children's Bureau Pub. No. 220 (1931). The mothers' pension movement obtained in part its impetus from the White House Confer ence on Dependent Children, held in 1909, which strongly criticized the prevailing system of institutional care of children and recommended foster home care and aid to families. See A. J. Davis, "The Evolution of the Institution of Mothers' Pensions in the United States," Am. Journal of Sociology, XXXV, p. 573 (1930). Pensions for the blind were first instituted in New York City (Laws 1875, c. 404), and approximately half a century before aid to the blind became a matter of State concern, namely in 1898 when Ohio (p. 270) provided for a general pension system. Other States followed, as Illinois in 1903 (p. 138), Wisconsin in 1907 (c. 283), and the 5 States of Iowa, Maine, Missouri, Nebraska, and New Hampshire in 1915. See Harry Best, The Blind (1919), p. 365. Legislation authorizing blind assistance is reported by the Federal Emer gency Relief Administration to have been adopted in 20 other States. Monthly Report, October 1935, pp. 44-45. Blind assistance has been incorporated into the Social Security program.

4 See U. S. Children's Bureau Pub. No. 131 (1924) and No. 203 (1931). Also see Recent Social Trends (1933), p. 772; and U.S. Social Security Board, Social Security in America (1937), pp. 270-271.

part of the present century. As early as 1903 the Massachusetts Bureau of Labor Statistics calculated the cost of installing a system of old-age assistance, and in 1907 the legislature appointed a commission to investigate old-age de pendency. Other commissions were appointed by Wisconsin in 1915, by New Jersey, California, and Massachusetts in 1917, and by Ohio and Connecticut in 1919. A distinct trend in favor of State action was inaugurated by the report of the Pennsylvania commission of 1919-21 and followed by the reports of Montana (1922), Nevada and Indiana (1925), Virginia (1926), California (1928), Minnesota and Maine (1929), and New York (1930). But when the States tried to pass legislation for old-age assistance they promptly met with strong judicial opposition which defeated the pioneer attempts of Arizona (1915) and Pennsylvania (1923). As late as 1928 only two States-Montana (1923) and Wisconsin (1925), which had adopted optional laws--were "actually paying pensions" to the aged, while the statutes of four other States were inoperative. Following the open endorsement of the American Federation of Labor in 1929 California adopted a system of mandatory pensions and two Eastern States (Massachusetts and New York), which have long been noted for their preeminent position in the welfare field, entered the old-age pension movement, which then rapidly began to gain momentum, adding six States in 1931. With the incorporation of old-age pensions into the social-security program this type of welfare aid has been universalized.46

Housing became a matter of State concern with the passage of the New York tenement code of 1867, which forbade cellar dwellings unless the ceiling was at least 1 foot aboveground, and required 1 water closet for every 20 persons and the accessibility to city water in every house or yard." Tenement codes were adopted by Pennsylvania in 1895, by New Jersey in 1904, by Connecticut in 1905, by Wisconsin in 1907, by California and Indiana in 1909, by Kentucky in 1910, and by other States in later years. The approach of the tenement code however, was by way of restrictive legislation; the codes did not directly con tribute to the promotion of good housing.

In 1909, however, the State tried a new approach when Massachusetts established a temporary homestead commission to—

report

*

consider whether it would be expedient for the Commonwealth to acquire or open for settlement lands in country districts with a view of aiding honest, industrious, and ambitious families of wage earners to remove thereto from congested tenement districts of the various large cities and towns of the Commonwealth, to the end that such lands may ultimately pass into the possession of the families settling upon them * any plans which it may recommend.48 The majority members of the commission reported that the plan to remove city dwellers to rural areas was unfeasible because of high costs. In 1911 Massachusetts established another homestead commission to provide for the establishments of "homesteads for workmen in the suburbs." 49

The commission reported in 1913 recommending the establishment of town planning boards 50 to make housing studies. The town planning boards meet in yearly conferences under the auspices of the Massachusetts Federation of Planning Boards. Meanwhile the justices of the Massachusetts General Court, having been requested to prepare an advisory opinion, declared that housing was not a public use in Massachusetts.51

46 Adapted from Social Security Board, op. cit., pp. 159-160; and from U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Public Old-Age Pensions in the United States and Foreign Countries (Bulletin No. 561).

47 N. Y. Laws 1867, c. 908. The code was a belated recognition of the problems raised by Gerret Forbes in 1834 when his report as city inspector in New York City related the high death rates of certain sections to bad housing conditions, and by Dr. John H. Griscom in 1842 when he pointed out the relationship between overcrowded and unsanitary tenements and the incidence of epidemics. See "Housing", Encyclopaedia Britannica, XI, pp. 841-43.

48 Mass. Laws 1909, c. 143.

49 Mass. Laws 1911, c. 607.

50 Mass. Laws 1913, c. 494.

51 Opinion of Justices, 211 Mass. 624 (1912). A constitutional amendment (art. 47) was adopted in 1917 making shelter a "public function," at least during wartime and in periods of emergency and stress. The commission filed its first annual report in 1914, summarizing foreign experiences in public housing., Nothing further seems to have been done until the advent of the present period.

In 1913 California established a commission of immigration and housing," with purposes similar to those of the existing Massachusetts commission, to which references were made in the California reports. In its first report in 1915 the commission was largely concerned with housing and sanitation in labor camps, reported a survey of tenement houses in San Francisco, and con cluded with a section on "constructive housing." In 1915 the commission was also given limited concurrent jurisdiction to enforce the State Hotel Act, tenement and dwelling code, particularly in areas where no local control was exercised.53

No other state ventures in the housing field can be reported till the 1930's when both Ohio and Delaware established housing boards, but these incidents are phenomena coming at the close of the period of this study.54

Unemployment insurance was last in getting under way. A bill had been introduced in the Massachusetts Legislature in 1916, but the first State unemployment-insurance law derives from the Wisconsin act of 1932. Again, the Social-security program had served to universalize a pattern of State activity. The emergency aspects of unemployment began to receive State attention in 1931 when 11 States appropriated money for relief, a problem which rapidly faced all the States as well as the Nation. However, both unemployment in surance and relief are phenomena that come at the very close of the period marking off this study (1933).55

53 Calif. Laws 1913, c. 318.

53 Calif. Laws 1915, c. 428. In 1927 the name of the commission was changed to that of division of housing and sanitation in the new department of industrial relations (c. 440), but in 1931 the name of the division was changed back to the division of immigration and housing (c. 597). Cf. the discussion of land settlement activities in California, supra, with which the housing activities became intimately identified.

54 Del. Laws 1933, c. 61; Ohio Laws 1932, p. 78.

65 Adapted from Social Security Board, op. cit., pp. 91 et seq. The 11 States were Illinois (Laws 1931, p. 193), Mary land (c. 150), Massachusetts (c. 268), Missouri (p. 205), New Jersey (c. 387), New York (c. 798), Ohio (p. 91), Oklahoma (ps 354), Pennsylvania (No. 7), Rhode Island (c. 1855), and Wisconsin (c. 29).

Part III. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING TRENDS

Chapter 6. EMERGENCE OF THE TECHNIQUE

SUMMARY

Up to the first decade of the twentieth century the management of resources had developed along specific lines (as separate agencies for land, water, wildlife, forests, etc.), and few or no attempts had been made to interrelate the knowledge and uses of the different resources of the State. The conservation movement markedly affected these dispersed developments by (1) popularizing the democratic significance of governmental responsibility for the management of resources and (2) emphasizing the need for, and the method of, taking a comprehensive view of the management of resources in their multiple interrelationships so as to effectuate the greatest utilization of the total resources of the State. A series of Presidential commissions eloquently expounded the theory of conservation, but the political drama became so engrossed with the question of who was to control the use of resources that the technique question of how to bring about their most effective use faded away from the national scene. More than half the States, however, have been able to incorporate into their organizational framework a new type of administrative agency (commonly called the conservation commission) that facilitates the application of the technique of multiple-use of resources. Shortly prior to 1933 a few States (New York and Wisconsin) experimented with agencies organized for the primary purpose of planning as distinguished from administrative responsibility for the day-to-day management of certain resources, and as such have been definitely acknowledged as clear prototypes of the new planning organizations that have been established in almost all the States in the period since 1933.

With the currency of the idea of the State conservation of resources, the recent trend has been toward the institutional recognition of planning as a permanent function of modern State government (i. e., not merely incidental to the performance of other functions), the expansion of the concept of resources to include both natural and human resources, and the deliberate practice of advisory comprehensive planning as a "technical instrument of democratic government."

Up to the first decade of the present century the management of resources had evolved along very specific lines, as traced in part II of this study. Such institutional agencies of the State government as existed were concerned with the management of land, or wildlife, or forests, etc., as separate and unrelated activities. In a few scattered instances, as in some of the State geological surveys or the internal-improvement programs, there may have been some intermittent recognition of the fact that the use and development of one resource might easily affect other resources and that the most effective utilization of resources would

depend upon interrelating the knowledge and uses of the different resources.1 But the organization of American State government was not conducive to the development of the technique of "multiple-use" of resources, or of compre hensive planning into which the former usually leads, for the agencies concerned with the management of resources were numerous and legally independent of one another. Nor had the Governor yet emerged as the manager of the State administrative affairs.2 In brief, both the idea and practice of comprehensive planning of resources were largely precluded by the very administrative framework of State government.

This structural diffusion of the management of resources has been radically changed in most State governments, at least insofar as the management of natural resources is concerned. A new State agency has emerged in more than half the States to integrate into a single administrative organization the principal powers and controls that the modern State exercises with reference to its natural re sources. The name of this organization is generally the "conservation" commis sion or department. Its widespread development in the State government is one of the principal achievements of the conservation movement, which thus served to bring together under the concept of multiple-use the different streams of ideas and practices for the management of specific resources, that have been traced in part II. The contribution of the conservation movement was twofold: (a) Popular realization of the democratic significance of governmental management of resources in the interests of the entire society (in space and in time) rather than of special groups or interests, and (b) emphasis of the need for, and the method of, taking a comprehensive view of the management of resources in their multiple interrelationships so as to make possible the greatest utilization of the total resources of the State.3

It is not implied that the mere organization of a conservation commission is per se the adoption and practice of the technique of comprehensive planning. In no case will the scope of the activities of the conservation agency be found to be really comprehensive (including the use of all resources, natural and human), nor will its primary function be planning as separated from day-to-day administrative responsibility. The development of State conservation agencies, however, does represent a distinct achievement of American State government in facilitating, in administrative organization, the application of the technique of "multiple-use" of certain resources. A recent report of the New York Department of Conservation has keenly pointed out the significance of this development:

During the years in which various phases of conservation were being publicized and promoted, little public attention was paid to the possibility that any conservation activity, carried on independently, might interfere with or offset some other conservation program It is important

*

*

that various conservation interests consult one another before any project is undertaken, to avert, for instance, the creation of deserts for game by too intensive and exclusive reforestation; or the elimination of good farm land by the erection of water-power dams in one place when they could be just as easily placed in another location without flooding productive soil; or the drainage of a marsh for mosquito control or some other purpose which would result in the destruction of a wildlife-breeding area.1

This chapter is concerned with indicating the conceptual origin of the technique of "multiple-use" of resources and its expansion into the concept of compre hensive planning. At best, it will be possible only to indicate the State practice of the technique by the extent to which the present organizational framework of the State governments permits or facilitates its adoption and practice in conser 1 Supra, pp. 39-40, 57.

L. D. White, Trends in Public Administration (1933), pp. 176-179.

For a description of the first contribution of "conservation," see Gifford Pinchot, The Fight for Conservation (1910). This chapter is primarily concerned with the second contribution of "conservation."

4 New York Conservation Department, Twenty-fifth Annual Report (1935), pp. 21-22. "Fortunately this problem is less acute in the State of New York than elsewhere because practically all conservation activities here are assembled in this Department and consultation among the chiefs of various activities is already in effect."