Several matters have come to the notice of the Committee during its investigations which prompt it respectfully to point out to the Government that the present statutory provisions are out-moded and that the time has arrived for a complete redrafting of the statute to remove anomalies and to suit the needs of the times.
The terms of the order of reference scarcely require the Committee to make detailed recommendations. It should suffice to point out certain respects in which the Act itself might be improved and a new meaning given to "child welfare" which might go a long way towards reducing the amount of juvenile delinquency.
(a) "Child Welfare" a Misnomer
The preamble to the Act of 1925 describes the limited nature of its intention. It is:
An Act to make Better Provision with respect to the Maintenance, Care, and Control of Children who are specially under the Protection of the State; and to provide generally for the Protection and Training of Indigent, Neglected, or Delinquent Children.
In other words, the Act aimed at dealing with children after they have become delinquents. The new provisions for the welfare of children were grafted on to statutes which were designed for "neglected" and "criminal" children and for the establishment of "industrial schools". The Act did not purport to have regard for the welfare of children who might become delinquent. It did not contain any provisions for the doing of preventive work. That being so, it is not surprising to find that it operates in different ways in different districts. The Committee was impressed by the preventive work done in some districts, although the officers doing this work were unable to point to any provisions in the Act which required them to do it. In these circumstances it is not possible to blame any Child Welfare Officer for failing to do preventive work which, under the statute, he is not obliged, and, indeed, has no authority to perform.
(b) "Child Welfare" Merely a "Division"
The Superintendent of Child Welfare is under the control of the Minister of Education and the Director of Education. But his duties do not appear to be integrated with those of the Education Department. The work of the Division appears to be more associated with the police and the Courts than the Education Department. In former times "industrial schools" conveniently came under the Education Department. But nowadays, when very many of the children committed to the care of the State are boarded out among foster-parents, the work of the Child Welfare Division is more closely associated with that of "Justice" than "Education".
The establishment, a few years ago, of a Ministry of Social Welfare, and the urgent need for more preventive work to be done, suggest the possibility of better administration if "Child Welfare" were given an independent status under the control of the Ministry for Social Welfare.
(c) No Regulations Under the Act