WIDOWS PENSIONS IN MASSACHUSETTS
That the private charitable societies of Boston oppose the plan to transfer to the state the care of deserving widows with dependent children as an independent class is indicated by the hearings on the various bills now before the Massachusetts Legislature. Four bills have been introduced at this session. The first of these (House Bill No. 815) provides:
“If the parent or parents of a dependent or neglected child are poor and unable to properly care for the said child, but are otherwise proper guardians, and it is for the welfare of such child to remain at home, the juvenile court, the probate court, or, except in Boston, any police, municipal or district court, may enter an order finding such facts and fixing the amount of money necessary to enable the parent or parents to properly care for such child, and thereupon it shall be the duty of the county commissioners, or, in Suffolk County, the city council of Boston, to pay to such parent or parents at such times and as such order may designate the money so specified for the care of such dependent or neglected child until the further order of the court.”
The second bill (House Bill No. 1369), which is even shorter, restates the general principles of the first bill without providing machinery for carrying its provisions into effect. It reads as follows:
“Children whose parents are unable to support them shall not be placed in state, county or municipal institutions, but if either parent, or any relative or other suitable person, is maintaining a home, payment shall be made to such parent or relative or other person for the support therein of such children.”
House Bill No. 1366, the third proposed act, was prepared by representatives of many of the principal charitable organizations of Boston.
The bill does not so much state a new doctrine of relief for dependents as define more clearly the duties of the local overseers of the poor and more definitely chart their course in their work preliminary to granting relief. The avowed purpose of the bill, in the language of its proponents, “is to correlate the various public and private agencies of the state into one co-operative relief system under the general control and direction of the state Board of Charities and to use the local overseers of the poor as the active disbursers of the relief granted.” It is also made the duty of the overseers to the first instance to determine whether the mother is “fit to bring up her children and that the other members of the household and the surroundings of the home are such as make for good character, and that aid is necessary.” If this question is decided by the overseers in favor of the applicant they then are charged with the further duty of investigating the financial resources of the family and relatives, although the law does not clearly state to what degree of consanguinity this inquiry shall extend. They shall next inquire as to “individuals, societies or agencies who may be interested therein.” If they have by good fortune found anyone who is legally bound to support the mother and child, they are directed to enforce the full legal liability of the obligation.
They are admonished to get the family to work if possible, and to secure such relief as can be obtained from organizations and individuals. The law adds, however, that none of these directions shall be construed “to prevent said overseers from giving prompt and suitable temporary aid pending compliance with the requirements of this section, when in their opinion such aid is necessary, and cannot be obtained from other sources.” The bill provides, therefore, that local overseers shall aid such mothers and children as they deem worthy if they can find no one else who can be forced or coaxed into doing it. The bill further provides that the overseers shall follow up their initial activity by visiting the recipients of aid at least once in three months and shall keep a careful detailed account of the conditions found at each visit as a part of their official records. It is made the duty of the State Board of Charity to supervise the work done by the overseers and to report thereon in its annual report to the state Legislature.
This bill was presented because of the report of the commission on the support of dependent minor children of widowed mothers, and the measure (House Bill No. 1770) proposed by the commission. The general court of 1912 created a commission to investigate the condition of widowed mothers, provided $1,000 for its expenses, and ordered it to report at the present session. The commission as appointed consisted of Robert F. Foerster of the department of social ethics of Harvard University; David F. Tilley of Boston, for many years a member of the Central Council of the Society of St. Vincent de Paul and at present a member of the State Board of Charity, and Clara Cahill Park of Wollaston, Mass.
The report of the commission and the arguments in support of its bill in general were:
That the present system of outdoor relief is inadequate;
That frequent separation between the widowed mother and her children occurs;
That the cause of the mother’s dependence is seldom purely local but a matter in which the state in the large is concerned;
That therefore the state should grant the relief and not the locality alone;
That while all needy mothers, whether widowed or not, are proper subjects of the state’s bounty, yet widows are in a class which need a different technique of relief.
The commission expressed its belief that widows’ families were the most important single group in poverty and that they should be dealt with by a method unhampered by the need of dealing with other cases. The commission’s bill, it was argued, would further break up indiscriminate relief, introducing state control and state standards for a great group of dependents, continuing the process begun for the feeble-minded, insane, blind and the like. The friends of the bill believed that the state Board of Charity administered so much relief that widows would not be adequately cared for by it. They urged that while House Bill No. 1366 in terms disclaimed any intention of regarding its proposed relief, pauper aid, yet in fact it could not fail to be so regarded by possible claimants. The commission called the aid it proposed giving subsidies rather than pensions, as it regarded its aid as in no sense payments for services rendered but assistance in rendering needed service to the state.
The report of the commission was signed by Professor Foerster and Mrs. Park. Mr. Tilley presented a minority report stating that he was fully in accord with the desire of the commission to adequately assist widowed mothers with dependent children, but that he felt that the report was based upon insufficient evidence. He further believed that the present machinery of relief was entirely adequate for the purpose desired.
The bill proposed by the commission provided for a permanent commission of five, two of whom should be women, who should have authority to order subsidies paid by the overseers of the poor, in such sums and manner as the commission should decide. The commission is authorized by the bill to make its investigations by its special field agents, and it is made the duty of the overseers to visit the family at least once in every four months and to report its condition to the commission. Two-thirds of the amounts paid to families who have no settlement and one-third of the amounts paid to all other families shall be repaid to the overseers by the state Board of Charity. No relative other than those legally bound to aid the family, and no private society shall be asked to contribute any portion of the subsidy.
The commission by its bill provided a new state machine designed to administer a specific pension or subsidy to a specific class of dependents. The bill proposed by the opponents of the commission’s bill, defined and enlarged the present relief machinery of each locality. The purpose of the friends of each bill is unquestionably to render the same service to the needy widow.