]> <emph>Biennial Report of the North Carolina State Board of Charities and Public Welfare, July 1, 1938 to June 30, 1940:</emph> Electronic Edition. North Carolina State Board of Charities and Public Welfare. Funding from the Institute for Museum and Library Services supported the electronic publication of this title. Text transcribed by Apex Data Services, Inc. Images scanned by Andrew Leiter Text encoded by Apex Data Services, Inc., Andrew Leiter, and Elizabeth S. Wright First edition, 2003 ca. 640K Academic Affairs Library, UNC-CH University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 2003.

© This work is the property of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. It may be used freely by individuals for research, teaching and personal use as long as this statement of availability is included in the text.

 Biennial Report of the North Carolina State Board of Charities and Public Welfare Biennial Report of the North Carolina State Board of Charities and Public Welfare, July 1, 1938 to June 30, 1940 Biennial Report State Board of Charities and Public Welfare North Carolina State Board of Charities and Public Welfare 181 p. Raleigh Edwards & Broughton Company [1940] Call number C360 N87p 1938/1940 (North Carolina Collection, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill)

The electronic edition is a part of the UNC-CH digitization project, Documenting the American South.

The text has been entered using double-keying and verified against the original.

The text has been encoded using the recommendations for Level 4 of the TEI in Libraries Guidelines.

Original grammar, punctuation, and spelling have been preserved. Encountered typographical errors have been preserved, and appear in red type.

All footnotes are inserted at the point of reference within paragraphs.

Any hyphens occurring in line breaks have been removed, and the trailing part of a word has been joined to the preceding line.

All quotation marks, em dashes and ampersand have been transcribed as entity references.

All double right and left quotation marks are encoded as ” and “ respectively.

All single right and left quotation marks are encoded as ’ and ‘ respectively.

All em dashes are encoded as —

Indentation in lines has not been preserved.

Running titles have not been preserved.

Spell-check and verification made against printed text using Author/Editor (SoftQuad) and Microsoft Word spell check programs.

 Library of Congress Subject Headings English Mentally ill -- Care -- North Carolina. Orphans -- Institutional care -- North Carolina. Public welfare -- North Carolina. Prisons -- North Carolina. Orphanages -- North Carolina. North Carolina State Board of Charities and Public Welfare. Child welfare -- North Carolina. Social service -- North Carolina. Correctional institutions -- North Carolina. Social work with African Americans -- North Carolina. Civilian Conservation Corps (U.S.) -- North Carolina. 2003-06-26, Celine Noel and Wanda Gunther revised TEIHeader and created catalog record for the electronic edition. 2003-06-25, Elizabeth S. Wright finished TEI-conformant encoding and final proofing. 2002-1-10, Andrew Leiter finished TEI/SGML encoding 2001-11-20, Apex Data Services, Inc. finished transcribing the text.

[Title Page Image]

[Title Page Verso Image]

 BIENNIAL REPORT of The North Carolina State Board of Charities and Public Welfare July 1, 1938 To June 30, 1940MRS. W. T. BOST Commissioner EDWARDS & BROUGHTON COMPANY RALEIGH TABLE OF CONTENTS State Board of Charities and Public Welfare . . . . . 4 Letter of Transmittal . . . . . 5 Constitutional Mandate . . . . . 6 Dedication . . . . . 7 Photograph of County Welfare Superintendents (Facing) . . . . . 13 Introduction . . . . . 13 Financial report of the Biennium . . . . . 17 Field Social Work Service . . . . . 21 Division Reports: Child Welfare . . . . . 31Public Assistance . . . . . 64Case Work Training and Family Rehabilitation . . . . . 87Mental Hygiene . . . . . 106Institutions and Corrections . . . . . 116 Reports of Service Units: County Organization . . . . . 139 List of County Superintendents of Public Welfare . . . . . 144Surplus Commodity Distribution . . . . . 147Selection and Certification of Applicants for Civilian Conservation Corps . . . . . 164Work Among Negroes . . . . . 173 Recapitulation of Recommendations for Legislation and Appropriation . . . . . 178 Staff of the State Board of Charities and Public Welfare . . . . . 179 NORTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD OF CHARITIES AND PUBLIC WELFARE W. A. Blair, Winston-Salem, Chmn. . Term expires April 1, 1941 A. W. McAlister, Greensboro . . . . . Term expires April 1, 1941 Mrs. Walter C. Crowell, Monroe . . . . Term expires April 1, 1945 Miss Carrie McLean, Charlotte . . . . . Term expires April 1, 1943 N. E. Pepper, Danbury . . . . . Term expires April 1, 1943 E. Hervey Evans, Laurinburg . . . . . Term expires April 1, 1945 Robert Hairston, Reidsville . . . . . Term expires April 1, 1943 LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL To His Excellency, Clyde R. Hoey,Governor of North Carolina.

Sir: I have the honor of handing you herewith the report of The North Carolina State Board of Charities and Public Welfare for the biennial period dating July 1, 1938, through June 30, 1940.

Very truly yours, Wm. A. Blair, Chairman. CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE

“Beneficent provision for the poor, the unfortunate, and orphan, being one of the first duties of a civilized and Christian State, the General Assembly shall, at its first session, appoint and define the duties of a Board of Public Charities, to whom shall be entrusted the supervision of all charitable and penal state institutions, and who shall annually report to the Governor upon their condition with suggestions for their improvement.”

 DEDICATION

In grateful recognition of a combined record of seventy-three years of public service on behalf of the poor and unfortunate in North Carolina, the State Board of Charities and Public Welfare dedicates this volume jointly to

WILLIAM ALLEN BLAIR

who for forty-nine years has been a member of the board and who for thirty-six years has served as its chairman, and to

 ALEXANDER WORTH McALISTER

who for twenty-four years has aided Colonel Blair as a member and vice chairman in developing the modern, forward-looking social welfare program of the state.

[William Allen Blair]

WILLIAM ALLEN BLAIR has spoken, written, argued and thought public welfare for the forty-nine years he has spent as a member of the State Board of Charities and Public Welfare, thirty-six of them as its chairman. Such service as a state welfare board member is without parallel in the country so far as it can be ascertained.

In the years subsequent to his appointment as a member in December, 1891, Mr. Blair has seen many changes come into being in the North Carolina welfare program. Sterilization of mental defectives, an expanded mental hygiene program, improvement in county jail facilities, a boarding home fund to assist juvenile courts in caring for certain dependents, abolition of apprenticeship of children by indenture, replacement of county chain gangs by a state prison system, discarding of the practices of farming out prison labor and of working women on the public roads, parole and probation facilities, social security legislation—all have come into being during the years of his chairmanship or connection with the board.

Mr. Blair is the fourth chairman of the State Board of Charities and Public Welfare since it was organized under direction of the constitution of 1868, and succeeded to the direction of its activities in October, 1904, after thirteen years' experience as a board member.

He witnessed the reorganization of the old Board of Public Charities into the organization of today when the 1917 General Assembly re-vamped North Carolina's program to allow for expansion into the numerous activities supervised today by the state board.

The conceptions of Mr. Blair and his associates concerning state responsibility toward the unfortunate have passed from adolescence toward maturity by the experience of a half-century; and having grown to manhood, represent the foundations upon which the social and economic lives of North Carolinians of the next century will be based.

[Alexander Worth McAlister]

ALEXANDER WORTH MCALISTER has been a member of the State Board of Charities and Public Welfare for almost a quarter of a century. Twenty-four years ago he succeeded his father on the board in December, 1916, and thus entered on an active official career in welfare work.

Mr. McAlister is known as the father of North Carolina's county unit welfare system. Before his appointment to the board, as president of the North Carolina Conference for Social Service 1915-1916 he had been in correspondence with persons of recognized authority in other states on the development of a suitable plan for North Carolina, and after his appointment the 1917 General Assembly authorized the present county unit system of state-supervised, local administration of North Carolina's care of its unfortunate.

Counties having as much as 32,000 population were required to set up regular welfare departments, while superintendents of schools were charged with part-time welfare duties in the smaller counties. This was the beginning from which grew the full-time departments in every county in the state following the passage of social security legislation.

Mr. McAlister was interested in the passage of the child labor and the juvenile court laws, the mother's aid and the parole legislation, and prison reforms that brought about a vast modernization of the state's methods of caring for its law offenders.

In all his activities he brought civic clubs and community organizations into the fights for better social legislation, for the establishment of training schools and for the opening of institutions for the defectives. He worked not alone, but as a foreman in marshalling private activities and public thought to accomplish the welfare plan North Carolina has today.

N.C. SUPERINTENDENTS OF PUBLIC WELFARE, PHOTO by Wolcotts, Black Mtn., N.C.

 INTRODUCTION

In the following pages there is a detailed accounting of the business of the State Board of Charities and Public Welfare covering the biennial period July 1, 1938-June 30, 1940. It has been compiled for the information of the Governor, the legislature and for the tax supporters of the state generally. Appropriations were made to the state board to administer the public welfare program in the state and as trustees of the funds, the board, through its staff members, has set forth somewhat in detail the activities of the various divisions in justification of its biennial expenditures. Public service, it is recognized, is regarded as a public trust. In attempting to meet human needs those who are engaged in public welfare work have been entrusted with a grave responsibility.

The dominant slogan of modern social work is service, but it must be a balanced service; that is, it must be service adapted to meet community needs. Social work, it must be recognized, is only one of a number of welfare activities under public direction and the place of our agency in the whole public structure should be thoroughly understood.

With the multiplicity of social agencies today operating at the various levels of government there is a need for clearance and coordination; otherwise, services to those of our people who are in need, will be unrelated and perhaps duplicated by the various agencies in the field. As Fred Hoehler, director of the American Public Welfare Association, points out, “there is a definite need to organize every function which looks to public funds for support, which calls for large resources of personnel....We need to do the necessary things in the soundest and the simplest and in the least wasteful way possible. Public welfare organizations, therefore, should be properly directed and staffed with the best personnel it is possible to obtain at federal, state and local levels.”

The Social Security Act as amended August 10, 1939, required that the state public assistance agencies must include, after January 1, 1940, a provision for methods relating to the establishment of personnel standards on a merit basis for a merit system of personnel administration. A draft rule was therefore issued by the Social Security Board on November 13, 1939, to all state welfare departments, the standards included therein representing the minimum requirements of the Social Security Board with respect to personnel administration in state agencies. Since January 1, 1940, the North Carolina State Board of Charities and Public Welfare has submitted a merit system plan to the federal agency, setting forth rules and regulations for a merit system in conformity with the Social Security Board's draft rule. Classification and compensation plans which constitute a part of the merit system have been formulated by a committee from the staff in consultation with a technical adviser from the Society Security Board. A merit system council has been appointed, composed of three public-spirited citizens of recognized standing and of known interest in the improvement of public administration and in the impartial selection of efficient government personnel. One of the main functions of the council will be to establish general policies for the administration of merit examinations. They also have the responsibility for recommending the appointment by the state agency of the merit system supervisor.

Merit examinations under the above conditions will be held for state and local employees engaged in public assistance and child welfare services in the late fall of 1940, according to present plans.

On the basis of the North Carolina Old Age Assistance and Aid to Dependent Children Act “the State Board of Charities and Public Welfare, through the Commissioner of Welfare as the executive head of the department, is hereby empowered to organize the department into such bureaus and divisions as may be deemed advisable, not inconsistent with the provisions of this act, in order that the work of the entire department shall be coördinated on an efficiency basis and duplication of effort may be avoided.”

Every effort has been made in the interest of economy and efficiency to integrate the newer services—public assistance, referral and certification services in connection with WPA, CCC, NYA, and surplus commodities—with the older services that had been established a number of years prior to the initiation of the social security program. The field social work supervisors, for instance, serve as representatives for the various divisions within the department, thus coordinating the work on the local level. The auditing division, established in 1937 at the time the public assistance program was established, serves the entire department through a centralized accounting system, which operates in conformity with the regulations and requirements of the state Budget Bureau. The statistical unit which came into existence when certifying services in connection with the various federal programs became the responsibility of the state board, and was expanded with the advent of public assistance, likewise serves the whole department in whatever capacity the work of the functional divisions indicates.

Through the information service set up by the state board, there has been an excellent and most effective interpretation of the various welfare activities under the board's direction. This has been accomplished through the routine channel of regular news releases, radio talks, the monthly Public Welfare News, and exhibits at the annual State Fair. In view of the fact, for instance, that approximately $6,000,000 of federal, state and local funds is expended under the board's direction, it feels very definitely that the public is entitled to know how that money is spent.

One activity that, when complete, will add greatly to the efficiency of operation of the state office is the project begun in the fall of 1939 to establish a central filing unit to replace seven independent filing systems developed in the course of years. This WPA-aided operation will cover approximately 200,000 cases representing twenty years of department activity from 1919 to 1939, with the cases being filed and cross-indexed according to a standard system to promote speedy, efficient and accurate handling.

In addition, about 25,000 records of the state board from its inception in 1869 to 1919 will be prepared for proper filing. Not a normal activity of the department because no budgetary funds were provided for the work, the assistance of the Work Projects Administration was necessary. The project consequently has given employment to approximately ten needy, educational, professional and clerical workers for more than a year.

Because of cramped quarters and lack of adequate room for a central filing system, it was a physical impossibility to set up this vast and much-needed improvement until the staff offices were moved into consolidated quarters in a new office building in December, 1938.

The present quarters embracing nearly the whole of the fifth floor of the largest state office building represent the fourth home of the department since it was established. During the years following the legislature of 1869 when the work of the department was handled entirely by the secretary to the old Board of Public Charities, office space was allotted in the Capitol. Even after reorganization of the old board into the present State Board of Charities and Public Welfare by the 1917 General Assembly to provide for a commissioner to direct the administrative work of the department, the Capitol still provided office space for four years until the first move in December, 1921.

This change placed the department on the third floor of the brick building formerly standing at the head of Fayetteville Street on part of the site now occupied by the building housing the Supreme Court and department of justice. This was the site of Peter Casso's famous inn of Raleigh's first days as the capital of North Carolina.

Five years later, in the early fall of 1926, the department moved into the building provided for the department of agriculture where it stayed for twelve years, the longest time it has occupied any quarters since leaving the capitol building.

When the social security program came into North Carolina the work of the department was expanded to such an extent that space was required in five different buildings located in the Raleigh business district. It was only with the final move into the present quarters in December 1938, that the various divisions of the expanded department were brought together into efficient working space that had so long been needed.

Preparation for the country's national defense requires coöperative effort with unity of purpose throughout the country, and in the national emergency the State Board of Charities and Public Welfare stands ready with its entire organization to bear any share of the work in North Carolina that may in the future be assigned to its respective fields of activity. The nation must have strong military and naval forces, adequately trained and equipped; yet it must be realized that the economic, physical, spiritual and social well-being of the people as a whole is really its first line of defense. Without these a ‘total defense’ cannot be built. It is necessary that the state board look forward to a continuing operation of its program of aiding North Carolina's poor, unfortunate and orphan called for by the North Carolina Constitution.

Should an advisory council for state defense at any subsequent time require its assistance, the State Board of Charities and Public Welfare, along with other state agencies, is in a position to coöperate fully in any coördination activities needed to bring the general defense measures in working harmony with existing or future programs to guard the people of the state from the uncertainties of want and discrepancies of social welfare.

MRS. W. T. BOST, Commissioner. FINANCIAL REPORT OF THE BIENNIUM J. A. STEWART, Auditor STATE BOARD

  Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1939 Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1940 Salaries and wages. . . . . $30,996.00 $34,221.66 Supplies and materials. . . . . 581.90 531.32 Postage, telephone and telegraph. . . . . 1,526,18 1,542.87 Travel expense. . . . . 3,932.94 3,909.95 Printing. . . . . 941.41 626.29 Repairs. . . . . 41.27 35.93 General expense. . . . . 78.40 69.60 Equipment. . . . . 472.41 499.79 Psychological service. . . . . —— 52.50   $38,571.51 $41,489.91 Less estimated receipts. . . . . 356.67 2,406.64   $38,214.84 $39,083.27

OLD AGE ASSISTANCE AND AID TO DEPENDENT CHILDREN ADMINISTRATION

  Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1939 Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1940 Salaries and wages. . . . . $58,888.29 $58,304.67 Supplies and materials. . . . . 2,765.83 2,797.54 Postage, telephone and telegraph. . . . . 3,807.89 4,399.90 Printing. . . . . 3,821.17 1,978.00 Travel expense. . . . . 10,261.57 7,767.96 Rents and lights. . . . . 1,168.13 —— General expense. . . . . 400.77 86.76 Equipment. . . . . 3,466.84 499.76   $84,580.49 $75,834.59 Less estimated receipts. . . . . 11,350.00 14,550.00 Total. . . . . $73,230.49 $61,284.59

SURPLUS COMMODITY DISTRIBUTION

  Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1939 Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1940 Salaries and wages. . . . . $20,560.00 $15,771.68 Office supplies. . . . . 555.50 410.61 Packing supplies. . . . . 2,555.79 5,285.50 Postage, telephone, telegraph and lights. . . . . 2,006.88 2,291.25 Travel expense. . . . . 5,579.14 3,886.82 Freight & express. . . . . 180.80 208.66 Printing. . . . . 894.09 970.79 Motor vehicle operation. . . . . 11,379.90 12,841.69 Equipment. . . . . 54.81 1,273.14 Purchase of trucks—special appropriation. . . . . —— 7,994.47   $43,766.91 $50,934.61 Less estimated receipts. . . . . 1,826.85 4,364.54   $41,940.14 $46,570.07

CERTIFYING SERVICE

  Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1939 Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1940 Salaries and wages. . . . . $ 24,042.33 $ 17,441.33 Supplies and materials. . . . . 407.60 346.68 Postage, telephone and telegraph. . . . . 957.34 1,307.73 Travel expense. . . . . 9,681.92 6,423.34 Printing. . . . . 244.39 174.54 General expense. . . . . 29.85 34.64 Equipment. . . . . 299.57 49.60   $ 35,663.00 $ 25,777.86 Total requirements. . . . . 202,581.91 194,036.97 Less estimated receipts. . . . . 13,533.52 21,321.18   $189,048.39 $172,715.79

SUMMARY BY OBJECTS

  Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1939 Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1940 Salaries and wages. . . . . $134,486.62 $125,739.34 Supplies and materials. . . . . 6,866.62 9,371.65 Postage, telephone and telegraph, freight, express and lights. . . . . 8,480.09 9,750.41 Travel expense. . . . . 29,176.68 21,667.07 Printing. . . . . 5,901.06 3,749.62 Motor vehicle operation. . . . . 11,379.90 12,841.69 Repairs. . . . . 41.27 35.93 General expense. . . . . 1,956.04 564.50 Equipment. . . . . 4,293.63 10,316.76   $202,581.91 $194,036.97

CARE DEPENDENT CHILDREN

  Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1939 Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1940 Care Dependent Children. . . . . $ 7,491.52 $ 7,311.36 Federal—State     Salaries. . . . . $ 2,044.67 $ 215.00 Rent. . . . . 360.00 ——

EUGENICS BOARD OF NORTH CAROLINA

  Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1939 Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1940 Salary—secretary. . . . . $ 330.00 —— Salary—stenographer. . . . . 1,260.00 $ 1,260.00 Supplies and materials. . . . . 24.51 39.87 Postage. . . . . 7.46 85.44 Telephone and telegraph. . . . . 6.75 9.98 Printing forms, etc. . . . . 10.55 39.27 Printing bulletins. . . . . 47.15 —— Subscriptions and dues. . . . . 6.00 5.00 Equipment. . . . . 93.31 54.39   $ 1,785.73 $ 1,493.95

ROSENWALD FUND

  Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1939 Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1940 Rosenwald Fund. . . . . $—— $ 168.00

CHILD WELFARE SERVICE—FEDERAL FUNDS

  Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1939 Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1940 Division Child Welfare—County     Salaries and wages. . . . . $29,526.90 $24,710.91 Travel expense. . . . . 9,261.80 1,634.58   $38,788.70 $26,345.49 Division Child Welfare—State     Salaries and wages. . . . . $10,388.33 $11,594.59 Supplies and materials. . . . . 69.62 83.83 Telephone and telegraph. . . . . 217.34 218.07 Postage. . . . . 125.00 141.00 Travel expense. . . . . 2,987.65 3,059.57 Printing. . . . . 23.55 28.26 Repairs. . . . . 17.74 14.57 Equipment. . . . . 46.75 50.00 Books and periodicals. . . . . 116.59 95.39 Training service. . . . . 1,620.33 1,781.83 Travel for Advisory Commission. . . . . 228.76 134.36   $15,841.66 $17,201.47 Division Mental Hygiene     Salaries and wages. . . . . $ 2,408.33 $ 7,141.08 Travel expense. . . . . 411.06 1,547.35 Supplies. . . . . 84.02 445.59 Equipment. . . . . 197.27 —— Telephone and telegraph. . . . . —— 11.07 Printing. . . . . —— 6.30 Postage. . . . . —— 16.50 Repairs. . . . . —— 10.72   $ 3,100.68 $ 9,178.61 Division Institutions and Corrections     Salaries and wages. . . . . $ 2,555.00 $ 1,500.00 Travel expense. . . . . 179.37 37.40   $ 2,734.37 $ 1,537.40 Total. . . . . $60,465.41 $54,262.97

FIELD SOCIAL WORK SERVICE R. EUGENE BROWNAssistant to the CommissionerandDirector of Field Social Work Service

In January 1936 the field social work service of the State Board of Charities and Public Welfare was established for the purpose of serving as general staff for all divisions and services of the state office in their relationships with the county departments of public welfare. The field staff which originally consisted of five field social work representatives was increased as the state board and the county departments of public welfare were given additional responsibilities. From July 1, 1937, through June 30, 1939, the counties of the state were divided among ten field representatives. Effective July 1, 1939, funds were available for only eight field representatives, the average number on the staff from that time until June 30, 1940. The eight field representatives and the counties assigned to each as of this date are as follows:*

* One additional field social work representative was added July 1, 1940.

Miss Victoria Bell: Buncombe, Clay, Cherokee, Graham, Haywood, Henderson, Jackson, Macon, Madison, Polk, Swain, Transylvania, and Yancey.

Mr. Wade N. Cashion: Alamance, Durham, Forsyth, Gaston, Guilford, Mecklenburg, Moore, Randolph, Rockingham, and Rowan.

Mr. H. D. Farrell: Bertie, Camden, Chowan, Currituck, Dare, Edgecombe, Johnston, Nash, Pasquotank, Perquimans, Wake, Wayne, and Wilson.

Mr. S. J. Hawkins: Bladen, Brunswick, Columbus, Cumberland, Harnett, Hoke, New Hanover, Onslow, Pender, Richmond, Robeson, Sampson, and Scotland.

Miss Nancy Jones: Anson, Cabarrus, Catawba, Davie, Davidson, Iredell, Lincoln, Montgomery, Stanly, Stokes, Union, and Yadkin.

Mr. Wallace H. Kuralt: Beaufort, Carteret, Craven, Duplin, Greene, Hyde, Jones, Lenoir, Martin, Pamlico, Pitt, Tyrrell, and Washington.

Miss Ada McRackan: Alexander, Alleghany, Ashe, Avery, Burke, Caldwell, Cleveland, McDowell, Mitchell, Rutherford, Surry, Watauga, and Wilkes.

Mrs. W. F. Wilson: Caswell, Chatham, Franklin, Gates, Granville, Halifax, Hertford, Lee, Northampton, Orange, Person, Vance, and Warren.

STATE OFFICE AND FIELD SERVICE

The members of the field social work service have been made directly responsible to the administrative office of the state board in order that they might be in a better position administratively to represent to the counties all divisions and services of the state office. The assistant to the commissioner was made director of this service and as director of field social work service it is his responsibility under the direction of the commissioner to give coödinating direction to the work of the field social work representatives, who are under the functional supervision of the directors of divisions and services in their respective fields.

Responsibilities of Director of Field Service

It is, therefore, the responsibility of the director of field service to plan the work of the field representatives with the directors of the divisions and services in order that their time and efforts may be utilized in the interest of the over-all program of public welfare and that due emphasis may be given to specific phases of the program at the appropriate time. To this end and that the field representatives may be kept informed of new plans, policies and procedures, the director of field service plans, and conducts in coöperation with the directors of divisions and services, periodic conferences of the field representatives in the state office for the discussion of plans, policies, procedures and problems; provides methods of clearance for the benefit of the state office staff and the field representatives on communications between the state office and the county departments of public welfare, between the state office and field representatives, and between the field representatives and the county departments of public welfare. Incidentally, it may be of interest to know that an average of more than 2,000 pieces of mail passed through the clearing house each month.

It is also the responsibility of the director of field service to have individual and group conferences with field representatives for the purpose of reviewing and planning work; discussing general problems of supervision, policies, and procedures; for the purpose of evaluating their work and the progress of the work in their respective territories; for the purpose of developing the types of reports which will be most helpful to the state office and the counties which the reports concern. Other responsibilities are of studying and evaluating reports of field representatives and presenting to the commissioner and the directors of divisions and services developments in the counties as they are reported by field representatives in their reports or in group and individual conferences; and the assignment of territories to field representatives with a view to obtaining the best results possible with a limited staff.

 Responsibilities of Field Social Work Representatives

In general, then, it may be stated that the function of the field representatives, under the coördinating direction of the director of field service and under the functional supervision of the directors of divisions and services of the state board, is to develop and coördinate in an assigned group of counties the various phases of the public welfare program to the end that each county department of public welfare may meet the needs of the people within the limitations, laws, rules and regulations.

The field representatives are carrying out this function by:

Making frequent planned or special visits to the county departments for the purpose of exercising general developmental supervision through conferences and consultations with the county superintendents.

Participating and assisting in the public welfare staff development program particularly as it relates to the county staffs.

Meeting periodically with the superintendent and his case work staff for the purpose of studying policies and procedures and case work techniques.

Reviewing case records from time to time in helping the county superintendent evaluate the work of the department.

Interpreting state policies and procedures and advising on their application.

Providing information and guidance in the use of available resources and consultant services.

Consulting with the superintendents in the selection and placement of personnel and in the annual preparation of county welfare budgets.

Meeting with county boards of public welfare and county commissioners in company with the superintendent.

Holding group meetings with county superintendents for the purpose of interpreting policies and procedures and studying common problems.

Interpreting the needs and problems of the county departments to the state office and conferring with members of the state office staff on problems, policies and procedures.

Making periodic progress reports and occasional comprehensive reports to the state office on the operation and progress of the various phases of the public welfare program in the counties.

Conferring with representatives of other agencies which depend upon the county welfare departments for the local operation of their programs, or which serve as resources to the county department.

The field representative is also responsible for holding local hearings on old age assistance and aid to dependent children appeals and making reports on such hearings to the State Board of Allotments and Appeal. He is also called upon from time to time to make investigations of complaints.

During the past two years 71 requests for appeal were referred to the field representatives. In conferences with the superintendents and clients 27 of these were disposed of satisfactorily without holding formal hearings. In the other 44 instances hearings were held by the field representatives and written reports were filed with the State Board of Allotments and Appeal for action.

 DEVELOPMENTAL SUPERVISION AS A FUNCTION OF THE FIELD REPRESENTATIVE

In describing the work of the field representative it was stated that visits are made to the county departments for the purpose of “exercising general developmental supervision.” The position of a state field social work representative is a supervisory position and one of the most responsible supervisory positions. Because of this fact and because there is considerable misapprehension in regard to its meaning and its use in public welfare administration, a brief discussion of the subject is most appropriate here. Much has been written on the subject as a social work process but only recently has it been discussed as an administrative process which both implements the smooth flow of agency work and contributes to staff development; or, we might say which contributes to staff development thus implementing a smooth flow of agency work. Our understanding of the subject will be increased if we stop to analyze the terms, developmental, supervision, and process.

Process has been defined as a systematic series of actions directed to some end; supervision, as the act of overseeing a process during performance or merely superintending, having oversight and direction of; and developmental, having the nature of bringing out latent capacities, or of bringing capacities to a more mature state, or fostering growth. Thus we might say that a developmental supervisory process is any systematic or planned series of actions performed by a worker under the oversight or direction of another person in a manner which brings out latent capacities or brings them to a more mature state in the worker, and directed to the end that the work in hand may be done more effectively and that from the present experience the worker will be better able to meet future situations and problems with a more effectively organized personal strength.

Dictionary definitions, however, frequently do not adequately describe terms which have come to have special meaning through usage. “Supervision,” for instance, with usage has become a technical term in social work which connotes the function of teaching or training as well as that of overseeing. Therefore, supervision, as an administrative process in public welfare or social work, in addition to having the derivative meaning, “to have general oversight of,” must in its application be directed toward the development and use of knowledge and skills by the agency staff in the performance of the job. The adjective “developmental” is being used now to give additional emphasis to the meaning which supervision has come to have with usage. The supervisory process, therefore, is not limited to case work practice, and it is not overstating the case to say it is indispensable in the performance of the functions of every person who serves in an administrative, executive, or supervisory capacity. Exercising supervision does not mean merely giving approval or disapproval, checking forms and procedures to see that rules are followed, assigning work or keeping a check on expenditures, but the more important responsibility of giving help in such a manner that the individual worker is left free, not to do as he pleases, but to exercise and develop initiative and skills which enable him to perform effectively the work which is assigned.

In analyzing the work done by the field social work representatives during the past two years the most essential things to know are not that a time study made during the month of March, 1940, indicated that they spent approximately 53 per cent of their time conferring with county superintendents and local boards on problems of administering old age assistance and aid to dependent children, 22 per cent on WPA referral problems and so through the various items covered by the study; that the state office received from each field representative a report on each of his counties at least once a quarter, that he visited each county at least once a month or that he filed his work reports and expense accounts regularly and in accordance with requirements. Important as these may be it is much more important to know how and wherein he measured up to his responsibilities as representative of the state agency and as professional helper to the county departments of public welfare. It is well to remember in this connection that giving supervision is not superimposing, and that supervision is a two-way process in which there is opportunity for both parties to learn and grow. For instance, an evaluation of an individual's performance is practically worthless so long as it is merely the thinking of the supervisor, and it becomes worth while only when the supervisor and the individual whose performance is being evaluated can sit down together and share their thinking. In this situation the supervisor will have an opportunity to consider critically his own performance, learn the wisdom of always reserving judgment, and of being objective in the sense of not permitting personal feelings to affect one's sense of justice. It is frequently difficult to accept this sort of help because it is difficult for one to admit and to face his weaknesses although it is an important part of developmental supervision.

 SOME FACTORS WHICH INFLUENCE EFFECTIVENESS OF FIELD SUPERVISION

There are, of course, numerous factors which influence the effectiveness of developmental supervision. If the field representative is to use successfully his leadership function, he must have “a belief in people as individuals; patience and sympathy with the shortcomings of human nature; a conviction that scrupulously fair, honest, and direct dealing with individuals is the one method which will best serve them; an open mind and an unemotional approach to the individual problem.”1

1 Gardner, Mary L., Some Factors in State Supervision for a Public Assistance Agency, Social Security Bulletin, vol. 2, no. 8.

The field representative must also have acquired a breadth of knowledge and skills in working with people, tact and resourcefulness in meeting situations; an understanding of public welfare laws, and resources and services available through public and private channels and their use in case work practice and public welfare administration; and an understanding of social case work, public welfare administration, and field supervision.

However, it makes no difference how well-equipped a field representative may be, effective help cannot be given unless his help is wanted, or unless there is a recognition of a need for help and willingness to ask for the sort of help that is needed. Therefore, it appears that the superintendent of public welfare may be using the field service to the best advantage when he presents directly and frankly agency problems not with the expectation that the field representative will make decisions for him, but that out of the objectivity which he should be able to bring to the problem plus his understanding of the limitations under which the local department works and his knowledge of policies and procedures, and an understanding of similar problems presented in other counties and how they are met there, the superintendent will be able to make his own decisions in a more effective manner.

Another factor which influences the effectiveness of the state field service is the size of the territories to be covered. With only eight field representatives, 100 counties to be covered, and contacts with state office to be maintained, it is obvious that the amount of time a field representative can give to one county is limited. Careful study of the situation reveals that with 12 or 13 counties each, a field representative is able to give only 45 or 50 per cent of his time to actual work with county staffs, which means that on the average he is able to give each county only six hours a month. If emergency situations arise in a few counties, the few must of necessity receive more of his time, leaving very little for regular work with the other counties. Office work, such as reading mail, bulletins and other material received from the state office, planning work, writing letters; and writing reports requires from 15 to 20 per cent of his time. Travel which consumes on the average 20 to 30 per cent of the field representative's time must frequently be done before and after office hours. Conferences in the state office and conferences with representative of other agencies require 15 to 18 per cent of his time.

A staff of twelve field representatives with eight or nine counties each would make it possible for each field representative to cut down the amount of time consumed in travel, thereby making it possible to give each county more of his time. It should be possible for a field representative to spend one day twice a month in each county instead of only about six hours.

The field social work service has served to bring the state and county departments of public welfare closer together and to keep the main objectives of the public welfare program in the foreground.

These objectives may be summed up in the statement that whatever assistance or service the public welfare agencies give to people it should be given in such a manner as to conserve and develop rather than to diminish the individual's own ability and right to help himself.

 DIVISIONS Child Welfare Public Assistance Case Work Training and Family Rehabilitation Mental Hygiene Institutions and Corrections DIVISION OF CHILD WELFARE LILY E. MITCHELL, Director

In the report for the biennium of 1936-38, the work of this division was defined as “emphasis on responsibility for (1) care of children outside their homes or in substitute or foster homes (2) special case-work service to children who, though living with their families, present personality and behavior problems; (3) improvement and enlargement of facilities for foster care; and (4) joining forces with all agencies in the children's field in a sincere, coöperative effort to determine what group of children in the state are most negleced by both the public and the private children's agencies and how the child welfare program can be adapted to care for their needs.”

During the biennium of 1938-40, the work of the division centered in the above four areas, and this report will summarize or record some results.

In the state advisory child welfare committee the total program has been discussed and thinking clarified on problematical situations. Through the work of the committee on the child, North Carolina Conference for Social Service, and the legislative committees of the State Association of Clerks of Court and State Association of Superintendents of Public Welfare, the adoption and illegitimacy laws, as well as the law regulating separation of infant from mother, were further strengthened and clarified through amendments. The two legislative committees collaborated in the drafting of blanks used in the adoption and separation procedures.

Several members of the division staff have served on important departmental committees. The director of the division is the chairman of the committee on filing, the project of which is described in the commissioner's report.

Two of the case consultants at two different periods have had educational leave of several months each during which they attended schools of social work. Two of the case consultants attended a seminar course in the summer of 1938, the director of the division a seminar course in the summer of 1939, and the supervisor of the special child welfare services area in June 1940.

All members of the staff attended various social service conferences held within the state during the biennium, and in 1939 several members attended national and regional conferences. Members of the staff have also attended a few sessions of the annual institute for orphanage workers conducted each summer by Duke University under the auspices of the Tri-State Orphanage Conference. This institute is an outstanding service to the private agencies in the state.

The division as a whole compiled a Manual of Procedure and Statewide Resources in Casework for use by county departments of public welfare and private children's agencies in the state.

SERVICE TO PRIVATE AGENCIES Orphanages and Other Child-Caring Institutions

The work of the consultant for children's institutions and agencies during the biennium indicates a changing emphasis in type of service sought by and given to children's agencies. In the past the emphasis has been on adequate physical care and protection of children, but as the standards of group care attained by all but a few institutions have been developed beyond the safe minimum, more attention is being given to the individual child's problems and the relationship of the institution's staff to the child. Therefore, the chief help now being requested of the consultant is in the nature of casework guidance and plan on the basis of the total child welfare program in the state. Conferences with various superintendents have resulted in a pooling of ideas on such typical problems as the following:

1. Behavior problems. A great many of these are presented by children of limited intelligence who have gone as far in school as they are able and are beginning to seek attention in anti-social ways. These children need to be trained in manual arts but neither the public school nor many of the orphanages are equipped to give this type child the training he is able to accept. This child requires a great deal of skillful understanding in order that he may not feel inadequate and resentful because he is not able to compete with the group mentally. Resources available to give this child a feeling of success in other fields are discussed.

2. A number of superintendents are beginning to find that not all children profit by group care and show by various behavior difficulties that they need more individual attention. The entire child welfare program is discussed and frequently other plans are made for this type of child.

3. More and more the orphanage executives are evaluating more carefully the type of cases for which they should be responsible and those that the counties should retain, helping through aid to dependent children fund. The child's needs are becoming the deciding factor as to the type of care planned for him.

4. Guidance is often sought from the consultant on matters of making physical improvements and in planning new, more modern cottages. The superintendents are aware of the value of making these changes in order to give the children in the cottages more modern equipment such as individual lockers, different wall paper and furnishings for each room, and more homelike living rooms and dining rooms.

5. Discussions are frequently held concerning the value of selecting cottage mothers who can best understand the individual child and his limitations which are due to lack of opportunities in his early environment. Staff education is suggested through more interesting staff meetings and attendance at conferences on child welfare.

6. Various administrative functions are brought up from time to time. Some of these include (a) means of financing various projects, (b) relationships between superintendent and staff, superintendent and children, staff and children, and superintendent and county departments of public welfare throughout the state.

7. The consultant rarely has a conference with any superintendent without touching on the subject of teaching children to grow up through gradually giving them more responsibility; teaching them to handle money and making it possible for them to have sufficient outside contacts to make good placement possible when the time comes for them to leave the institution.

In the winter of 1939 a conference for caseworkers of orphanages and members of the staff of the division of child welfare was held in Raleigh for the purpose of clarifying relationships and more completely coördinating respective services of the public and private agencies.

For each year of the biennium the superintendents of the maternity homes of the state have held a conference in Greensboro, a central location, in order to discuss mutual problems and relationship to the child-placing and casework agencies. In these conferences the director of the division and the consultant on children's agencies participated.

During the winter of 1939, the director of the division collaborated with the director of the division of adult education, State Department of Public Instruction (since nursery schools which are laboratories for parent education are located in this division) in the development of a committee on standards and supervision in pre-school education. The State Department of Public Instruction is interested in the work of such a committee because of the nursery school program and the State Board of Charities and Public Welfare because of the day nursery program. In April 1939, through this committee a statewide conference on standards was held. This conference was attended by representatives of kindergartens, nursery schools and day nurseries. This group decided it was interested in the general supervision of all pre-school education in the state through the department of public instruction. Therefore if an enabling bill is enacted by the General Assembly of North Carolina giving the State Department of Public Instruction responsibility for supervision of pre-school education, this department will have the same relationship to the educational program of day nurseries that it has to the educational program of orphanages. The State Board of Charities and Public Welfare will continue of course to have its former relationship to the day nursery on the basis of child care.

 CLASSIFICATION OF INSTITUTIONS ACCORDING TO LICENSE STATUS

The following tables give license status of instutitons for the year 1939-40:

TABLE A. ORPHANAGES OWNED BY RELIGIOUS DENOMINATIONS EXEMPT FROM LICENSE BECAUSE OF PROPERTY VALUATION OF $60,000.00 OR OVER

INSTITUTIONS Chief Executive Officer Location Date Founded Capacity Alexander Home. . . . . Mrs. W. R. Loving. . . . . Charlotte. . . . . 1894 40 Alexander Schools, Inc. . . . . W. E. Sweatt. . . . . Union Mills. . . . . 1925 231 Appalachian School. . . . . Rev. P. W. Lambert. . . . . Penland. . . . . 1925 60 Baptist Orphanage:         a. Mills Home. . . . . I. G. Greer. . . . . Thomasville. . . . . 1885 429 b. Kennedy Home. . . . . R. H. Hough. . . . . Kinston. . . . . 1914 136 Catholic Orphanage. . . . . Father J. A. Beshel. . . . . Nazareth. . . . . 1899 100 *Children's Home, Inc. . . . . O. V. Woosley. . . . . Winston-Salem. . . . . 1909 415 Christian Orphanage. . . . . Rev. Chas. D. Johnson. . . . . Elon College. . . . . 1904 150 Falcon Orphanage. . . . . J. A. Culbreth. . . . . Falcon. . . . . 1909 50 Free Will Baptist Orphanage. . . . . Rev. James A. Evans. . . . . Middlesex. . . . . 1920 75 Grandfather Orphan's Home. . . . . Miss Jane Russell. . . . . Banner Elk. . . . . 1914 86 *Methodist Orphanage. . . . . Rev. A. S. Barnes. . . . . Raleigh. . . . . 1899 300 *Methodist Protestant Children's Home. . . . . Rev. A. G. Dixon. . . . . High Point. . . . . 1910 120 Mountain Orphanage. . . . . Rev. J. H. Gruver. . . . . Black Mountain. . . . . 1904 65 Nazareth Orphans' Home. . . . . Ray P. Lyerly. . . . . Rockwell. . . . . 1906 60 Presbyterian Orphanage. . . . . Jos. B. Johnston. . . . . Barium Springs. . . . . 1891 320 Thompson Orphanage. . . . . M. D. Whisnant. . . . . Charlotte. . . . . 1887 112

* Negotiations are being made for the transference of the children in the Methodist Protestant Home at High Point to the Children's Home at Winston-Salem and the Methodist Orphanage at Raleigh, such transference depending upon the area from which the children came. The merging of the population of the Methodist Protestant Children's Home with those of the other two institutions is incident to the union or merging of all branches of the Methodist Church.

 TABLE B. ORPHANAGES OWNED BY FRATERNAL ORDERS EXEMPT FROM LICENSE BECAUSE OF PROPERTY VALUATION OF $60,000.00 OR OVER

INSTITUTIONSChief Executive OfficerLocationDate FoundedCapacityColored Orphanage of N. C.. . . . .T. K. Borders. . . . .Oxford. . . . .1883200I. O. O. F. Home. . . . .W. C. Beaman. . . . .Goldsboro. . . . .1892150*Children's Home of N. C. J. O. U. A. M. . . . .W. M. Shuford. . . . .Lexington. . . . .1926250Oxford Orphanage. . . . .Rev. C. K. Proctor. . . . .Oxford. . . . .1872330Pythian Home. . . . .D. W. Huggins. . . . .Clayton. . . . .191060

* On February 1, 1940, the National Orphans' Home of the Junior Order United American Mechanics became the Children's Home of the North Carolina Junior Order United American Mechanics. Prior to that time the home was owned and operated by the National Council of the Junior Order United American Mechanics serving a national area, but when the state council of the Junior Order United American Mechanics, which is subordinate to the national council assumed ownership and control of the home, the policy was changed to serve North Carolina children only.

 TABLE C. ORPHANAGES OWNED AND CONDUCTED BY AN INDIVIDUAL SUBJECT TO LICENSE BUT FAILING TO QUALIFY AND OPERATING ON PROBATION

INSTITUTION Chief Executive Officer Location Date Founded Capacity Eliada Orphanage. . . . . Rev. L. B. Compton. . . . . Asheville. . . . . 1904 115

TABLE D. CHILD-CARING INSTITUTIONS OPERATED LOCALLY FOR CHILDREN OF COMMUNITY (COUNTY) SUBJECT TO LICENSE

1. Orphanages Licensed INSTITUTIONS Chief Executive Officer Location Date Founded Capacity Memorial Industrial School (Negro). . . . . E. R. Garrett. . . . . Winston-Salem. . . . . 1900 90
2. Orphanages Licensed—On Probation South Mountain Institute. . . . . C. L. Stoney. . . . . Nebo. . . . . 1919 54
3. Institutions for Temporary Care—Licensed Juvenile Relief Home. . . . . Mrs. M. F. Britz. . . . . Winston-Salem. . . . . 1923 18 Wright Refuge. . . . . Mrs. Octavia Evans. . . . . Durham. . . . . 1922 45
4. Day Nurseries—Licensed Bethlehem House (Negro). . . . . Miss Marion Brincefield. . . . . Winston-Salem. . . . . 1927 45 Charlotte Day Nursery. . . . . Miss Annie Ferguson. . . . . Charlotte. . . . . 1929 45 Scarborough Day Nursery (Negro). . . . . Mrs. J. C. Scarborough. . . . . Durham. . . . . 1925 24
5. County Children's Homes for Temporary Care—Licensed Buncombe County Children's Home. . . . . Mrs. Emma Sams. . . . . Asheville. . . . . 1891 28
6. County Children's Homes for Temporary Care—Failing to Qualify for License Wake County Detention Home. . . . . Mrs. W. E. Robbins. . . . . Raleigh. . . . . 1922 16

TABLE E. CONVALESCENT CRIPPLED CHILDREN'S HOME OPERATED LOCALLY FOR CHILDREN OF WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA SUBJECT TO LICENSE

INSTITUTION Chief Executive Officer Location Date Founded Capacity Asheville Orthopedic Home. . . . . Miss Annie F. Mercer. . . . . Asheville. . . . . 1939 20

POPULATION TABLES

The tables on population of institutions caring for dependent children, shown below, are based on the annual reports of the respective institutions for the years 1938 and 1939.

TABLE a. CHILDREN CARED FOR IN NORTH CAROLINA ORPHANAGES DURING THE YEAR 1938

INSTITUTIONSTotalBoysGirlsOrphansHalf OrphansParents LivingMother DeadFather DeadAlexander Home. . . . .471433671024Alexander Schools, Inc. . . . .2141348017466883Appalachian School (The). . . . .57411644742Baptist Orphanage of N. C. . . . .58727531219510722362Buncombe County Children's Home. . . . .361917311715Catholic Orphanage. . . . .——————————————Children's Home, Inc. . . . .40220819410814111538Children's Home of N. C. J. O. U. A. M. . . . .227981293001970Christian Orphanage. . . . .87444320104116Colored Orphanage of N. C. . . . .153109447427457Falcon Orphanage. . . . .——————————————Free Will Baptist Orphanage. . . . .904446193653Grandfather Orphans' Home. . . . .80324815253010I. O. O. F. Home. . . . .57282960510Juvenile Relief Association, Inc. . . . .12932325Memorial Industrial School (Negro). . . . .77374024211913Methodist Orphanage. . . . .29514714847422033Methodist Protestant Children's Home. . . . .11558572624632Mountain Orphanage. . . . .6128231118302*Nazareth Orphanage. . . . .——————————————Oxford Orphanage. . . . .35117118060432426Presbyterian Orphans' Home. . . . .3131571565011012231Pythian Orphanage. . . . .36241270281South Mountain Industrial Institute. . . . .5921385112419Thompson Orphanage. . . . .107535414304023Wright Refuge. . . . .26121420519Total. . . . .3,4891,7631,7167456831,637424

* Report received too late for figures to be included.

 Table b. CHILDREN CARED FOR IN NORTH CAROLINA ORPHANAGES DURING THE YEAR 1939

INSTITUTIONSTotalBoysGirlsOrphansHalf OrphansParents LivingMother DeadFather DeadAlexander Home. . . . .40132747524Alexander Schools, Inc. . . . .2211279423495495Appalachian School (The). . . . .493316301036Baptist Orphanage of N. C. . . . .58327730618612421261Buncombe County Children's Home. . . . .2291318310Catholic Orphanage. . . . .——————————————Children's Home, Inc. . . . .41521420111115311536Children's Home of N. C. J. O. U. A. M. . . . .2041001042301810Christian Orphanage. . . . .78423618113316Colored Orphanage of N. C. . . . .150113377127475Falcon Orphanage. . . . .——————————————Free Will Baptist Orphanage. . . . .914447185680Grandfather Orphans' Home. . . . .8034461121408I. O. O. F. Home. . . . .4726