]> <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. . . . .47262160410Juvenile Relief Association, Inc. . . . .13852236Memorial Industrial School (Negro). . . . .80364422301810Methodist Orphanage. . . . .30815315539512117Methodist Protestant Orphanage. . . . .12059612727642Mountain Orphanage. . . . .6029311121253*Nazareth Orphanage. . . . .——————————————Oxford Orphanage. . . . .35017018051412508Presbyterian Orphans' Home. . . . .3161571595011411636Pythian Orphanage. . . . .47262179283South Mountain Industrial Institute. . . . .5217354112611Thompson Orphanage. . . . .100445615293422Wright Refuge. . . . .35191612131Total. . . . .3,4611,7501,7117047421,585430

* Report received too late for figures to be included.

 TABLE c. AGES OF CHILDREN UNDER CARE

INSTITUTIONSYear Ending December 31, 1938Year Ending December 31, 1939TotalUnder 1 YearBetween 1 and 2 YearsBetween 2 and 6 YearsBetween 6 and 12 YearsOver 12 YearsOver 21 YearsTotalUnder 1 YearBetween 1 and 2 YearsBetween 2 and 6 YearsBetween 6 and 12 YearsOver 12 YearsOver 21 YearsAlexander Home. . . . .5200143440490093190Alexander Schools, Inc. . . . .34400383244143600078925113Appalachian School (The). . . . .800037520810027810Baptist Orphanage of N. C. . . . .6500012291347064800172034271Buncombe County Children's Home. . . . .77005373505901723280Catholic Orphanage. . . . .————————————————————————————Children's Home, Inc. . . . .4510047188216046401351782464Children's Home of N. C. J. O. U. A. M. . . . .241003811570209003541520Christian Orphanage. . . . .96002425209700234610Colored Orphanage of N. C. . . . .16500264971174005571120Falcon Orphanage. . . . .————————————————————————————Free Will Baptist Orphanage. . . . .105004524909200329600Grandfather Orphans' Home. . . . .93018424209700644461I. O. O. F. Home. . . . .59000174206000219390Juvenile Relief Association, Inc. . . . .3489170003612716100Memorial Industrial School (Negro). . . . .910010354429100938431Methodist Orphanage. . . . .3400015145177333800101172038Methodist Protestant Orphanage. . . . .1260054576013200840840Mountain Orphanage. . . . .73000284507200018540*Nazareth Orphanage. . . . .————————————————————————————Oxford Orphanage. . . . .38200713723803880071402410Presbyterian Orphans' Home. . . . .3420015112211435900181102310Pythian Orphanage. . . . .37000142304700212330South Mountain Industrial Institute. . . . .86002275347801635360Thompson Orphanage. . . . .11900103772010200436620Wright Refuge. . . . .1131882757301302110356130

* Report received too late for figures to be included.

 TABLE d. POPULATION MOVEMENT

INSTITUTIONSYear Ending December 31, 1938Year Ending December 31, 1939Children in Institution Jan. 1, 1938Admissions During YearChildren Cared for During Yr.DischargeChildren in Institution Dec. 31, 1938Children in Institution Jan. 1, 1939Admissions During During Yr.Children Cared for During Yr.DischargeChildren in Institution Dec. 31, 1939Alexander Home. . . . .475521438409491237Alexander Schools, Inc. . . . .214130344123221221139360122238Appalachian School (The)57238031494932812655Baptist Orphanage of N. C. . . . .58763650675835836564877571Buncombe County Children's Home. . . . .36417755222237594118Catholic Orphanage. . . . .————————————————————Children's Home, Inc. . . . .40249451364154154946461403Children's Home of N. C. J. O. U. A. M. . . . .2271424137204204520952157Christian Orphanage. . . . .8799618787818961779Colored Orphanage of N. C. . . . .15312165151501502417419155Falcon Orphanage. . . . .————————————————————Free Will Baptist Orphanage. . . . .90151051491911921082Grandfather Orphans' Home. . . . .80139313808017971483I. O. O. F. Home. . . . .5725912474713601050Juvenile Relief Association, Inc. . . . .12223421131323362313Memorial Industrial School (Negro). . . . .7714911180801191685Methodist Orphanage. . . . .29545340323083083033846292Methodist Protestant Orphanage. . . . .1151112661201201213210122Mountain Orphanage. . . . .61127313606012721557*Nazareth Orphanage. . . . .————————————————————Oxford Orphanage. . . . .35131382323503503838856332Presbyterian Orphans' Home. . . . .31329342263163164335943316Pythian Orphanage. . . . .36137532321547242South Mountain Industrial Institute. . . . .59278634525226783048Thompson Orphanage. . . . .107121191910010021021983Wright Refuge. . . . .2687113783535951309733

*Report received too late for figures to be included.

 TABLE e. DISPOSITION OF CHILDREN DISCHARGED FROM INSTITUTIONS—YEAR ENDING DECEMBER 31, 1938

INSTITUTIONSPlaced in HomesRelatives or ParentsColleges and SchoolsTo WorkInstitutions for DelinquentsCaswell Training SchoolRan AwayDiedHospitals or SanatoriumsOther OrphanagesOtherwiseAlexander Home. . . . .212000000000Alexander Schools, Inc. . . . .0841200400032Appalachian School (The). . . . .1281000010031Baptist Orphanage of N. C. . . . .7406100040000*Buncombe County Children's Home. . . . .11301400000000Catholic Orphanage. . . . .——————————————————————Children's Home, Inc. . . . .025400001006Children's Home of N. C. J. O. U. A. M. . . . .035000000002Christian Orphanage. . . . .011060000001Colored Orphanage of N. C. . . . .010000000005Falcon Orphanage. . . . .——————————————————————Free Will Baptist Orphanage. . . . .111110000000Grandfather Orphans' Home. . . . .16000000006I. O. O. F. Home. . . . .07050000000Juvenile Relief Association, Inc. . . . .——————————————————————Memorial Industrial School (Negro).. . . . .28100000000Methodist Orphanage. . . . .0170140001000Methodist Protestant Children's Home. . . . .06000000000Mountain Orphanage. . . . .07300000003**Nazareth Orphanage. . . . .——————————————————————Oxford Orphanage. . . . .217350011003Presbyterian Orphans' Home. . . . .010790000000Pythian Orphanage. . . . .05000000000South Mountain Industrial Institute. . . . .025000050004Thompson Orphanage. . . . .013130010001Wright Refuge. . . . .0620000000016Total. . . . .2746942550015400110

*Placements made by Buncombe County juvenile court.

**Report received too late for figures to be included.

 TABLE f. DISPOSITION OF CHILDREN DISCHARGED FROM INSTITUTIONS—YEAR ENDING DECEMBER 31, 1939

INSTITUTIONSPlaced in HomesRelatives or ParentsColleges and SchoolsTo WorkInstitutions for DelinquentsCaswell Training SchoolRan AwayDiedHospitals or SanatoriumsOther OrphanagesOtherwiseAlexander Home. . . . .15000000006Alexander Schools, Inc. . . . .0792400800029Appalachian School (The). . . . .026000000000Baptist Orphanage of N. C. . . . .73415110052003*Buncombe County Children's Home.. . . . .2011601000030Catholic Orphanage. . . . .——————————————————————Children's Home, Inc. . . . .02913160000003Children's Home of N. C. J. O. U. A. M. . . . .0370000000015Christian Orphanage. . . . .08000000009Colored Orphanage of N. C. . . . .011150010001Falcon Orphanage. . . . .——————————————————————Free Will Baptist Orphanage. . . . .18100000000Grandfather Orphans' Home. . . . .07140000002I. O. O. F. Home. . . . .07000000003Juvenile Relief Association, Inc. . . . .——————————————————————Memorial Industrial School (Negro). . . . .04000001001Methodist Orphanage. . . . .0140000120029Methodist Protestant Children's Home. . . . .01080010000Mountain Orphanage. . . . .08500000002**Nazareth Orphanage . . . .——————————————————————Oxford Orphanage. . . . .0257170010006Presbyterian Orphans' Home. . . . .0124260000001Pythian Orphanage. . . . .05000000000South Mountain Industrial Institute. . . . .022010160000Thompson Orphanage. . . . .18250010002Wright Refuge. . . . .0770000000020Total. . . . .3043857971124503132

*Placements made by Buncombe County juvenile court.

**Report received too late for figures to be included.

 New Institutions

The Asheville Orthopedic Home was licensed on July 14, 1939, to care for crippled children and has at present a maximum capacity of 20. In addition to meeting minimum requirements for a child-caring institution set up by the State Board of Charities and Public Welfare, this institution must also comply with regulations of the State Board of Health relative to facilities for care of crippled children. The institution is the first of its type in the state, is well-equipped and is operated according to excellent standards.

 Proposed Institutions

Inquiries: During the biennium a total of 16 inquiries relative to establishment of children's agencies were received. Two inquiries were re-activated from the previous biennium. The 16 inquiries were classified as follows: 2 maternity homes; 1 day nursery; 2 homes for crippled children; 3 homes for temporary care of children; 8 orphanages; total, 16.

 Out of State Agencies Soliciting in North Carolina

Six substandard agencies from other states attempted to solicit funds in North Carolina during the past two years. Two of these agencies are located in Kentucky, one in Georgia, one in Tennessee, one in South Carolina and one in Virginia. When advised of the provisions of the North Carolina act regulating the soliciting of public aid by “charitable organizations, institutions or associations formed outside the State of North Carolina,” none of these agencies filed the necessary application for a license or otherwise attempted to comply with the law, and apparently left the state. Two other out-of-state and standard agencies were licensed to solicit memberships in this state. The purpose of the act is protection of North Carolina agencies and citizens.

 CHILD-PLACING AGENCIES Intra-state

In North Carolina child-placing is done by both public and private agencies. The juvenile court of each county is designated by law as the public child-placing agency. The superintendent of public welfare, who is the chief probation officer for the juvenile court, is usually requested by the court to make necessary placements. The actual placements may be made by a qualified case worker or a child welfare worker, a person with special training in this field, under direction of superintendent of public welfare. The private agencies must meet certain standards and are required by law to have a license from the State Board of Charities and Public Welfare in order to operate.

Licensed Child-placing Agencies

There are two private children's agencies in the state licensed by the State Board of Charities and Public Welfare to do child-placing. They are:

CHILD PLACING AGENCIES LICENSED AGENCY Chief Executive Location Date Founded Children's Service Bureau (Mecklenburg County). . . . . Miss Helen Taylor. . . . . Charlotte. . . . . 1934 N. C. Children's Home Society (State-wide). . . . . J. J. Phoenix. . . . . Greensboro. . . . . 1903

TABLES SHOWING ACTIVITIES OF CHILD-PLACING AGENCIES 1. Children Serviced—Year Ending December 31, 1938

  Foster Homes Own Homes Receiving Home Total AGENCY Children Under Supervision January 1, 1938 Children Placed During Year Children Discharged from Care During Year Children Under Supervision December 31, 1938 Children Under Supervision January 1, 1938 Children Accepted for Supervision During Year Children Discharged from Supervision During Year Children Under Supervision December 31, 1938 Children in Home January 1, 1938 Children Admitted During Year Children Discharged During Year Children Under Supervision December 31, 1938 Children Under Care During Year Children's Home Society of North Carolina. . . . . 265 97 104 258 0 0 0 0 6 105 104 7 473 Children's Service Bureau. . . . . 43 58 34 67 56 64 73 47 0 0 0 0 370 2. Children Serviced—Year Ending December 31, 1939 Children's Home Society of North Carolina. . . . . 258 96 86 268 0 0 0 0 7 93 97 3 454 Children's Service Bureau. . . . . 67 36 54 49 47 65 100 12 0 0 0 0 385

3. Caseload of Foster Homes—Year Ending December 31,1938

AGENCY Active Foster Homes Foster Home Applications Homes Under Supervision Jan. 1, 1938 Homes Placed Under Supervision During Year Homes WithDrawn from Supervision During Year Homes Under Supervision Dec. 31, 1938 Applications Pending Jan. 1, 1938 Applications Received During Year Applications Approved During Year Applications Rejected or Withdrawn During Year Applications Pending Dec. 31, 1938 Children's Home Society of North Carolina. . 12 107 10 17 12 130 107 8 17 Children's Service Bureau. . . . . 36 14 4 44 40 25 14 2 3 4. Caseload of Foster Homes—Year Ending December 31, 1939 Children's Home Society of North Carolina. . 17 126 14 24 17 156 126 9 24 Children's Service Bureau. . . . . 44 21 25 35 3 31 21 5 2

5. Disposition of Children Discharged by Agencies—Year Ending December 31, 1938

AGENCY Children Returned to Relatives Legally Adopted Attained Majority Married Referred to Another Agency Died Otherwise Children's Home Society of North Carolina. . . 0 88 5 1 0 1 9 Children's Service Bureau. . . . . 20 6 2 0 29 0 97 6. Disposition of Children Discharged by Agencies—Year Ending December 31, 1939 Children's Home Society of North Carolina. . . 1 68 10 0 0 1 6 Children's Service Bureau. . . . . 28 4 0 0 52 0 145

Inter-state

It is a growing conviction among both public and private child-placing agencies that an agency should place its wards for adoption only in territory where it can give direct supervision. There are many instances of course where an agency might place wards in the homes of kin in another state in an effort to strengthen ties of the child's own or natural family. But placements in homes of non-kin in other states are much less frequent than formerly.

On the other hand, the trend to place dependent children in need of foster care in homes of eligible kin, whether within or without the state or agency's boundaries, has gained momentum with the advent of the aid to dependent children fund.

The following tables include placement referrals in homes of kin, as well as in adoptive homes, for all requests for interstate placement of children are referred to and through this division. The referrals for placement in homes of kin totaled 84 and in homes of non-kin 51. Most of the homes of kin investigated as possible placements for the 84 children were found not suitable.

NUMBER CASES Bringing Children Into State Taking Children Out of State Total Approved. . . . . 18 11 29 Disapproved by North Carolina. . . . . 46 4 50 Disapproved by agency in other state. . . . . 1 2 3 No jurisdiction. . . . . 8 9 17 Request withdrawn. . . . . 4 2 6 Pending. . . . . 27 3 30 Totals. . . . . 104 31 135

The number of proposed importations were about 3⅓ times as many as the number of proposed deportations, as the above figures indicate.

 Placement of Refugee Children from European War Areas in North Carolina Homes

About two weeks before the close of the biennium, considerable interest was evidenced in several localities of the state in offering homes to European children, particularly those from the British Isles, for the period of the duration of the war between Germany and England. Part of the interest resulted from direct contact between citizens of England and their friends in the state for care for particular children; part was the result of activity of local committees for care of European children. Any foster placement of a dependent child in North Carolina involves the state laws regulating child-placing and the importation of children, therefore tentative plans were made to investigate all aspects of the situation with due consideration for the total child welfare program in the state as well as for special work in behalf of refugee children.

 MATERNITY HOMES

The function and program of the four maternity homes in the state are described in the report of the last biennium.

The following tables list maternity homes, capacity and license status for 1939-40 and statistics on population movements for the years 1938-39 and 1939-40:

INSTITUTIONS Superintendent Location Date Founded Capacity License Status Crittenton Home. . . . . Mrs. F. W. McGinnis. . . . . Charlotte. . . . . 1903 28 Probational Faith Cottage. . . . . Miss Christine Pratt. . . . . Asheville. . . . . 1902 17 —— Greensboro Rest Cottage. . . . . Miss Elizabeth Andrews. . . . . Greensboro. . . . . 1903 15 Probational Salvation Army Maternity Home. . . . . Miss Myrtle Marshall. . . . . Durham. . . . . 1925 31 Full License

License withheld from Faith Cottage because there is no registered nurse on staff.

 STATISTICS FROM MONTHLY REPORTS OF INSTITUTIONS Year Ending June 30, 1939

INSTITUTIONSTotal No. Girls Listed by MonthTotal No. Babies Listed by MonthAverage No. Girls Cared for Per monthAverage No. Babies Cared for Per MonthTotal No. Girls DyingTotal No. Babies Dying*Crittenton Home. . . . .22714320-plus1302Faith Cottage. . . . .614253-plus00Rest Cottage. . . . .1479312-plus8-minus00Salvation Army Maternity Home. . . . .3701993116-plus06

* Causes of death listed are: “stillborn,” “premature,” “premature-hydrocephalus,” “cause unknown.”

 [STATISTICS FROM MONTHLY REPORTS OF INSTITUTIONS-continued.] Year Ending June 30, 1939

INSTITUTIONSTotal No. Girls Listed by MonthTotal No. Babies Listed by MonthAverage No. Girls Cared for Per monthAverage No. Babies Cared for Per MonthTotal No. Girls DyingTotal No. Babies Dying*Crittenton Home. . . . .254165231503Faith Cottage. . . . .51304-plus2-plus00Rest Cottage. . . . . 1266110-plus505Salvation Army Maternity Home. . . . . 33319729-plus16-plus01

* Causes of death listed are: “premature,” “stillborn,” “hard delivery forceps,” “marasmus and pyloric spasm” “stillborn-anencephalia monster,” “bronchial pneumonia.”

 SERVICE TO COUNTY DEPARTMENTS OF PUBLIC WELFARE, JUVENILE COURTS AND COURTS OF ADOPTION (CLERKS OF SUPERIOR COURT) Casework Service

The nature of the procedure in the handling of cases between the state and county agencies is referral and advisory. In the interstate placements of dependent children, however, the state board makes the final decision. The figures given in the table below show the type and number of cases referred by the county departments of public welfare, other state agencies, citizens or agencies in other states to the division of child welfare.

TABLE OF CASES New or Re-opened During Biennium

Type Number Adoptions and Child-placing (inquiries, registrations, pending). . . . . 1,042 Applications for Assistance from State Boarding Home Fund. . . . . 52 Boarding Homes (applications for license, information, etc.). . . . . 137 Children referred as   Crippled. . . . . 22 Dependent and Neglected. . . . . 379 Delinquent (including unmarried mothers). . . . . 339 With Health Problem. . . . . 32 With Problem of Mixed Race. . . . . 15 Impostors and Solicitors. . . . . 21 Inquiries regarding proposed institutions. . . . . 16 Interstate (placement of children, requests for investigations and information). . . . . 650

Type Number Legal Settlement. . . . . 154 Miscellaneous. . . . . 74 Total new cases referred. . . . . 2,933

During the biennium of 1936-38, a total of 2,640 cases were referred. Therefore, the increase of new cases in the biennium of 1938-40 was 11-plus per cent over the number of the previous biennium.

In addition to service on the 2,933 new referrals, service was continued on an estimated 1,000 old cases active on July 1, 1938.

 REGISTRATION OF ADOPTIONS

During the biennium a total of 730 new adoption proceedings were received by the State Board of Charities and Public Welfare from the clerks of court for registration and filing. The following table shows number and nature of registrations.

Registration of Final Orders Only (Original Action in Previous Biennium) Full Registrations (Petition Through Final Orders) July 1, 1938 July 1, 1940 Registrations Through Interlocutory Order July 1, 1938 July 1, 1940 Revocations Pending (for Additional Registration Data) 392 201 472 14 57

An analysis of these 730 adoptions on the basis of persons or agencies responsible for the placement shows the following:

FOR THE YEAR JULY 1, 1938 TO JULY 1, 1939 Number Children Placed by Children's Home Society of North Carolina Number Children Placed by Children's Service Bureau, Charlotte, N. C. Number Childred Placed by Parent (or Guardian) Number Children Placed by Juvenile Court or Department Public Welfare Consents Doubtful Adoptions Consented to by Out-of-State Agencies 66 8 133 15 0 2

FOR THE YEAR JULY 1, 1939 TO JULY 1, 1940 Number Children Placed by Children's Home Society of North Carolina Number Children Placed by Children's Service Bureau, Charlotte, N. C. Number Childred Placed by Parent (or Guardian) Number Children Placed by Juvenile Court or Department Public Welfare Consents Doubtful Adoptions Consented to by Out-of-State Agencies 83 3 156 21 2 0

ADMINISTRATION OF THE STATE BOARDING HOME FUND

The administration of the state boarding home fund involves the acceptance of applications for aid for individual children from county welfare departments and juvenile courts on the basis of need and on the condition of placement in licensed boarding homes.

The fund of only $7,500 per annum is inadequate to meet all the requests for this aid received from the counties, but an effort is made to distribute the grants among the counties making application as widely and evenly as possible without upsetting plans for children already receiving aid. In the late winter of 1938 a survey was made of the number of children in care of county departments of public welfare and juvenile courts who were in need of this type of foster care. Forty-three counties of the total 100 answered the questionnaire, listing 392 children and estimating approximately $44,000.00 as the sum—state and county funds combined—needed to care for them at a boarding rate of less than $10.00 per month. On a 50-50 basis the state's share of such a sum would be $22,000.00, but an appropriation of $15,000.00 only was requested of the General Assembly of 1939, believing that the full $22,000.00 could not be absorbed. The appropriation of $7,500.00, however, was not increased

Children Aided, 1938-39

During the year 1938-39 juvenile courts in 45 counties were assisted in caring for a total of 88 children through county funds and the state boarding home fund. This number was 23 more children than could be helped in the year 1937-38. Forty-six of the 88 children received this aid for the full year. Thirty-three children were accepted for care during this period and 23 were transferred to other types of care. Seven of the 88 children are state wards and six of these wards received full maintenance from the state fund.

The total number of boarding months was 806. The average rate of board paid per month per child was $16.17. The average number of months care per child was 9.15 months.

The following table shows expenditure from both state and county funds for the year 1938-39:

BOARDING HOME CARE STATEMENT OF DISBURSEMENTS Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1939

COUNTY PARTICIPATING STATE FUND COUNTY FUND *Alamance. . . . . $ 305.32 $ 70.00 Anson. . . . . 138.75 138.75 *Ashe. . . . . 239.35 00.00 Avery. . . . . 275.00 55.00 Burke. . . . . 168.00 168.00 Caldwell. . . . . 60.00 60.00 Caswell. . . . . 111.00 111.00 Chatham. . . . . 150.00 150.00 Cherokee. . . . . 231.00 231.00 Chowan. . . . . 100.50 60.00 Cumberland. . . . . 47.25 47.25 Davidson. . . . . 180.00 180.00 Durham. . . . . 133.88 133.88 *Edgecombe. . . . . 380.42 148.00 Forsyth. . . . . 260.63 260.63 *Gaston. . . . . 293.72 120.00 Greene. . . . . 13.63 13.63 Guilford. . . . . 144.00 144.00 Haywood. . . . . 135.00 135.00 Johnston. . . . . 120.00 120.00 Lincoln. . . . . 135.63 135.63 *Macon. . . . . 704.41 225.00 *Madison 274.02 00.00 Martin. . . . . 171.00 171.00 McDowell. . . . . 120.00 120.00 Mecklenburg. . . . . 297.00 297.00 *Moore. . . . . 180.00 00.00 Nash. . . . . 106.34 106.34 New Hanover. . . . . 111.00 111.00 Northampton. . . . . 55.00 55.00 Orange. . . . . 211.00 211.00 Pamlico. . . . . 84.00 84.00 Pasquotank. . . . . 60.00 60.00 Perquimans. . . . . 240.00 240.00

* Difference between the amount paid from state fund and amount paid from county fund in these counties is due to fact that a state ward, resident of county, is receiving full or part maintenance from the state fund in addition to amount paid from state fund to match county fund in care of other children.

[BOARDING HOME CARE, Continued]COUNTY PARTICIPATINGSTATE FUNDCOUNTY FUNDPitt. . . . . $ 105.00$ 105.00Randolph. . . . . 67.5067.50Rockingham. . . . . 60.0060.00Rowan. . . . . 87.0087.00Rutherford. . . . . 111.00111.00Surry. . . . . 91.2091.20Transylvania. . . . . 180.00180.00*Wake. . . . . 210.00180.00Wayne. . . . . 34.4634.46Wilkes. . . . . 67.5067.50Wilson. . . . . 241.01241.01Totals. . . . . $7,491.52$5,269.93

* Difference between the amount paid from state fund and amount paid from county fund in these counties is due to fact that a state ward, resident of county, is receiving full or part maintenance from the state fund in addition to amount paid from state fund to match county fund in care of other children.

 Children Aided 1939-40

During the year 1939-40 with the juvenile courts of 40 counties participating, a total of 84 children were cared for in licensed boarding homes through state and county funds. Forty-seven of these children received this aid for the entire period. Nineteen of the 84 children were transferred to other types of care during the year and 15 children were accepted for care. Seven of the total number of children are state wards and six wards received full maintenance from the state fund.

The number of boarding months totaled 779, an average of 9.27 months care per child. The average rate of board paid per month per child was $16.11.

The following table shows expenditures from both state and county funds for the year 1939-40.

BOARDING HOME CARE STATEMENT OF DISBURSEMENTS Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1940

COUNTY PARTICIPATING STATE FUND COUNTY FUND *Alamance. . . . . $ 282.00 $ 60.00 Anson. . . . . 117.09 117.09 *Ashe. . . . . 222.00 00.00 Buncombe. . . . . 57.75 57.75 Burke. . . . . 290.75 290.75 Caldwell. . . . . 90.00 90.00 Caswell. . . . . 111.00 111.00 Chatham. . . . . 150.00 150.00 Cherokee. . . . . 231.00 231.00

* Difference between the amount paid from state fund and amount paid from county fund in these counties is due to fact that a state ward, resident of county, is receiving full or part maintenance from the state fund in addition to amount paid from state fund to match county fund in care of other children.

[Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1940, Continued]COUNTY PARTICIPATINGSTATE FUNDCOUNTY FUNDChowan. . . . . $ 120.00$ 60.00Cumberland. . . . . 62.7562.75Davidson. . . . . 60.0060.00Durham. . . . . 111.00111.00*Edgecombe. . . . . 222.0000.00Forsyth. . . . . 235.97235.97*Gaston. . . . . 332.36120.00Guilford. . . . . 240.00240.00Haywood. . . . . 180.00180.00Johnston. . . . . 40.0040.00*Macon. . . . . 690.00225.00*Madison. . . . . 240.0000.00Martin. . . . . 110.13110.13McDowell. . . . . 111.00111.00*Mecklenburg. . . . . 535.97360.00*Moore. . . . . 326.4792.00Nash. . . . . 13.6713.67New Hanover. . . . . 124.43124.43Orange. . . . . 25.0025.00Pamlico. . . . . 84.0084.00Perquimans. . . . . 192.50192.50Pitt. . . . . 70.0070.00Randolph. . . . . 276.75276.75Rockingham. . . . . 315.75315.75Rowan. . . . . 105.00105.00Rutherford. . . . . 111.00111.00Surry. . . . . 112.17112.17Transylvania. . . . . 180.00180.00*Wake. . . . . 180.55156.00Wayne. . . . . 32.6032.60Wilkes. . . . . 78.7578.75Wilson. . . . . 240.00240.00Totals. . . . . $7,311.36$5,233.06

* Difference between the amount paid from state fund and amount paid from county fund in these counties is due to fact that a state ward, resident of county, is receiving full or part maintenance from the state fund in addition to amount paid from state fund to match county fund in care of other children.

 SELECTION AND LICENSING OF BOARDING HOMES

An important part of the function of the division of child welfare is the licensing of all boarding homes for children used by public agencies and private children's agencies. Standards for these homes have been set up by the state board and must be met before license can be issued. These standards deal largely with the physical aspects of the home leaving the emotional factors to be evaluated on an individual basis according to the needs of the child or children to be placed in the home. Detailed information regarding these standards have been furnished county officials and also heads of private agencies.

Application for license to board children is made by the family to the local agency, either public or private, which is responsible for children's work in the area in which the home is located. If the study made of the home by the local agency indicates that it is a suitable one in which to board children, the application and study are then forwarded to the state office. Before license can be issued, the home must be visited by a representative of the state board and his or her recommendations received. If it is not possible for a consultant from the division of child welfare to make this visit, the field supervisor for the county in which the home is located does it. A re-evaluation of the homes is made each year and new licenses issued to those homes continuing to meet the boarding home standards.

Boarding Home Statistics

There was an increase during the biennial period in the use of boarding home care for dependent, neglected and pre-delinquent children who either had no homes or whose homes were improper places for them to live. There is a growing recognition of the value of this type care as is shown by the increased number of licensed boarding homes in a larger number of counties. The Biennial Report 1936-38 shows that there were 57 approved homes in twenty-nine counties at the end of the period covered. The table given below shows that there were 71 approved homes in 32 counties and 32 additional homes in 12 counties whose applications are being considered at the end of this period covered. There is a great need for additional approved homes as is shown by the study made of the county home population on January 31, 1939, in which it was ascertained there were 97 children under 16 years of age among the 2,801 inmates. It is hoped that before the next biennium there will be no need to use this archaic type of care for our youth.

LICENSED BOARDING HOMES

COUNTY Number Homes Licensed 1938-39 Total Capacity 1938-39 Number Homes Pending 1938-39 Number Homes Licensed 1939-40 Total Capacity 1939-40 Number Homes Pending 1939-40 New Old New Old Alamance. . . . . 2 6 —— —— 2 6 —— —— Anson. . . . . —— —— —— —— 1 2 —— —— Buncombe. . . . . 3 6 —— —— 2 5 —— —— Burke. . . . . 1 2 —— —— 2 4 —— —— Caldwell. . . . . 1 1 —— —— 1 1 —— —— Chatham. . . . . 1 2 —— —— 1 2 —— —— Cherokee. . . . . 1 2 —— —— 1 2 —— —— Cleveland. . . . . 1 1 —— —— 1 1 —— —— Cumberland. . . . . 1 4 —— —— 1 2 2 —— Currituck. . . . . —— —— —— —— —— —— 2 —— Davidson. . . . . 1 4 —— —— —— —— —— 1 Duplin. . . . . 1 4 —— —— —— —— —— —— Durham. . . . . 5 2 —— —— 6 15 1 —— Edgecombe. . . . . —— —— —— —— 1 2 —— —— Forsyth. . . . . 4 11 6 —— 6 18 4 3 Gaston. . . . . 1 2 —— —— —— —— —— 1 Guilford. . . . . 2 6 1 2 2 6 2 —— Haywood. . . . . 3 9 —— —— 2 8 2 1 Iredell. . . . . —— —— —— —— 2 8 5 —— Johnston. . . . . 1 3 —— —— 1 4 —— —— Lee. . . . . —— —— 2 —— —— —— —— 2 Lenoir. . . . . 1 1 —— —— 1 1 —— —— Martin. . . . . —— —— —— 1 —— —— —— —— McDowell. . . . . 1 3 —— —— —— 3 —— 1 Moore. . . . . —— —— —— —— 1 4 —— —— Mecklenburg. . . . . 10 27 1 2 12 27 3 3 New Hanover. . . . . 1 2 —— —— 1 2 —— —— Northampton. . . . . 1 3 —— 2 2 7 —— —— Orange. . . . . 1 4 —— —— 2 6 —— —— Pamlico. . . . . 1 3 —— —— 1 3 —— —— Randolph. . . . . 1 4 —— —— 1 4 —— —— Rockingham. . . . . 1 4 —— —— 1 4 —— —— Rutherford. . . . . 1 4 —— —— 1 4 —— —— Sampson. . . . . 1 2 —— —— 1 2 —— —— Stanly. . . . . —— —— —— —— 1 2 —— —— Surry. . . . . —— —— —— —— 2 4 1 —— Transylvania. . . . . —— —— —— —— 1 2 —— —— Wake. . . . . 7 20 —— —— 10 29 —— —— Wilkes. . . . . 1 2 1 —— 1 2 —— —— Yadkin. . . . . —— —— 1 —— —— —— —— —— Total. . . . . 57 144 12 7 71 192 22 12

CHILD WELFARE SERVICES

Child welfare services incorporated within the division of child welfare has continued for the past biennium on the premises as outlined for the program in its earliest beginnings. It has continued to function under the supervision of the federal children's bureau from whence the major portion of funds comes. Within the biennium there has been an annual decrease of approximately $900 in the allotment of money from this source due to allocation of funds for setting up the child welfare services program in Puerto Rico. The counties benefiting from workers have been coöperative in assuming some financial participation in the work. It is expected that there will be further gradual participation as time goes on.

The scope of work covered for the past biennium has been:

A. Supervision of the county child welfare assistants through three case consultants on the state staff and consultant service given to a selected number of counties not having child welfare assistants.

B. Maintenance of a special area of three counties—Orange, Chatham and Durham—to provide case work services to children and to give field work placement to students in coöperation with the University of North Carolina.

C. Provision for educational leaves and in-service training.

D. Continuation of the social case worker in Morrison Training School.

E. Expansion of the mental hygiene services in the state board which provided psychiatric services for children.

F. Provision for a substitute worker placed in counties having vacancies while the child welfare assistant was away on educational leave.

G. Continuation of state advisory committee as a state-wide interpretive group with meetings held on a semiannual basis.

H. Continuation of local or county unit service through the work of county children's workers in coöperation with selected counties with increased emphasis on interpretation, integration and local participation.

Supervision and Consultation Service

The case consultants have continued to offer supervision to the child welfare assistants placed in rural county units for case work services to dependent and neglected children through periodic visits to the counties. Experience has proven consultation services to counties prior to the acceptance of a child welfare worker to be of inestimable value. For this reason consultation in counties without child welfare workers has been emphasized in the last biennium and has been made a prerequisite to the placement of a worker. This has given the consultant the opportunity to interpret the types of cases that make up a child welfare worker's load, and philosophies with regard to handling of children's cases, before the worker goes into the county. The consultant has also found it advantageous to identify with the local staff before the special worker comes to the agency. It is not expected that all counties requesting consultant service will be later provided with a child welfare worker, but that this type of service alone will meet the need of some counties.

 Special Area

There has been a continuation of the three-county unit in the vicinity of the University of North Carolina which met a two-fold need—that of serving underprivileged children in the several communities, and that of offering a training center in children's work for students in the division of social work and public welfare of the university. Even though trainees accepting field placements in child welfare services do not definitely identify with the child welfare services program when they accept positions, they will gain insight into a field that will react positively in handling children's cases that fall in their loads in the general field. It is believed that the state at large will be diffused with workers with broadened insight into children's problems by the maintenance of the training centers for children's work in coöperation between the University of North Carolina and the State Board of Charities and Public Welfare.

 CHILDREN'S UNIT—DIVISION OF MENTAL HYGIENE

There has been an expansion of mental hygiene services within the last biennium to the extent that there is now a children's unit within the division of mental hygiene of the State Board of Charities and Public Welfare. The children's unit consists of a psychiatrist and a psychologist who give their full time to children's work; the time of the psychiatrist has been divided between the child welfare services program and two mental hygiene clinics, one in Winston-Salem and the other in Charlotte. At least half of his time has been devoted to child welfare services. The service to children has been through consultation with the case consultants and the child welfare assistants, and it has been possible to carry a few extreme cases on a treatment basis. In some instances children were brought to the psychiatrist during his office hours in Raleigh; others have been seen at the two clinics. The psychiatrist attended staff meetings and lent his assistance in shaping the child welfare services program.

The work of the psychologist has continued much as in former years. Her services have been available only to children within the child welfare assistants' case loads or to children in the case loads of workers in counties where consultation service was being given but not served by child welfare services workers.

 EDUCATIONAL LEAVES AND IN-SERVICE TRAINING

The number of educational leaves decreased during this biennium from four to three a year, the reason being that with the return of a number of workers from leaves to the staff, the demand for trained people was less emergent and a smaller amount of money should, therefore, be allocated for this purpose. The worker on leave was privileged to stay nine months instead of six as formerly, the stipend being the same, which meant that those workers taking nine months' leave rather than six would supplement from their own resources. It is expected that workers taking leave from their work to study will finance their own way more and more as time goes on. Educational leaves have been supplemented by an in-service training program by means of which once a year outstanding people in the field of child welfare have come to the state to conduct a two-day institute for the workers. Case work techniques and philosophies have been stressed in these institutes which have left a definite imprint on the workers.

The case consultants in coöperation with the psychiatrist from the children's unit have held occasional institutes in their separate districts. These have been of value in educating the workers in the use of a psychiatrist.

The case consultants have coöperated with the director of the division of case work and family rehabilitation in district institutes by giving talks and leading discussion groups which were intended to give insight into the handling of children's cases.

 SERVICES TO TRAINING SCHOOLS

During the biennium workers were discontinued in the state training schools with the exception of Morrison Training School for delinquent Negro boys at Hoffman. Because of the lack of a sufficient number of Negro caseworkers over the state, it was deemed wise to retain the worker in Morrison to supplement a case work service to Negro children in the counties. The worker was originally placed in Morrison to make an intensive study of intake and discharge with a view to assisting the institution in these areas. Within the time that the worker has been in the institution, policies with regard to intake and discharge have shaped themselves fairly satisfactorily and she has been able to expand her services. She has acted in a consultative capacity to workers on the staff and has helped them to individualize the child, thus more adequately meeting his needs. She has been of assistance to the superintendent in guiding staff conferences and committees within the institution which have resulted in great benefit in the way of staff developmet and ultimately in a better service to children. She has kept development records on particular cases and has done research within the population and among parolees to determine whether or not a maximum benefit is being derived for the child from the efforts of the staff. Coöperating with the localities from which the child comes, the worker has been of assistance in planning programs to meet his needs and to help him find the best possible placement when he leaves the institution.

With the discontinuance of the workers from the other training schools in the state the consultant on intake and discharge was discontinued on the state staff. Supervision of the social worker in Morrison Training School thereby reverted to the assistant director for child welfare services.

Substitute Worker

For the last year of the biennium, a substitute worker was employed in child welfare services to be available to selected counties having vacancies while child welfare assistants were away on educational leave. Leaves were arranged so that the substitute worker could be employed full time as a temporary person. It had been planned that she would be available to other counties in emergency situations, but her time was completely absorbed in substitution for workers on leave so that it was not possible for her to function as an emergency worker. This worker served a short time in Caswell County and for about ten months in Surry County, having made a definite contribution to those counties in the absence of their regular workers.

 ADVISORY COMMITTEE

The state advisory committee representing organizations interested in child welfare has continued to function as an advisory group to the state staff. The evaluation of the program from the standpoint of the agencies represented on the committee has proved most worth while in its implications and in directing the trends in the child welfare program. A part of the time semiannual meetings have been held rather than quarterly meetings as heretofore. Membership on this committee includes a representative from each of the following organizations:

North Carolina Orphanage Association; State Association of Superintendents of Public Welfare; Children's Home Society, Greensboro, North Carolina; State Child Welfare Committee, American Legion and Auxiliary; State Parent-Teachers' Association; Committee on The Child, North Carolina Conference for Social Work; State Association of Clerks of Superior Courts; State Association of County Commissioners; State Federation of Women's Clubs; Division of Social Work and Public Welfare, School of Public Administration, University of North Carolina; North Carolina Chapter, American Association of Social Workers.

 COUNTY SERVICES

The division of child welfare has worked in coöperation with the general field staff of the state department in evaluating a county unit before it was accepted for consultation service or for the placement of a child welfare assistant. The child welfare services staff held itself responsible in great part for interpretation of the program to the superintendents of public welfare, but matters of administration were delegated largely to the general field staff while efforts to attain the integration of the child welfare assistant in the local staff was carried jointly by the case consultant and the field representative. A concerted effort has been made to stimulate the counties to become aware of their own resources in finances and their part in the utilization of other less tangible aids in developing better programs for social case work with children. During the last year of the biennium increased financial participation over previous years was assumed by county units in that all mileage incident to case work in the care of children was borne by the local department.

Child welfare workers have been placed in counties as a means of attempting a demonstration of good child care in rural areas and of promoting community understanding of problems of child welfare as well as a means of stimulating interest in adequate programs for children particularly emphasizing preventive service. They have attempted to demonstrate good case work practices in the care of dependent and neglected children and as much as possible have tried to carry on their work on a treatment basis. Workers have not found it possible to carry the entire load of children's cases within their counties, but have instead taken a cross-section of children's problems, whenever possible trying to be of service to other workers on the staff in the realm of children's cases. Although it has been the aim to keep the case loads as low as 50, the number of cases carried has gone beyond this in instances.

Counties given service within the biennium were:

Anson Buncombe Burke Caldwell Caswell Chatham Cherokee Cumberland* Durham Durham (Negro)* Edgecombe* Martin* Nash Northampton Orange Pitt Randolph* Robeson Sampson Surry

* Counties discontinued during biennium.

Qualifications for child welfare assistants during the biennium were:

A. At least two quarters social work training in a school of social work if the worker plans to complete at least six months additional social work training in an accredited school of social work not later than January 1943. and earlier if possible.**

** Quoted from the North Carolina Manual of Public Assistance which sets forth qualifications for all members of the generalized staffs of the county departments of public welfare This was the training requirement for caseworkers.

AND

B. At least twelve months' successful experience in supervised social work.

II

A. Two years' social work training in a professional school of social work.

OR

B. At least one year of social work training in an accredited school of social work with special emphasis in child welfare.

The close of the present biennium marks the end of four years of the child welfare services program. County departments of public welfare have been coöperative in use of the service. Requests for child welfare workers have continued to come in as well as requests for consultation services to counties without child welfare workers. It has been particularly gratifying that urban areas, though not eligible for child welfare workers, have shown a desire for better service to children and have asked for periodic visits from the case consultants. It has been particularly gratifying, too, that one densely populated county, Mecklenburg, though ineligible for a federal child welfare services worker, has shown keen enough interest in the welfare of its children to delegate a worker from its staff to carry children's cases altogether. This worker receives the same supervision from the case consultant as workers on whole or part federal pay. Another county, Buncombe, has put on a part-time worker at local expense to supplement the work done by the worker paid from federal funds. It is expected that this sort of expansion will materialize more in other urban areas.

 RECOMMENDATIONS

1. That the sum of $15,000 be appropriated for the state boarding home fund for each year of the biennium of 1941-43.

2. That provision be made in the annual budget or appropriation to the State Board of Charities and Public Welfare for the division of child welfare for the salary of an administrative assistant in the division of child welfare whose chief duty will be to carry on the correspondence incident to information regarding the licensing of boarding homes, to register data on compilation of boarding homes, and institutions, and to assist in correspondence relative to child-placing.

3. That provision be made in the annual budget or appropriation to the State Board of Charities and Public Welfare for the division of child welfare to absorb at least ten per cent of the cost of the state staff of the child welfare services unit of the division which has been financed in full by a grant or allotment of the social security fund for child welfare services by the children's bureau, U. S. Department of Labor, since April 1936. This program is regarded as a demonstration program and one to be absorbed gradually by state as well as county departments.

 DIVISION OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE NATHAN H. YELTON, Director

Steady progress in the achievement of a sound administration of public funds for the needy aged and dependent children in North Carolina has been accomplished in the biennium 1938-1940. The division of public assistance auditing and statistical reports with respect to the disbursement of funds and data concerning public assistance recipients account to the citizens of the state for the funds appropriated for old age assistance and aid to dependent children. The figures represent the work of 100 North Carolina county boards of commissioners and 100 North Carolina boards of public welfare, of the North Carolina State Board of Charities and Public Welfare and the federal Social Security Board—local state and federal bodies engaged in administering the old age assistance and aid to dependent children titles of the Social Security Act, passed by Congress in August 1935 and the old age assistance and dependent children act enacted by the North Carolina General Assembly in March 1937.

OLD AGE ASSISTANCE: Eligibility

An applicant must apply to the county department of public welfare in the county in which he resides and an investigation of his situation must prove that:

(1) He is sixty-five years of age and over; (2) He is a citizen of the United States or has been residing in the United States for ten years and has legally declared his intention to become a citizen; (3) He has not sufficient income, or other resources including relatives, to provide a reasonable subsistence compatible with decency and health; (4) He is not an inmate of any public institution at the time of receiving assistance; (5) He has not made an assignment or transfer of property for the purpose of rendering himself eligible for assistance; (6) He has been a resident of the state for two years out of the five years preceding his application, or for five years out of the nine years preceding his application, and for one year immediately preceding the same. Number of Recipients and Average Grants:

In June 1938 there were 33,060 recipients of old age assistance.

In June 1940 there were 35,694 recipients of old age assistance.

In May, 1940, North Carolina reported payment to 255 recipients per 1,000 estimated population 65 years and over. This number is larger by eight than the number of recipients per 1,000 estimated population 65 years and over in the nation.

The average grant has increased monthly during the biennial period. In June 1938 the average old age assistant grant was $9.51. In June 1940 the average grant had increased to $10.10. The national average grant per aged recipient is $19.96. North Carolina is ninth from the bottom in average grant paid to old age assistance recipients in the United States and territories.

 AID TO DEPENDENT CHILDREN: Eligibility

An applicant for aid to dependent children must apply to the county department of public welfare and an investigation must prove that:

(1) The applicant is a relative nearer than a cousin and that the child is living in the home maintained by the applicant; (2) The child has resided in North Carolina for one year immediately preceding the application; (3) The child has been deprived of parental support or care by reason of the death, physical or mental incapacity or continued absence from the home of a parent, and who has no adequate means of support. In cases of desertion every effort shall be made to apprehend the parent and charge him with the support of the child, but this provision does not affect the eligibility of the dependent child or the right of the county welfare board to make an award therefor; (4) The applicant maintains a safe and proper home for himself and the child. Number of Recipients and Average Grants:

In June 1938, a total of 7,375 families with 20,605 children received aid to dependent children. In June 1940 there were 9,352 families with 23,291 children receiving aid to dependent children. Whereas, in the nation 27 children per 1,000 estimated population under 16 years of age receive aid to dependent children grants, in North Carolina only 18 children per 1,000 estimated population under 16 years are recipients of this fund.

In June 1938 the average grant per family of children receiving aid to dependent children was $16.17. In June 1940 the average grant paid was $16.64. The national average grant paid in aid to dependent children is $32.19 per family. North Carolina is fifth from the bottom in average grant paid to aid to dependent children recipients in the United States and territories.

 APPEALS TO THE STATE BOARD OF ALLOTMENT AND APPEAL:

As a condition for receiving federal old age assistance and aid to dependent children funds, state plans for administration must provide for granting fair hearings to persons dissatisfied by failure to act, or with the action of, the county welfare board with respect to their application. The evidence presented by the applicant or recipient and the county welfare department before the field social work representative in a scheduled fair hearing is submitted to the State Board of Allotments and Appeal. During the biennium 44 appeals were acted upon by the state board. Although the decision of the county authorities was upheld in the 44 appeals formally presented to the state board, the 28 appeals which were satisfactorily adjusted without completing the formal presentation represent reversed decisions of the county authorities or successful interpretation to the appellant regarding the local decision.

 ESTABLISHED QUOTAS AND ALLOTMENTS TO COUNTIES:

The State Board of Allotments and Appeal found it necessary, during the first year of operation, to limit the allotment of funds to each county and to establish a quota of number of recipients in each county in order to keep within the limitation of the state legislative appropriation. In poorer counties the county government has not been able to raise local funds to participate adequately in the administration of old age assistance and aid to dependent children. The state equalization fund has been distributed to aid these counties and the establishment of quotas and allotments per county has been the chief method of achieving an equitable distribution of funds to the needy aged and dependent children of the state.

 SUMMARY OF PROGRESS DURING 1938-1940:

1. The second year of operation which began the biennium found the organization of the new division well established. The time and effort of the staff have been given to improving the necessary mechanics of recording and reporting.

2. The division of public assistance has maintained a correspondence service and during the biennium 13,931 letters have been received and disposed of with replies and explanation regarding the administration of public assistance.

3. A forwarding-center service has been maintained for referral of out of state inquiries to county departments. During the biennium 4,629 letters of inquiries have been acknowledged and referred to the counties.

4. Improved working relationships with other state and federal agencies have resulted from an exchange of bulletins and information with regard to the functions of the respective state and federal agencies.

5. The director and staff members of the division of public assistance have participated in district, state and national public welfare and social work conferences, receiving through this medium practical knowledge to be applied to improvement of the services of the division.

6. As a public agency, functioning within the legal structure of the state, the division of public assistance has received liberal and conservative interpretation of the public assistance laws from the office of the attorney general.

7. A merit system of personnel selection for those engaged in the administration of old age assistance and aid to dependent children has been established for state and county employees.

 CURRENT PROBLEMS AT CLOSE OF BIENNIUM 1938-1940

1. A serious handicap in achieving a sound administration of old age assistance and aid to dependent children is the absence of a statewide provision for needy persons who are not eligible for these types of assistance.

2. The inability of poorer counties to meet the financial responsibility of levying taxes for public assistance presents a major problem to the State Board of Allotments and Appeal in assisting, through the equalization fund, to meet the needs of the aged and dependent children equitably throughout the state.

3. Differences in costs of living in sections of the state present a difficulty in establishing a standard budget for state-wide use in determining need for public assistance.

4. The problem of securing relatives' support of the needy aged and dependent children is increased by the prevalent conception of public assistance as a “pension.”

5. Need for greater emphasis upon remedial and preventive service to help the needy live by their own effort without recourse to public assistance is a recognized problem which is increased by limited administrative funds which restrict the work of the staff to the original and recurrent verification of eligibility.

 STATE APPROPRIATION FOR OLD AGE ASSISTANCE, AID TO DEPENDENT CHILDREN, AND ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS FOR THE PERIOD JULY 1, 1938 TO JUNE 30, 1940

Old Age Assistance   Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1939 Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1940 Total assistance payments. . . . . $3,569,188.37 $4,179,207.43 State appropriation. . . . . 1,000,000.00 1,500,000.00 State's proportion of payments for assistance. . . . . 894,532.92 1,094,524.70 Equalizing Fund payments. . . . . 15,953.33 84,237.90 Unexpended balance. . . . . 89,513.75 321,237.40*

* At the time allotments were made for old age assistance for the year 1939-40 it was estimated that $300,000.00 of the appropriation of $1,500,000.00 would be required to pay pensions to those Confederate widows who were not transferred to old age assistance.

Aid to Dependent Children Total payments for aid. . . . . $1,421,849.89 $1,608,981.35 State appropriation. . . . . 500,000.00 525,000.00 State's proportion of payments for aid. . . . . 475,030.32 463,348.78 Equalizing Fund payments 6,846.84 36,756.95 Unexpended balance. . . . . 18,122.84 24,894.27
Aid to County Administration Total payments, State and Federal. . . . . $ 293,670.64 $ 331,296.54 State appropriation. . . . . 150,000.00 150,000.00 Payments to counties—State funds. . . . . 145,460.46 148,430.25 Unexpended balance. . . . . 4,539.54 1,569.75

TOTAL CASES AND OBLIGATIONS INCURRED FOR ASSISTANCE AND RELIEF—JULY 1938 THROUGH JUNE 1939 YEAR AND MONTH Total Old Age Assistance* Aid to Dependent Children* General Relief** Cases Expenditures Cases Expenditures Cases Child'n Expenditures Cases Expendit's 1938:                   July. . . . . 46,439 $ 470,627.78 29,942 $ 277,106.59 7,240 20,179 $ 110,971.27 6,185 $33,134.53 August. . . . . 46,464 473,843.74 30,146 277,978.09 7,308 20,265 111,087.77 5,695 31,109.79 Sept.. . . . . 46,703 479,971.07 30,698 283,976.09 7,402 20,359 112,506.27 5,422 29,758.59 Oct.. . . . . 46,737 484,396.99 31,193 288,806.11 7,471 20,445 113,520.77 4,825 26,332.73 Nov. . . . . 47,412 493,179.35 31,664 294,332.11 7,624 20,836 115,911.22 4,918 27,593.78 Dec. . . . . 48,961 506,817.82 31,964 298,924.41 7,719 21,053 117,685.52 6,111 34,926.18 1939:                   Jan.. . . . . 49,082 510,065.91 31,972 301,717.61 7,760 21,053 118,784.07 6,041 34,070.46 Feb.. . . . . 50,031 515,674.48 32,274 306,473.66 7,913 21,361 121,996.82 6,681 36,245.05 March. . . . . 50,312 524,194.80 32,291 307,962.66 8,006 21,547 123,986.42 6,774 37,812.20 April. . . . . 49,697 522,781.00 32,383 309,347.48 8,075 21,534 125,324.92 6,123 34,799.80 May. . . . . 49,754 527,763.94 32,497 311,028.48 8,139 21,556 125,643.87 5,971 35,698.36 June. . . . . 49,849 532,309.05 32,580 312,535.48 8,157 21,514 125,415.92 5,932 38,141.02 Total. . . . . —— $ 6,041,625.93 —— $ 3,570,188.77 —— —— $ 1,422,834.84 —— $399,622.49 Ave. per Mo. . 48,424 —— 31,610 —— 7,729 20,964 —— 5,890 ——

* Not corrected through June by deleting cancellations.

** Includes private agency funds.

YEAR AND MONTHBlind Assistance†HospitalizationPauper BurialsBoarding Home CareAll OtherCasesExpendituresPer.ExpendituresPer.Expendit'sPer.Expendit'sPer.Expendit's1938:          July. . . . .1,954$ 28,172.64702$ 15,670.90134$ 2,187.25188$ 2,259.1794$ 1,125.43August. . . . .2,03230,369.7485817,704.781131,738.802052,485.401071,369.37Sept.. . . . .1,98229,077.7679419,148.101041,655.062082,549.80931,299.40Oct.. . . . .1,98329,201.9282920,850.951131,844.641942,263.431291,576.44Nov.. . . . .1,96128,627.9878220,414.321362,108.802102,835.601171,355.54Dec.. . . . .1,96228,627.4677920,386.791281,857.052002,992.07981,418.341939:          Jan.. . . . .1,95328,554.6886820,688.741472,498.201772,337.651641,414.50Feb.. . . . .1,95328,639.3477816,860.651141,764.502092,696.51109997.95March. . . . .1,94028,438.3483320,084.521221,745.501972,698.471491,466.69April. . . . .1,93328,298.1874118,668.841362,227.002082,827.61981,287.17May. . . . .1,93128,232.0880421,477.871221,980.552122,840.9978861.74June.. . . . .1,90627,812.3487922,891.24881,430.312132,951.07941,131.67Total. . . . .——$344,052.46——$234,847.70——$23,037.66——$31,737.77——$15,304.24Ave. per Mo.. . . . .1,958——804——121——202——111——

† Furnished by North Carolina Commission for the Blind.

 TOTAL CASES AND OBLIGATIONS INCURRED FOR ASSISTANCE AND RELIEF—JULY 1939 THROUGH JUNE 1940

YEAR AND MONTH Total Old Age Assistance* Aid to Dependent Children* General Relief**   Cases Expenditures Cases Expenditures Cases Child'n Expenditures Cases Expendit's 1939:                   July. . . . . 49,901 $ 543,319.09 33,580 $ 332,175.21 8,132 21,318 $ 125,137.92 4,985 $30,821.77 August. . . . . 51,350 553,941.07 34,090 337,189.71 8,129 21,162 124,050.62 5,796 35,226.21 Sept.. . . . . 51,505 555,045.88 34,431 340,822.11 8,078 20,946 122,775.62 5,727 35,762.22 Oct.. . . . . 51,882 559,122.01 34,650 343,306.31 8,072 20,869 122,572.02 5,840 38,050.13 Nov.. . . . . 52,084 563,063.84 34,859 346,250.61 8,063 20,789 122,860.97 5,911 37,297.82 Dec.. . . . . 52,741 568,181.47 35,010 349,761.51 8,128 20,847 124,223.92 6,414 39,552.93 1940:                   Jan.. . . . . 54,631 588,477.60 35,010 350,689.11 8,380 21,459 131,531.57 7,855 47,022.16 Feb.. . . . . 54,324 591,846.69 34,986 351,118.56 8,581 21,856 136,777.27 7,355 45,029.44 March. . . . . 54,608 604,801.93 35,210 354,643.84 8,854 22,504 144,057.02 7,112 43,431.60 April. . . . . 54,741 608,374.58 35,340 356,626.84 9,028 22,774 148,294.97 6,811 41,234.56 May. . . . . 55,056 618,370.20 35,566 359,004.89 9,210 23,087 153,087.00 6,705 44,076.47 June. . . . . 54,035 612,275.63 35,694 361,820.48 9,352 23,291 155,646.55 5,465 32,825.65 Total. . . . . —— $ 6,966,819.99 —— $ 4,183,409.18 —— —— $ 1,611,015.45 —— $470,330.96 Ave. per Mo.. . . . . 53,075 —— 34,848 —— 8,431 21,728 —— 6,330 ——

* Not corrected through June by deleting cancellations.

** Includes private agency funds.

YEAR AND MONTHBlind Assistance†HospitalizationPauper BurialsBoarding Home CareAll OtherCasesExpendituresPer.ExpendituresPer.Expendit'sPer.Expendit'sPer.Expendit's1939:          July. . . . . 1,953$ 28,365.08844$ 21,121.77104$ 1,696.50232$ 3,037.9171$ 962.93August. . . . .2,03031,380.5488220,451.96991,569.252413,126.0783946.71Sept.. . . . .1,97629,613.6086820,575.19871,237.752362,940.541021,318.85Oct.. . . . .1,94128,757.9893220,356.611071,796.022343,029.211061,253.73Nov.. . . . .1,95829,075.9282321,425.881271,857.592292,902.061141,392.99Dec.. . . . .1,97229,380.3274718,793.681402,214.752312,947.72991,306.641940:          Jan. . . . .1,98529,586.8889022,563.861552,448.182423,157.781141,478.06Feb. . . . .1,98829,749.1091422,435.481562,362.282383,191.111061,183.45March. . . . .1,98829,675.5897526,273.111472,319.752403,323.03821,078.00April. . . . .2,01030,329.1696524,378.561402,402.912763,523.941711,583.64May. . . . .1,98729,813.801,05223,348.021322,181.252863,766.041181,092.73June. . . . .1,94729,031.821,09026,760.271061,637.552863,606.8395946.48Total. . . . .——$354,759.78——$270,484.39——$23,723.78——$38,552.24——$14,544.21Ave. per Mo.. . . . .1,978——926——144——257——119——

† Furnished by North Carolina Commission for the Blind.

 AVERAGE MONTHLY NUMBER OF CASES AIDED AND TOTAL ANNUAL OBLIGATIONS FOR ALL PUBLIC ASSISTANCE BY TYPE AND COUNTIES, JULY 1, 1938-JUNE 30, 1939 J. S. KIRK, Statistician

COUNTIESTotal Including DuplicationsOld Age AssistanceAid to Dependent Children CasesObligationsCasesObligations*CasesChildrenObligations*1. Alamance637$ 90,147.50455$ 62,695.00116308$ 20,100.002. Alexander28525,603.6621518,253.00461186,129.003. Alleghany13812,219.511048,785.5025582,880.004. Anson40442,801.8929528,836.00611629,589.505. Ashe27426,035.0022920,159.00441155,816.006. Avery19720,782.1614014,587.00391025,281.007. Beaufort38835,573.8827523,415.00661498,684.208. Bertie38138,244.8327025,111.507218310,512.009. Bladen32335,812.9423023,631.50631619,606.0010. Brunswick20520,599.0016413,917.00391156,569.0011. Buncombe1,481238,177.44829124,857.5025564054,933.0012. Burke37946,161.3323526,204.005215411,347.0013. Cabarrus56774,944.7336849,311.008523920,232.0014. Caldwell46145,261.9030126,118.007022012,394.0015. Camden867,574.50604,754.0017362,430.5016. Carteret27826,686.3821419,422.0035985,484.0017. Caswell27930,244.1121520,610.00501678,348.0018. Catawba63472,222.8540944,424.009526717,829.0019. Chatham27325,432.9619817,933.00451116,178.7520. Cherokee24328,541.9617718,940.60471326,995.5021. Chowan13614,844.241059,751.0018362,990.0022. Clay969,310.50716,206.0019522,697.5023. Cleveland59371,093.2745751,200.508625015,510.0024. Columbus54750,077.2139333,704.0011328614,782.0025. Craven55957,160.5039135,265.008420614,511.5026. Cumberland62286,047.1740650,429.6011231220,615.6027. Currituck13914,595.56888,604.0028714,015.0028. Dare19818,439.5514413,477.5035593,015.0029. Davidson65886,829.2048558,178.0011833122,440.0030. Davie28726,793.9618617,216.00521217,048.0031. Duplin35345,769.0029132,472.006216913,297.0032. Durham926154,241.1055192,689.5018649143,097.0033. Edgecombe77891,968.9857362,370.5012635221,810.0034. Forsyth1,325245,094.11972153,146.5020459962,731.0035. Franklin34536,091.4925724,803.00591528,480.0036. Gaston1,383182,237.361,020117,218.0019252044,771.0037 Gates16316,151.0512811,693.0025573,841.5038. Graham14716,454.2511212,230.5019542,814.0039. Granville34839,277.0126828,331.00581589,734.0040. Greene26228,879.9017717,038.50551287,751.0041. Guilford1,694326,388.671,108189,513.5028275578,543.5042. Halifax70985,635.5348047,688.0010824420,917.2543. Harnett53754,782.9142137,912.509427513,934.0044. Haywood55973,683.6639851,395.308626915,021.1045. Henderson37643,661.902723,951.507922911,943.0046. Hertford23424,295.0019117,680.0031665,909.0047. Hoke23925,169.0817617,951.00421004,613.0048. Hyde12511,399.55998,408.0021462,336.5049. Iredell66381,407.2544852,891.0011231719,314.8050. Jackson28532,037.5023322,606.00521809,431.5051. Johnston87392,542.4462158,677.0014936023,861.7552. Jones16017,085.9611111,327.0634994,734.0053. Lee21124,311.2516317,051.00451227,020.00

* Corrected through June, 1939.

[AVERAGE MONTHLY NUMBER OF CASES AIDED AND TOTAL ANNUAL OBLIGATIONS FOR ALL PUBLIC ASSISTANCE BY TYPE AND COUNTIES, JULY 1, 1938-JUNE 30, 1939 J. S. KIRK, Statistician—Continued]General ReliefHospitalization†Pauper BurialsBoarding Home CareAll Other‡COUNTIESCasesObligationsPersonsObligationsPersonsObligationsPersonsObligationsPersonsObligations 46$ 3,072.2810$ 3,213.861$ 148.504378.175$ 539.691. Alamance211,043.16145.50164.50————168.502. Alexander7396.01158.001100.00————————3. Alleghany351,470.5392,396.362274.501232.0013.004. Anson160.00————————————————5. Ashe15700.661105.50145.00163.00————6. Avery341,500.97101,798.171129.24140.0016.307. Beaufort311,230.2671,388.5712.50————————8. Bertie241,151.2251,172.41————————1251.819. Bladen138.00175.00————————————10. Brunswick31435,110.066417,895.73143,912.5041,199.001209.6511. Buncombe754,768.5872,103.79180.003506.0561,151.9112. Burke1114,726.702522.531152.50————————13. Cabarrus814,566.1661,553.182510.561120.00————14. Caldwell7269.00121.001100.00————————15. Camden271,450.551234.83195.00————————16. Carteret8265.402733.53————1222.00365.1817. Caswell1166,482.1892,689.471282.503488.20127.5018. Catawba26857.581153.63110.002300.00————19. Chatham131,307.611513.002303.252462.00120.0020. Cherokee7613.7431,139.401170.50175.001104.6021. Chowan4294.00————143.00170.00————22. Clay422,851.123606.62188.75————4836.2823. Cleveland361,287.63————2220.00————383.5824. Columbus744,835.6492,365.861182.50————————25. Craven602,908.993410,444.584900.504560.702187.2026. Cumberland191,326.203638.36112.00————————27. Currituck14798.9641,098.93————————149.1628. Dare401,744.66133,911.541195.001360.00————29. Davidson461,977.302485.66167.00————————30. Davie————————————————————31. Duplin15112,205.87135.00————203,405.49172,808.2432. Durham592,840.38134,120.851113.004466.002248.2533. Edgecombe969,968.383014,660.2582,390.00142,087.981110.0034. Forsyth21760.1162,029.8818.50————110.0035. Franklin16015,540.5663,798.802478.002304.501126.5036. Gaston8487.001106.55123.00————————37 Gates141,200.75111.001198.00————————38. Graham12655.087455.92123.80————277.2139. Granville191,701.1792,355.9816.00127.25————40. Greene19322,673.807830,749.4251,525.00161,967.72121,415.7341. Guilford846,179.103410,603.183248.00————————42. Halifax14740.9472,099.47196.00————————43. Harnett614,426.8851,140.1041,066.783411.002222.5044. Haywood23679.42————————132.00155.9845. Henderson12706.00————————————————46. Hertford13424.5461,950.83169.50————1160.2147. Hoke2143.502411.551100.00————————48. Hyde784,437.36163,449.393573.455698.50142.7549. Iredell————————————————————50. Jackson743,691.19255,637.051163.953511.50————51. Johnston11672.00147.00182.00120.001203.9052. Jones2192.00————148.25————————53. Lee

† Does not include lump sum payments to hospitals nor cases aided thereby.

‡ Does not include Aid to the Blind.

AVERAGE MONTHLY NUMBER OF CASES AIDED AND TOTAL ANNUAL OBLIGATIONS FOR ALL PUBLIC ASSISTANCE BY TYPE AND COUNTIES, JULY 1, 1938-JUNE 30, 1939—ContinuedJ. S. KIRK, StatisticianCOUNTIESTotal Including DuplicationsOld Age AssistanceAid to Dependent ChildrenCasesObligationsCasesObligations*CasesChildrenObligations*54. Lenoir472$ 54,915.08310$ 36,655.00120248$ 15,091.0055. Lincoln31737,287.0823625,604.00501419,193.5056. Macon23423,829.0017716,331.50401165,996.0057. Madison40538,692.5031726,846.508821911,846.0058. Martin26932,906.9816618,073.00411438,022.0059. McDowell37143,586.0326927,563.00411008,082.0060. Mecklenburg2,038318,254.971,045175,913.0027579073,634.5061. Mitchell23625,653.0018418,654.00521336,999.0062. Montgomery23524,098.3416614,730.00431156,874.0063. Moore42944,917.4728829,765.507522111,649.5064. Nash80693,016.3759159,405.5012333418,563.5065. New Hanover56191,904.0044263,138.0011932428,766.0066. Northampton41847,689.3728727,888.508216812,111.5067. Onslow17618,774.3012811,361.00401175,655.0068. Orange33444,438.9422226,484.006519112,931.5069. Pamlico11412,317.50889,038.5026683,279.0070. Pasquotank33835,816.3317819,420.00431338,342.0071. Pender24622,534.3016514,764.00431116,266.5072. Perquimans12813,923.52937,833.5024744,214.0073. Person34538,600.5924425,784.007018510,680.0074. Pitt73585,916.6048751,562.0013734523,081.5075. Polk11216,271.309110,947.3021695,324.0076. Randolph43245,586.6231831,707.629624012,796.5077. Richmond74363,886.8237436,844.008723613,714.5078. Robeson79294,676.3553055,019.0014844025,006.6079. Rockingham61277,083.7947551,929.507622317,979.0080. Rowan76893,470.0953058,886.0012430224,443.8081. Rutherford68672,797.0352950,283.5010933517,732.0082. Sampson48452,016.5334633,344.009025114,867.0083. Scotland29825,045.5019115,799.50461176,191.5084. Stanly37743,535.4627228,695.207619912,091.0085. Stokes34141,119.3126828,539.005515110,564.5086. Surry60776,670.7344750,412.0010127417,091.0087. Swain27227,795.6918918,989.00501196,248.0088. Transylvania21220,149.8714514,037.0034934,641.1589. Tyrrell10511,481.17686,623.0021513,387.0090. Union50164,598.9134540,327.007924315,949.0091. Vance40744,328.5021322,504.25481548,902.8092. Wake1,084135,700.4157971,074.4426575352,581.0493. Warren35636,290.4825326,004.00441207,612.0094. Washington14114,694.97958,291.0029874,711.0095. Watauga21322,118.8715914,079.00341276,718.0096. Wayne65581,683.0346555,571.5011027521,640.0097. Wilkes58562,600.0945544,944.0010129916,369.0098. Wilson84389,800.7664761,360.008726214,490.0099. Yadkin25724,959.4619115,675.00481457,935.00100. Yancey24324,426.2418816,777.00471256,629.00Total46,467$5,693.899.0731,610$3,567,517.877,72920,964$1,421,821.34Wilmington Asso. Char.193$ 10,029.03——————————Winston-Salem Assoc. Char.57944,175.15——————————

* Corrected through June, 1939.

[AVERAGE MONTHLY NUMBER OF CASES AIDED AND TOTAL ANNUAL OBLIGATIONS FOR ALL PUBLIC ASSISTANCE BY TYPE AND COUNTIES, JULY 1, 1938-JUNE 30, 1939J. S. KIRK, Statistician—Continued]General ReliefHospitalization†Pauper BurialsBoarding Home CareAll Other‡COUNTIESCasesObligationsPersonsObligationsPersonsObligationsPersonsObligationsPersonsObligations38$ 2,594.94——$ ——2$ 228.00——$ ——2$ 346.1454. Lenoir241,490.091114.191301.503350.502233.3055. Lincoln10377.50————1200.005900.00124.0056. Macon————————————————————57. Madison412,236.82173,823.661148.002598.5015.0058. Martin464,383.10112,503.632473.001240.001341.3059. McDowell65058,523.392305.30131,569.00538,309.78————60. Mecklenburg————————————————————61. Mitchell211,530.382793.96120.60————2149.4062. Montgomery623,139.862304.11130.00————128.5063. Moore472,509.93238,455.622206.001240.00193,635.8264. Nash————————————————————65. New Hanover271,926.63174,719.14167.003958.60118.0066. Northampton4167.0031,576.30115.00————————67. Onslow311,762.2692,202.19175.004693.662290.3368. Orange————————————————————69. Pamlico963,270.65184,436.182287.50160.00————70. Pasquotank371,346.801157.00————————————71. Pender5180.8521,072.171133.002480.00110.0072. Perquimans23885.0351,081.56————2140.00130.0073. Person723,511.82347,255.284296.001210.00————74. Pitt————————————————————75. Polk181,082.50————————————————76. Randolph26710,644.79132,511.532172.00————————77. Richmond723,509.504211,141.25————————————78. Robeson402,564.37154,066.321217.004302.40125.2079. Rockingham975,776.71133,752.081348.502254.0019.0080. Rowan382,311.1151,478.421200.004792.00————81. Rutherford391,381.1393,424.40————————————82. Sampson613,054.50————————————————83. Scotland201,341.4581,376.31131.50————————84. Stanly12622.4841,198.831134.50160.00————85. Stokes312,751.02255,820.282414.251182.18————86. Surry291,840.241145.751411.7016.001155.0087. Swain29766.211269.61175.902360.00————88. Transylvania10582.624741.051135.00————112.5089. Tyrrell552,795.88185,225.501105.003196.53————90. Union1269,244.16133,226.89191.75————6358.6591. Vance23811,869.98147.95————————1127.0092. Wake551,531.062987.33138.00————1118.0993. Warren12590.442788.902255.50158.13————94. Washington12816.69————1235.00————7270.1895. Watauga723,289.495878.362183.751119.93————96. Wayne23668.833475.56125.001112.5015.2097. Wilkes715,493.46277,222.302195.0091,040.00————98. Wilson161,225.96162.00161.50————————99. Yadkin4395.501179.561354.18165.00126.00100. Yancey5,890$399,622.49804$234,847.70121$ 23,037.66202$ 31,737.77111$ 15,304.24Total193$ 10,029.03————————————————Wilmington Asso. Char.57944,175.15————————————————Winston-Salem Assoc. Char.

† Does not include lump sum payments to hospitals nor cases aided thereby.

‡ Does not include Aid to the Blind.

 AVERAGE MONTHLY NUMBER OF CASES AIDED AND TOTAL ANNUAL OBLIGATIONS FOR ALL PUBLIC ASSISTANCE BY TYPE AND COUNTIES, JULY 1, 1939-JUNE 30, 1940 J. S. KIRK, Statistician

COUNTIESTotal Including DuplicationsOld Age AssistanceAid to Dependent ChildrenCasesObligations*CasesObligations*CasesChildrenObligations*1. Alamance700$ 105,073.09532$ 77,505.00126312$ 22,302.002. Alexander31530,458.2424022,647.00611257,258.003. Alleghany17418,149.9013013,122.0036834,378.004. Anson44451,007.0932934,759.007017511,953.005. Ashe33135,300.0027528,168.00551277,072.006. Avery25927,564.6519420,300.50481076,221.007. Beaufort43441,759.7729426,470.007916310,606.508. Bertie41047,921.4330233,006.007518212,496.009. Bladen32837,715.4922725,342.50661609,677.0010. Brunswick24124,048.0018616,264.00421196,837.0011. Buncombe1,663277,420.83913152,513.5025668160,603.0012. Burke45761,313.4231537,837.006718014,489.0013. Cabarrus61684,542.2141556,087.508823822,060.0014. Caldwell50055,346.1732632,802.008824215,145.0015. Camden10311,724.50788,646.0019372,793.0016. Carteret29829,860.1622120,758.00401046,015.0017. Caswell29432,836.3023522,994.54481548,473.5018. Catawba66681,409.2344953,630.509525317,827.0019. Chatham28330,561.8820721,101.00481218,315.5020. Cherokee28236,965.3521224,924.40501419,297.0021. Chowan14816,778.5711110,693.0021413,624.0022. Clay11313,572.009510,520.0018553,052.0023. Cleveland69886,766.6851159,907.0012231121,269.0024. Columbus54255,596.5039838,004.0012530516,841.0025. Craven63370,343.3244643,393.009823618,592.0026. Cumberland706101,486.9047063,121.5011732222,001.1027. Currituck15919,141.4810110,785.0030774,716.0028. Dare18921,197.7914315,962.0034574,357.0029. Davidson70598,918.3051564,562.0013032725,432.0030. Davie31432,613.5121622,184.00531147,782.0031. Duplin38751,050.5030235,593.007417815,009.0032. Durham1,021171,837.68617102,550.0017745141,727.0033. Edgecombe80396,354.4859364,853.0013733923,278.0034. Forsyth1,441279,325.841,032169,225.0022865573,972.5035. Franklin40143,748.2930130,443.00601629,440.0036. Gaston1,474203,131.391,095127,468.0022356752,405.5037. Gates17219,577.8013013,497.5029604,966.5038. Graham15317,927.0013214,821.0021553,106.0039. Granville38947,346.8430032,896.756114810,395.5040. Greene25732,520.6817318,357.50511168,794.5041. Guilford1,800352,382.451,120194,793.5030478689,010.0042. Halifax72391,841.0446349,194.5010923322,005.5043. Harnett57765,385.6245546,271.009626315,400.0044. Haywood61480,626.5044357,987.609226316,055.4045. Henderson43051,110.4131636,111.009024314,208.0046. Hertford25228,513.5719719,816.0038847,566.5047. Hoke25528,056.0619220,281.92441055,611.8048. Hyde13714,478.5011110,870.0021452,909.5049. Iredell73193,203.8749962,610.0011430621,133.4050. Jackson33340,119.5027428,820.505919611,299.0051. Johnston86295,737.6261861,397.5015536924,516.0052. Jones17419,640.8612413,591.86381015,408.0053. Lee23928,866.2519020,881.00471077,845.25

* Corrected through June, 1939.

[AVERAGE MONTHLY NUMBER OF CASES AIDED AND TOTAL ANNUAL OBLIGATIONS FOR ALL PUBLIC ASSISTANCE BY TYPE AND COUNTIES, JULY 1, 1939-JUNE 30, 1940 J. S. KIRK, Statistician—Continued]General ReliefHospitalization†Pauper BurialsBoarding Home CareAll Other‡COUNTIESCasesObligationsPersonsObligationsPersonsObligationsPersonsObligationsPersonsObligations24$ 1,809.8311$ 2,591.261$ 120.004$ 496.002$ 249.001. Alamance11452.24140.00149.00————112.002. Alexander6336.901205.501107.50————————3. Alleghany341,641.4682,121.462280.501251.67————4. Anson160.00————————————————5. Ashe15763.001148.501131.65————————6. Avery472,221.77101,931.352233.50————2296.657. Beaufort271,080.2561,339.18————————————8. Bertie291,308.4061,387.59————————————9. Bladen7325.005592.00130.00————————10. Brunswick42544,556.615415,289.34133,879.952578.43————11. Buncombe543,843.90103,030.891162.0091,624.201326.4312. Burke1075,220.4251,115.79158.50————————13. Cabarrus785,094.6351,643.542481.001180.00————14. Caldwell4202.50120.00163.00————————15. Camden311,845.992416.011216.50————3608.6616. Carteret6195.023895.75————1222.00155.4917. Caswell1106,158.3893,189.351345.002259.00————18. Catawba24733.53189.35122.502300.00————19. Chatham141,507.552366.252408.152462.00————20. Cherokee10946.3231,271.901159.00160.00124.3521. Chowan————————————————————22. Clay553,788.9291,751.76150.00————————23. Cleveland16504.00————3247.50————————24. Columbus764,837.07113,267.502253.75————————25. Craven825,517.79289,421.113674.005609.811141.5926. Cumberland191,594.2282,022.26124.00————————27. Currituck8499.051264.74137.00131.00147.0028. Dare402,170.29186,187.011207.001360.00————29. Davidson391,692.974756.541160.00————138.0030. Davie11448.50————————————————31. Duplin17218,600.58————————304,168.37254,791.7332. Durham522,676.98134,831.002152.004338.502225.0033. Edgecombe13014,638.612616,462.5982,416.00162,339.441271.7034. Forsyth301,088.10102,777.19————————————35. Franklin13514,168.50147,947.393562.003514.00166.0036. Gaston11701.551225.251187.00————————37. Gates————————————————————38. Graham12515.69133,437.05120.60135.00146.2539. Granville232,289.4493,062.49116.75————————40. Greene25428,505.398333,463.4451,742.75344,867.37————41. Guilford1079,124.594111,326.453190.00————————42. Halifax13754.24112,736.382224.00————————43. Harnett684,605.583645.022681.905540.001111.0044. Haywood24791.41————————————————45. Henderson16814.001317.07————————————46. Hertford13437.2051,610.141115.00————————47. Hoke3289.00————————————2410.0048. Hyde1015,978.52112,558.493623.002192.801107.6649. Iredell————————————————————50. Jackson592,648.01266,528.261129.503518.35————51. Johnston9511.0016.001105.00————119.0052. Jones2140.00————————————————53. Lee

† Does not include lump sum payments to hospitals nor cases aided thereby.

‡ Does not include Aid to the Blind.

AVERAGE MONTHLY NUMBER OF CASES AIDED AND TOTAL ANNUAL OBLIGATIONS FOR ALL PUBLIC ASSISTANCE BY TYPE AND COUNTIES, JULY 1, 1939-JUNE 30, 1940 —ContinuedJ. S. KIRK, StatisticianCOUNTIESTotal Including DuplicationsOld Age AssistanceAid to Dependent ChildrenCasesObligationsCasesObligations*CasesChildrenObligations*54. Lenoir553$ 65,171.12345$ 42,354.00129249$ 16,623.0055. Lincoln36343,759.0827430,662.006015310,696.5056. Macon29331,642.2422323,309.40441156,145.0057. Madison45648,205.0035033,565.0010624014,640.0058. Martin29838,660.7118921,494.005016110,068.0059. McDowell42656,895.7331538,716.5049999,700.0060. Mecklenburg2,245366,899.671,197209,186.0629476581,607.5061. Mitchell26535,348.0021126,774.00541308,574.0062. Montgomery27128,915.4220019,750.00481187,307.0063. Moore48155,747.0231536,862.007922212,492.0064. Nash822100,379.6061466,016.5012533921,350.0065. New Hanover625105,211.0049673,468.0012934131,743.0066. Northampton44753,823.7030430,694.009317613,950.0067. Onslow18321,336.8912811,455.00451276,701.0068. Orange36349,482.2124229,813.006520214,236.0069. Pamlico14515,759.509710,333.0035894,563.7570. Pasquotank36240,613.3320022,507.00451429,295.0071. Pender27028,140.7019320,201.00441146,463.0072. Perquimans14115,545.011008,786.0027754,941.0073. Person37545,019.8427030,198.007719312,682.0074. Pitt82994,756.9453256,666.5015936425,172.0075. Polk15622,160.3012815,468.9028896,691.4076. Randolph44446,151.4032331,584.6010224112,949.0077. Richmond72372,108.1644646,378.009823115,781.0078. Robeson856106,740.9853759,648.0015744526,153.3079. Rockingham65989,041.2550058,817.008723622,140.0080. Rowan748108,508.3556470,637.326233527,353.3081. Rutherford73987,645.4355861,423.2511431919,904.5082. Sampson52460,651.7637238,915.5010527616,851.5083. Scotland31228,187.7419917,405.50531367,259.5084. Stanly41350,165.7629333,129.308421013,337.0085. Stokes38147,542.4129433,061.006617711,840.0086. Surry67686,092.9050458,909.5811126718,846.0087. Swain29333,507.6221724,432.00571197,382.6088. Transylvania26729,990.8319121,446.0036955,724.0089. Tyrrell11513,321.34747,540.0022523,874.5090. Union54975,502.5439249,216.008825317,253.0091. Vance37849,033.1625630,353.005616211,155.5092. Wake1,189169,248.7266792,610.2028579761,111.0093. Warren39842,697.5129030,233.50481258,630.0094. Washington16118,749.1311310,814.0032845,793.0095. Watauga23025,223.5417416,677.00381277,566.0096. Wayne72686,964.5850057,889.5012128322,917.1597. Wilkes74681,949.7456860,117.5013031919,480.0098. Wilson966108,627.8169168,673.5011029217,337.0099. Yadkin30331,839.2922321,408.66621338,663.00100. Yancey28030,363.5921621,229.00491307,059.00Total50,075$6,533,503.4634,848$4,181,169.848,43121,728$1,609,549.45Wilmington Asso. Char.248$ 12,908.18——————————Winston-Salem Assoc. Char.74261,943.23——————————

* Corrected through June, 1939.

[AVERAGE MONTHLY NUMBER OF CASES AIDED AND TOTAL ANNUAL OBLIGATIONS FOR ALL PUBLIC ASSISTANCE BY TYPE AND COUNTIES, JULY 1, 1939-JUNE 30, 1940 —ContinuedJ. S. KIRK, Statistician]General ReliefHospitalization†Pauper BurialsBoarding Home CareAll Other‡COUNTIESCasesObligationsPersonsObligationsPersonsObligationsPersonsObligationsPersonsObligations74$ 5,451.121$ 100.003$ 443.00——$ ——1$ 200.0054. Lenoir251,665.191426.801176.001114.75117.8455. Lincoln15606.34187.502420.005900.003174.0056. Macon————————————————————57. Madison392,015.35174,641.36192.002350.00————58. Martin464,652.53122,843.332651.501225.001106.8759. McDowell68364,819.541120.00121,405.00589,761.57————60. Mecklenburg————————————————————61. Mitchell14911.382530.22110.00————6406.8262. Montgomery825,294.751593.77130.502420.00154.0063. Moore442,318.02227,476.122296.50————152,922.4664. Nash————————————————————65. New Hanover262,232.14175,795.87183.6951,003.00165.0066. Northampton4166.5052,969.39145.00————————67. Onslow391,764.86122,901.351144.504622.50————68. Orange11743.00————163.75156.00————69. Pamlico953,737.82204,821.512252.00————————70. Pasquotank331,476.70————————————————71. Pender9364.602721.411252.002480.00————72. Perquimans21903.5651,115.50————181.25139.5373. Person975,025.34367,415.604302.501175.00————74. Pitt————————————————————75. Polk191,617.80————————————————76. Randolph1637,139.77152,680.891128.50————————77. Richmond804,449.605715,149.75————————251,340.3378. Robeson442,461.87184,480.381294.507727.502120.0079. Rockingham1077,088.69112,859.042269.002301.00————80. Rowan493,033.7491,814.442317.5071,152.00————81. Rutherford391,541.1683,343.60————————————82. Sampson603,522.14————————————————83. Scotland251,770.10101,907.36122.00————————84. Stanly11531.7081,967.21182.50160.00————85. Stokes321,905.32245,432.872223.502330.251445.3886. Surry16993.671395.851288.50————115.0087. Swain331,475.864790.491194.482360.00————88. Transylvania14951.143695.701225.00135.00————89. Tyrrell472,628.47186,148.542157.50299.03————90. Union503,147.14113,887.93167.00————4422.5991. Vance23014,683.52————————7844.00————92. Wake522,115.1661,691.38119.00————18.4793. Warren10524.0841,484.301100.50133.25————94. Washington14840.54115.0015.00————2120.0095. Watauga975,041.895900.592144.25171.20————96. Wayne42998.0031,164.24120.001165.0015.0097. Wilkes929,950.796011,029.524435.0091,202.00————98. Wilson161,422.131183.001162.50————————99. Yadkin7861.633612.441333.11135.003233.41100. Yancey5,350$395,479.55926$270,484.39144$ 23,723.78257$ 38,552.24119$ 14,544.21Total248$ 12,908.18————————————————Wilmington Asso. Char.74261,943.23————————————————Winston-Salem Assoc. Char.

† Does not include lump sum payments to hospitals nor cases aided thereby.

‡ Does not include Aid to the Blind.

 OLD AGE ASSISTANCE: INDIVIDUALS ACCEPTED During the Period July 1, 1938, Through June 30, 1940 RACE AND MONTHLY PAYMENT

Monthly Payment Number of Individuals of Specified Race Accepted for Old Age Assistance July 1, 1938-June 30, 1939 July 1, 1939-June 30, 1940 All Races White Negro Indian All Races White Negro Indian Total 8,199 5,821 2,329 49 7,009 4,727 2,252 30 Less than $1.00 —— —— —— —— —— —— —— —— $1.00-$1.99 —— —— —— —— —— —— —— —— 2.00- 2.99 —— —— —— —— —— —— —— —— 3.00- 3.99 —— —— —— —— —— —— —— —— 4.00- 4.99 —— —— —— —— —— —— —— —— 5.00- 5.99 650 363 282 5 363 214 149 —— 6.00- 6.99 888 436 430 22 632 300 323 9 7.00- 7.99 705 508 194 3 560 308 251 1 8.00- 8.99 2,139 1,448 680 11 1,951 1,276 663 12 9.00- 9.99 184 139 45 —— 162 126 36 —— 10.00-10.99 1,583 1,223 356 4 1,814 1,357 451 6 11.00-11.99 39 29 10 —— 32 23 9 —— 12.00-12.99 548 413 135 —— 562 385 177 —— 13.00-13.99 18 12 6 —— 12 9 3 —— 14.00-14.99 92 62 30 —— 101 60 41 —— 15.00-15.99 388 300 87 1 367 292 74 1 16.00-16.99 61 39 22 —— 56 37 19 —— 17.00-17.99 4 2 2 —— 6 2 4 —— 18.00-18.99 40 27 13 —— 38 25 13 —— 19.00-19.99 3 2 1 —— 2 1 1 —— 20.00-20.99 128 104 24 —— 166 140 25 1 21.00-21.99 1 1 —— —— 5 5 —— —— 22.00-22.99 2 2 —— —— 4 2 2 —— 23.00-23.99 —— —— —— —— —— —— —— —— 24.00-24.99 7 4 3 —— 8 5 3 —— 25.00-25.99 583 574 6 3 133 129 4 —— 26.00-26.99 1 —— 1 —— —— —— —— —— 27.00-27.99 —— —— —— —— 1 —— 1 —— 28.00-28.99 10 10 —— —— —— —— —— —— 29.00-29.99 —— —— —— —— —— —— —— —— 30.00-30.99 125 123 2 —— 34 31 3 ——

OLD AGE ASSISTANCE: INDIVIDUALS ACCEPTED During the Period July 1, 1938, Through June 30, 1940 AGE AND SEX

Age Number of Individuals of Specified Sex Accepted for Old Age Assistance July 1, 1938-June 30, 1939 July 1, 1939-June 30, 1940 All Races All Races Total Male Female Total Male Female Total 8,199 3,693 4,506 7,009 3,465 3,544 60 and under 61 years —— —— —— —— —— —— 61 and under 62 years —— —— —— —— —— —— 62 and under 63 years —— —— —— —— —— —— 63 and under 64 years —— —— —— —— —— —— 64 and under 65 years —— —— —— —— —— —— 65 and under 66 years 386 156 230 475 216 259 66 and under 67 years 749 342 407 797 372 425 67 and under 68 years 704 354 350 710 360 350 68 and under 69 years 650 314 336 638 315 323 69 and under 70 years 635 324 311 543 305 238 70 and under 71 years 494 271 223 500 264 236 71 and under 72 years 493 239 254 403 225 178 72 and under 73 years 479 221 258 400 214 186 73 and under 74 years 429 194 235 367 186 181 74 and under 75 years 393 182 211 314 156 158 75 and under 76 years 273 134 139 257 130 127 76 and under 77 years 300 131 169 192 102 90 77 and under 78 years 320 150 170 202 94 108 78 and under 79 years 320 126 194 176 75 101 79 and under 80 years 201 88 113 186 86 100 80 and under 81 years 179 68 111 162 74 88 81 and under 82 years 183 80 103 134 58 76 82 and under 83 years 142 56 86 117 49 68 83 and under 84 years 140 54 86 85 36 49 84 and under 85 years 135 39 96 85 34 51 85 and under 86 years 106 31 75 55 27 28 86 and under 87 years 95 34 61 53 22 31 87 and under 88 years 100 34 66 36 20 16 88 and under 89 years 55 12 43 31 14 17 89 and under 90 years 53 22 31 16 5 11 90 and under 91 years 38 9 29 28 13 15 91 and under 92 years 31 9 22 15 6 9 92 and under 93 years 12 3 9 7 3 4 93 and under 94 years 33 2 31 8 1 7 94 and under 95 years 22 4 18 4 —— 4 95 and under 96 years 14 2 12 5 1 4 96 and under 97 years 9 1 8 1 —— 1 97 and under 98 years 4 1 3 1 —— 1 98 and under 99 years 1 —— 1 2 —— 2 99 and under 100 years 3 1 2 2 1 1 100 years and over 18 5 13 2 1 1

OLD AGE ASSISTANCE: CASES CLOSED During the Period July 1, 1938, Through June 30, 1940 REASON FOR CLOSING

Reason for Closing Number of Individuals Closed for Old Age Assistance July 1, 1938-June 30, 1939 July 1, 1939-June 30, 1940 Total 4,692 4,949 Death 3,338 4,001 Admitted to public institution 200 223 Admitted to voluntary institution 11 2 Became self-supporting 177 126 Relatives became able to support 413 221 Moved out of county 148 77 Moved out of State 73 83 Transferred to another form of assistance 201 62 Grant combined with that of spouse or transferred to another person in household 41 44 Other 90 110

AID TO DEPENDENT CHILDREN: CASES ACCEPTED During the Period July 1, 1938, Through June 30, 1940 MONTHLY PAYMENT AND NUMBER OF CASES ACCEPTED FOR AID TO DEPENDENT CHILDREN

Monthly Payment Number of Cases Accepted for Aid to Dependent Children Monthly Payment Number of Cases Accepted for Aid to Dependent Children July 1, 1938- June 30, 1939 July 1, 1939- June 30, 1940 July 1, 1938- June 30, 1939 July 1, 1939- June 30, 1940 Total 2,524 2,738             $26.00-26.99 3 3 Less than $1.00 —— —— 27.00-27.99 6 5 $1.00-$1.99 —— —— 28.00-28.99 9 7 2.00- 2.99 —— —— 29.00-29.99 1 —— 3.00- 3.99 —— —— 30.00-30.99 94 162 4.00- 4.99 5 2 31.00-31.99 —— —— 5.00- 5.99 146 114 32.00-32.99 6 6 6.00- 6.99 68 55 33.00-33.99 4 2 7.00- 7.99 46 45 34.00-34.99 —— 1 8.00- 8.99 155 112 35.00-35.99 37 26 9.00- 9.99 59 31 36.00-36.99 5 8 10.00-10.99 475 447 37.00-37.99 1 1 11.00-11.99 1 8 38.00-38.99 —— —— 12.00-12.99 213 257 39.00-39.99 1 —— 13.00-13.99 15 14 40.00-40.99 25 46 14.00-14.99 23 29 41.00-41.99 —— —— 15.00-15.99 440 473 42.00-42.99 1 6 16.00-16.99 48 52 43.00-43.99 —— —— 17.00-17.99 10 12 44.00-44.99 —— —— 18.00-18.99 155 244 45.00-45.99 5 5 19.00-19.99 2 3 46.00-46.99 —— —— 20.00-20.99 258 315 47.00-47.99 —— —— 21.00-21.99 30 18 48.00-48.99 1 3 22.00-22.99 14 14 49.00-49.99 —— —— 23.00-23.99 1 4 50.00 and over 8 17 24.00-24.99 31 26       25.00-25.99 122 165      

AID TO DEPENDENT CHILDREN: CASES ACCEPTED During the Period July 1, 1938, Through June 30, 1940 WHEREABOUTS OF CHILD AND WHEREABOUTS OR MARITAL STATUS OF PARENTS

WHEREABOUTS OF CHILD AND WHEREABOUTS OR MARITAL STATUS OF PARENTS Number of Cases Accepted for Aid to Dependent Children July 1, 1938-June 30, 1939 July 1, 1939-June 30, 1940 Families Children Families Children Total 2,524 6,214 2,738 6,656 Child living with parents 506 1,337 548 1,435 With both parents 495 1,311 535 1,404 With mother and stepfather 9 20 9 22 With father and stepmother 2 6 4 9 Child living with mother 1,641 4,164 1,834 4,557 Mother unmarried 69 102 80 142 Father dead 1,005 2,561 1,068 2,654 Father deserting 201 544 185 431 Father divorced 36 56 34 72 Father legally separated 5 11 9 24 Father separated without court decree 32 72 11 30 Father in institution 275 770 439 1,189 Father elsewhere 18 48 8 15 Child living with father 39 107 46 112 Mother dead 31 93 35 94 Mother deserting 4 6 4 5 Mother divorced —— —— 3 6 Mother legally separated —— —— —— —— Mother separated without court decree —— —— —— —— Mother in institution 4 8 4 7 Mother elsewhere —— —— —— —— Child living elsewhere 338 606 310 552 With relatives within second degree 220 412 209 379 With more distant relatives 118 194 101 173 With unrelated persons —— —— —— ——

AID TO DEPENDENT CHILDREN: CASES ACCEPTED During the Period July 1, 1938, Through June 30, 1940 REASON FOR DEPENDENCY

DEPRIVED OF SUPPORT OR CARE BY REASON OF Number of Cases Accepted for Aid to Dependent Children July 1, 1938-June 30, 1939 July 1, 1939-June 30, 1940 Families Children Families Children Total 2,524 6,214 2,738 6,656 Mother 17 43 12 35 Dead 10 28 9 30 Continued absence from home —— —— 1 2 Physically incapacitated 5 8 2 3 Mentally incapacitated 2 7 —— —— Father 2,048 5,261 2,268 5,744 Dead 969 2,465 1,037 2,588 Continued absence from home 512 1,253 612 1,502 Physically incapacitated 521 1,419 572 1,517 Mentally incapacitated 46 124 47 137 Both parents 459 910 458 877 Dead 121 224 127 250 Continued absence from home 38 66 32 45 Physically incapacitated 36 76 43 101 Mentally incapacitated —— —— 1 2 One dead, one absent 115 216 104 168 One dead, one physically incapacitated 73 187 71 155 One dead, one mentally incapacitated 19 25 12 29 One absent, one physically incapacitated 36 75 48 89 One absent, one mentally incapacitated 14 26 11 21 One physically incapacitated, one mentally incapacitated 7 15 9 17 Other —— —— —— ——

AID TO DEPENDENT CHILDREN: CASES ACCEPTED During the Period July 1, 1938, Through June 30, 1940 RELATIONSHIP TO DEPENDENT CHILD OF PERSON TO WHOM MONTHY PAYMENT WAS APPROVED

RELATIONSHIP TO DEPENDENT CHILD OF PERSON TO WHOM PAYMENT WAS APPROVED Number of Cases Accepted for Aid to Dependent Children July 1, 1938-June 30, 1939 July 1, 1939-June 30, 1940 Total 2,524 2,738 Father 146 122 Mother 2,016 2,262 Grandfather 47 43 Grandmother 121 120 Brother 6 18 Sister 47 42 Adoptive or stepfather 3 2 Adoptive or stepmother 11 20 Half, adoptive, or stepbrother or brother-in-law 4 5 Half, adoptive, or stepsister or sister-in-law 4 5 Uncle 25 24 Aunt 90 69 Other eligible relative 4 4 Other —— 2 Unknown —— ——

AID TO DEPENDENT CHILDREN: CASES CLOSED During the Period July 1, 1938, Through June 30, 1940 REASON FOR CLOSING

REASON FOR CLOSING Number of Cases Closed for Aid to Dependent Children July 1, 1938-June 30, 1939 July 1, 1939-June 30, 1940 Total 1,703 1,702 Child reached maximum age 115 270 Death of dependent child 9 5 Dependent child or children admitted to institution 29 23 Transferred to another form of assistance 181 56 Relatives became able to support 898 851 Moved to another county 59 61 Moved to another state 49 38 Change of payee 97 59 Other 266 339

DIVISION OF CASE WORK TRAINING AND FAMILY REHABILITATION ANNA A. CASSATT, Director

During the biennium the division has served the State Board of Charities and Public Welfare and the University of North Carolina division of public welfare and social work, in the organizing and planning of the annual public welfare institutes of 1938 and 1939.

The division has had a certain amount of responsibility and leadership in some aspects of staff development, particularly as related to in-service training for the county staffs. Means for carrying forward staff development have included series of one-day institutes, conferences, suggested bibliography for reading and study, the manual on budgeting, supervision of social case work practice in the counties through the work of the field social work representatives, study committees and other devices.

Included also is work with representatives of the Work Projects Administration on problems, policies, procedures and forms involved in referral, especially as they relate to the establishment of need. This division has served in a liaison capacity between the National Youth Administration and the State Board of Charities and Public Welfare. Applications for surplus commodities for school lunch rooms and certain problems relating to these have been in a small measure the responsibility of the division as related to establishing need.

In studying the work of the division, it is estimated that approximately 45 per cent of its time has been devoted to social case work training through activities described above. About 40 per cent has been given to referral and certification responsibilities, in connection with the Work Projects Administration, National Youth Administration, and surplus commodities for school lunch rooms. The remaining time was used on assignments related to these two fields.

PUBLIC WELFARE INSTITUTE—1938

The nineteenth annual Public Welfare Institute included lectures and discussion groups in the forenoon, personal conferences between members of the institute coming from different sections of the state during the afternoon. In the evenings the annual dinner and business meetings of the Association of County Superitendents of Public Welfare was held, and there was entertainment by the Carolina Playmakers, by state high school orchestras, and mountain music by Mr. I. G. Greer, superintendent of the Thomasville Orphanage, and Mrs. Greer. Thursday evening reports were given of findings of the study groups.

The institute opened with Dr. Roy M. Brown, director, division of public welfare and social work, University of North Carolina, presiding; greetings by Robert B. House, dean of administration, University of North Carolina; address—“The General Outlook in Public Welfare in North Carolina,” Mrs. W. T. Bost, commissioner State Board of Charities and Public Welfare, and “New Emphases in Public Social Work,” Mr. Kenneth Pray, professor of social planning and administration, Pennsylvania School of Social Work.

Discussion Group Subjects: Group I—Is there a common agreement as to interpretation of the legal settlement laws and procedures? Group II—How much responsibility for getting a patient to the clinic or hospital following diagnosis by a physician should the county department of public welfare assume? Group III—What can the state and county staffs do to secure more adequate medical service? (a) General medical care, including hospitalization; (b) Control and treatment of venereal disease. Group IV—(a) What are our best methods of dealing with the problem of inadequate staffs? (b) For what staff expansion can we hope to pay? Group V—(a) Should there be a state appropriation for relief to supplement county funds? Should this be in the form of further categories or a general relief fund? Group VI—What is the county welfare department's responsibility to a parolee—adult or juvenile? Group A—Better integration of welfare departments, juvenile courts, institutions and other social agencies in dealing effectively with problems of child placement. Group B—(a) What is treatment in terms of social case work? (b) At what point does it begin with a family? Group C—(a) What are the definite responsibilities of the agency toward the client's rights under the law, including appeal and fair hearing? (b) What policy should a special agency follow in expecting relatives to assume financial and other responsibilities for the care of families? Group D—How can the department of public welfare secure the maximum usefulness of federal agencies as resources? Group E—What is our definition of a safe and proper home? Group F—How can a budget be made for a rural family? Report of the Institute Committee on Social Work, Trends and Practice, Based on Reports by Groups Discussing the Above Questions:

“The committee on social work trends and practice feels that the new plan for a Public Welfare Institute served in an unusual manner to meet the needs of the various groups who have participated. The extent to which individuals are able to carry over into their work the social work philosophy and trends indicated in the general and group discussions will be the true measure of the value of the institute. The committee feels that every person attending the institute has recognized the need for, and the values derived from, group thinking on current problems and the formulation of group policies which each one can take into his county with the feeling that the social workers in 99 other counties are finding these procedures best and are working actively to put them into effect.

“The sustained interest of the groups, the enthusiastic way in which they took hold of the questions and the useful, practical and yet forward-looking reports made by the various groups, all indicate the positive strengths which result both individually and collectively from the opportunity to work together on common problems.

“The committee feels that in some respects the institute might have been of more value to the members of the institute if, for instance, each person had taken full advantage of the opportunities provided for making appointments for individual conferences, a great deal of the time could have been saved and the time of each person more profitably spent. The committee feels that with such a plan for another annual public welfare institute, members will take full advantage of such opportunities.

“While it is the function of the committee to concern itself with the trends and practices brought out in the various group reports, we feel that members of the institute wish to show special recognition of the valuable contributions made by Mrs. W. T. Bost, commissioner of public welfare, Mr. Kenneth L. M. Pray, professor of social planning and administration, the Pennsylvania School of Social Work, and Dr. Isabelle Gordon Carter, assistant professor of social research, the Pennsylvania School of Social Work—Mrs. Bost for her forward looking address on ‘The General Outlook in Public Welfare in North Carolina,’ Professor Pray for his comprehensive address on ‘New Emphases in Public Social Work,’ and Dr. Carter for the valuable work in the class groups conducted by her each morning of the institute. We suggest, however, that in planning another such institute that smaller class groups for the general morning sessions would provide better opportunities, both for the speaker and the members of the classes.

“The committee noted certain philosophies that appeared over and over again in the various reports submitted.

“Unanimously there is a plea for coöperation for the sake of the client from all agencies concerned, federal, state, local, both public and private, hospitals, physicians, lawyers, teachers, public health departments, and social workers.

“We see definitely, indication of the fact that the individual is being brought to the fore, even to the point of requesting uniformity in legal settlement laws that ‘assistance and service can be rendered the client.’

“Along this same line, we see in one report the statement that ‘an intelligently prepared agency budget will itemize categories within the general relief fund and yet allow flexibility to meet individual problems.’

“And again in this same report ‘Family problems are correlated and are of multiple causation, a fact which categorical assistance tends to under emphasize.’

“The individual was emphasized in many of the reports but time does not permit further mention of this encouraging philosophy. We would like to quote though that ‘The rural client is a person.’

“The case work approach as opposed to law and authority is undoubtedly evident in many of the reports. Law is being recognized as a tool rather than as a limitation. There is, therefore, a growing realization of the need for less emphasis on legal aspects and limitations and a greater emphasis on the needs of clients.

“We find one group going on record as ‘opposing any further legislation for requiring persons to support indigent relations. It believes that the relationship of relatives to each other for their social value, as well as for the fact that they may be sources of financial assistance to the family, should be fostered.’

“There is a growing philosophy apparently toward encouraging initiative of the clients to do everything possible for themselves. Mention was made of encouraging low income groups to carry hospital insurance.

“The use of the volunteer is receiving consideration. The committee feels that this is a matter that should receive careful consideration as harm can result from unwise use of volunteer services. However simple the service, the volunteer should have some intelligent interpretation of case work practices.

“We note an encouraging willingness on the part of social workers to accept limitations and to work through these limitations to wider possibilities and better programs of service.

“The discussions of the institute indicate that present staff limitations have at least one wholesome effect—that of resulting in a more careful understanding of the functions and limitations of the agency and a more careful evaluation of the use of time and the relative value of various services which may be rendered. Also there is a growing trend in the recognition of the skills necessary to function effectively within strengths and limitations.

“The various reports indicated a definite trend toward a closer co-operation and correlation of all social work agencies and programs and a more complete utilization of available resources. Also, there seems to be a definite recognition of the need for agencies to more clearly define their functions and fields of service so that overlapping of services may be avoided. One of the examples given in group discussion was the need and increasing tendency to clarify the functions of the public health and public welfare departments in providing medical care for the needy, it being felt that the public welfare department should limit its function to the determination of economic need.

“There was in the group reports a definite trend emphasizing the individual approach and individual treatment of all problems. There was an obvious trend to abandon completely the old conception of social case work as an investigation of the situation of a client resulting in action in behalf of the client and an acceptance of the modern conception of case work treatment as a way of administering agency services to a client who expresses need for the services, in a way which development of his own strength and independence is fostered.

“The institute discussions emphasized a growing trend in emphasis on community interpretation of the rights and needs of clients and of the programs, functions, and limitations of agencies. The growing interest and understanding of lay citizens in all social work programs was found to present definite challenges to the executives of social agencies to have increasingly well developed programs of interpretation. The discussions indicate an increasing trend to recognize the practicability of budget planning, not only for meeting the needs of the individual client but as an unquestionable proof of the necessity for more adequate funds.

“Discussions in the various groups seemed to indicate that there is a growing recognition on the part of executives of the need for the organization of themselves and their departments in such a way as to give the best possible service to clients. There was also recognition on the part of the case workers in our public welfare departments that persons assigned to social work jobs must be equipped with professional training, experience, and skill.

“Over and over again the client-worker relationship was stressed. We conclude with a brief statement of the thinking in this respect. The case worker is a participant in a helping process, in which the worker should know and use positively the function of the agency with both its strengths and limitations; and recognize the client as a person who feels, who seeks and uses help in his own way; thus helping the client to find for himself what he can use within the limits of the ‘helper-self’ process and the agency function, and to use himself as responsibly as he can.”

 PUBLIC WELFARE INSTITUTE—1939

Mornings—

Course I. Mental Hygiene—Dr. Richard F. Richie, Assistant Director Division of Mental Hygiene, Children's Unit, State Board of Charities and Public Welfare. Course II. Social Case Work—Miss Florence Day, Associate Professor of Family Case Work, School of Applied Social Sciences, Western Reserve University.Course III. Supervision—Miss Catherine Dunn, Training Consultant, Division of Technical Training, Bureau of Public Assistance, Social Security Board. Course IV. Public Welfare and the Community—Dr. Arthur E. Fink, Head of the Department of Social Work, University of Georgia. Forums

Groups discussed the following subjects:

A. Shall the social agencies in North Carolina attempt to have a uniform minimum standard budget for relief families? B. Should medical care like schools be free to all? To relief clients only? Is this the responsibility of the county health department or the county welfare department—or the joint responsibility of both? C. How should the case worker use the juvenile court in the treatment of dependent, neglected or delinquent children? D. What should be the social agency's policy in regard to nonresidence? E. What does a social agency want to interpret to its public (Its philosophy? Its procedure and skills? Its problems? What?) F. Under what circumstances should a social agency bring pressure on children to support their parents? G. Under what circumstances should an applicant owning property be given an OAA grant or relief in any form? H. Under what circumstances should an applicant owning property be given an ADC grant or relief in any form? Afternoons—Tuesday: General Assembly—Dr. Roy M. Brown, presiding. Discussion of the merit systems now in use in the various states—Dr. James W. Fesler, Associate Professor of Political Science, Division of Public Welfare and Social Work, University of North Carolina. Wednesday: Recreation. Scheduled Conferences. Thursday: General Assembly—Dr. Wiley B. Sanders, presiding. Report of Forums A, B and C. Business Meeting—North Carolina Chapter American Association of Social Workers, with Miss Grace Marcus, Assistant Executive Secretary, National Chapter American Association of Social Workers, guest; Miss Anna A. Cassatt, presiding. Friday: General Assembly—Mr. R. Eugene Brown, presiding. Report of Forums G and H. Report of Committee on Social Work Trends and Practice—gleaned from reports presented by the forums—Dr. Katherine Jocher, Chairman. Evenings—Tuesday: Dinner and business meeting of the Association of County Superintendents of Public Welfare—Mrs. Eloise G. Franks, presiding. Wednesday: Institute Reception. Thursday: General Assembly—Mrs. W. T. Bost, presiding. Presentation of the speaker—Dr. Roy M. Brown. Address—Miss Grace Marcus. Summary of Forum Reports by the Committee on Social Work Trends and Practice:

“The present division of the Public Welfare Institute into general sessions, each in charge of an expert in the particular field, supplemented by special discussion forums was initiated in 1938. Since it appeared eminently satisfactory and well adapted to the purposes of the institute, the same general plan was continued in the 1939 institute. Such a set-up provides not only for a detailed discussion and interpretation of philosophies and practice in certain general fields of social work and public welfare, but attempts to help members of the institute work out specific problems and procedures by pooling experiences, through special discussion forums. However, without discussion and participation by all, such a program is valueless, since the recipient gains only in the measure of that which he gives, and only in this way can a high level be reached and maintained.

“Although the forum reports provide the basic data for this report, it was felt by the committee that a few general trends might well preface the more specific trends as evidenced in the forum discussions. These general institute trends appear to be:

a. To revert to the primary institute method of instruction by authorities in special fields, as was the plan of the institute in the early days, rather than the use of the conference method which was in effect during an intervening period. b. To place more emphasis on the counties' conception of their problems and which of these problems they would like to have discussed rather than to prepare and superimpose a more or less general program. c. To secure participation by all members of the institute through discussion during instruction periods as well as in the special forums. d. To put findings into permanent form for reference and use and to have them made available to all members of the institute.

“The forum reports carried so much excellent material that it was difficult to pick out a few specific trends, particularly since a large part of the discussion by these groups centered around particular problems. It was felt, too, that since the splendid reports of the forums, as appended to this report, will be published in full, a sentence or two on each report would be adequate. Specific trends as evidenced from forum discussing follow:

a. There is a trend toward attempting to formulate in terms of items, because of the variations in price levels, a uniform minimum standard budget for the state, since it is good procedure for the state to aid counties in the formulation of an agency budget to be used in determining need and amount of grant. b. It is becoming more apparent that the indigent and the marginal groups need more adequate medical attention. c. A knowledge of the trends toward subjecting the juvenile court to more careful scrutiny in order to secure better treatment for the youthful offender; toward providing boarding homes instead of institutional commitment; toward prevention instead of cure; and toward closer cooperation of everyone interested in this problem—police, recreation leaders, etc., more than ever before—is basic to a specific application of the case worker's use of the juvenile court in the treatment of dependent, neglected or delinquent children. d. The administration of residence laws is conditioned by the financial situation of the community and the community mores, and any change for a more liberal attitude will result only from the education of the community. e. The importance of interpretation as a primary function of every social agency is receiving more emphasis, since it is recognized increasingly that the success of the social work program is dependent upon the effectiveness of its interpretation to the community in terms which the general public can understand. f. There is a trend toward getting children to support parents voluntarily through good case work rather than through legal measures, which frequently antagonize. g. In granting old age assistance (OAA), the consensus of the group seems to be that the ceiling of a property qualification be set on a county or community basis rather than on an individual basis, with a definite policy or statement fixed by the county board of welfare. h. There appears to be developing a more liberal attitude toward ownership of property by aid to dependent children (ADC) recipients; toward expansion of the age group of beneficiaries of ADC; toward a keener appreciation of the value of supervision of families receiving ADC through an increased number of case workers.

“A special work of appreciation is extended to those who planned the program, to those who developed it through the conduct of special discussion groups, and to all those who participated in any way and who thus helped to make the Public Welfare Institute of 1939 one of outstanding excellence.”

GENERAL PLAN FOR ONE DAY INSTITUTES 1939

Time     10:00 a.m. Problems of Supervision   1st Meeting. a. What is supervision?     b. Does the superintendent of welfare supervise?   2nd Meeting. a. What abilities should a supervisor have?     b. Must a good executive be a good supervisor?   3rd Meeting. a. The handling of authority in supervision.     b. The delegation of responsibility.   4th Meeting. a. Growth through supervision.     b. Self supervision.   5th Meeting. a. What clues indicate a case worker's ability to do a good job, viz., evaluate a case worker's abilities.     b. Write a first conference with a new case worker.   6th Meeting. a. Discuss indirect supervision.     b. The philosophy of supervision. (Give a resume.) 11:00 a.m. Interviewing   Assignments may be made as the study progresses.   12:00 a.m.-1:00. Lunch hour. 1:00 p.m. Case Work Process   1st Meeting—The first interview—Example.     2nd Meeting—a. Home calls—Example; b. Collaterals—Example.     3rd Meeting—Diagnosis and Treatment plan — Example.     4th Meeting—Case treatment—Example.     5th Meeting—Case study—Example.     6th Meeting—Case recording—Example.   3:00-4:00 p.m. Open Forum for General Questions—Superintendent of Welfare Presiding.  

COUNTIES INCLUDED IN EACH ONE DAY INSTITUTE

I. New Bern

II. Edenton

III. Louisburg

IV. Elizabethtown

V. Greensboro

VI. Albemarle

VII. Lenoir

VIII. Waynesville

 THE ONE DAY INSTITUTES—1938-39 SERIES

During the biennium a series of six one-day institutes was held in each of the eight districts for the county superintendents of public welfare. (See attached map.) Attendance at these institutes totaled 563 and averaged 13 superintendents.

In the open forum the superintendents presided and presented questions which were of greatest interest at the particular time. These questions related to eligibility and referral to the WPA and to NYA, to budgeting, to use of client resources, attitudes of dependency, inadequate facilities for the treatment of venereal disease, to heavy case loads, to interpretation of the job to client and community and to problems concerning professional training and staff development.

During this series there were approximately 96 short papers and discussions presented by superintendents of welfare on various aspects of supervision and 56 on social case work process.

 THE ONE DAY INSTITUTES—1939-40 SERIES

While the 1938-39 series of institutes emphasized social work theory and practice, the institutes of 1940 were set up with the objective of studying public welfare laws and the social security act and relating these to the function and limitations of the job. Not only the county superintendents, but the case workers also were invited to attend. During the first two hours the institute studied the social security act, the public assistance laws of North Carolina growing out of the act and the policies and procedures being followed.

The next hour they studied child welfare services as set forth under the social security act, the child welfare laws of North Carolina and policies and procedures in carrying these out.

Two hours of each institute were devoted to the general public welfare laws of North Carolina and how they define and limit the function of the agency to the application of social case work to the job, and a review of pamphlets and books.

 COMMITTEE ON PLANNING FOR STAFF DEVELOPMENT

At the beginning of this biennium a committee on planning for staff development was appointed from the state staff by the commissioner, the chairman being the director of the division of case work training and family rehabilitation. The work of the committee centered around a study of the use of various in-service training devices for the purpose of encouraging and forwarding staff development in the state and county welfare departments. The first report of the committee pointed out that the basic philosophy for staff development is to provide a more adequate public welfare service by the educational development of the workers who are directly responsible to the tax-payers for rendering efficient service, thus helping them to function with the maximum efficiency. The report encouraged leaves of absence for professional training; that the individual should have freedom of choice as to the school of social work he plans to attend; that plans should be worked out in each county so that the work would not be handicapped; and that the committee would make available information concerning schools of social work, such as special courses and scholarships to the state and county staffs.

The committee recommended that the staffs meet in groups having the same type of responsibility for professional study and advancement and that committees be organized as needed for the purpose of working on particular aspects of the job such as budgeting, filing and the making of new forms. The committee emphasized the importance of supervision as the main tool in staff development and pointed out the need for a professional library with at least a part-time librarian, also the value of state and national conferences, training institutes, the annual public welfare institute, and special national conferences in particular fields.

 REFERRAL TO THE WORK PROJECTS ADMINISTRATION

During the past biennium the State Board of Charities and Public Welfare through the county welfare departments has served as the referral agency to the Work Projects Administration. (See table, page 105.)

On October 30, 1939, the following joint working agreement was signed by the Work Projects Administration and the State Board of Charities and Public Welfare.

“It is agreed between the Work Projects Administration of North Carolina and the State Board of Charities and Public Welfare that the latter shall be the official referral agency for Work Projects Administration employment. “The State Board of Charities and Public Welfare agrees to take full responsibility for the determination of need of persons for employment by the Work Projects Administration pursuant to the provisions of applicable emergency relief appropriation acts and in accordance with the provisions of the rules and regulations of the Work Projects Administration and within the limitations of the referral agency.

“The Work Projects Administration reserves the right to accept or reject referrals on the basis of the eligibility requirements as set forth in the rules and regulations of the Work Projects Administration.

“This agreement may be amended provided such amendments are accepted by both agencies. The agreement shall be subject to termination by either party.”

 CERTIFICATION TO NATIONAL YOUTH ADMINISTRATION

For the past year the State Board of Charities and Public Welfare has been one of the certifying agencies to the National Youth Administration. (See table, page 105.) Prior to that time it served as the referral agency through the Work Projects Administration to the National Youth Administration.

Since the NYA is essentially a form of guidance through work experience each applicant for employment is interviewed in order to determine his interest, abilities, training, work experience, work performance and vocational needs.

Certification—Certification of youths to NYA may be made by state and local public welfare agencies, Work Projects Administration, Farm Security Administration or the National Youth Administration.

The basis for certification is as follows: The youth member of the family whose income is insufficient to provide the basic needs of all members of the family including the youth member, regardless of whether the family is receiving any form of public assistance; or a youth without family connection who is in need is eligible for certification. All youths in families already known to the local welfare departments are eligible for certification. This would include families receiving some form of relief, including surplus commodities. It also includes families investigated and found eligible for relief but not receiving it because of lack of funds. Applications may be accepted of youths whose families have not been subject to an investigation of need, also referrals from public and private agencies. This gives every youth in the community an opportunity to apply for employment on NYA and eliminates the idea that the youth must become a relief client in order to secure training on the National Youth Administration program.*

(* Early in July 1940 the NYA lowered the age of youths eligible for certification to 17 years for North Carolina. The basis of certification was redefined as follows: The youth shall be eligible for certification if he is in need of employment, work experience and training.)

 Department of Public Welfare Guides in Referral to WPA and Certification to NYA

Excerpts from the manual on budgeting used in determining need:

“A subsistence budget compatible with decency and health” is a measuring rod for determining need.

Budget—A budget of expenses is a financial statement covering the basic needs of the family. A minimum budget includes food, shelter, clothing, fuel, lights, medical care, household needs, limited insurance, education, recreation, reasonable payment on debts, other items.

Planning with the family—A plan has the following characteristics: It has objectives. It is voluntary and wanted by the client and the agency. It lays out a course in terms of things to be done and the approximate time of doing them. It is flexible and carries the expectation of performance according to agreement by both agency and client.

Food—In making plans for the family the case worker should help them discover their own resources and develop them to care for their needs.

Yearly Food Requirements per Person Milk 75 gals. per person.       One cow furnishes between 375-450 gals. per year.   Fats 60 lbs. per person.       Butter 20 lbs.     Lard 20 lbs.     Fat, pork, bacon, oil, etc 20 lbs. Lean Meat, Fish, Poultry 85 lbs. per person.       Pork 20 lbs.     Beef, veal, lamb 25 lbs.     Fish, game 10 lbs.     Chicken 20 lbs. Eggs 17 doz. per person.   Flour, Cereals 261 lbs. per person.       Flour 150 lbs.     Corn meal 85 lbs.     Bread and Cereals 26 lbs. Sugars 98 lbs. per person.       Sugar 40 lbs.     Molasses and Sorghum 5 gals.     Syrup, Jam and Jelly 3 qts. Dried beans and peas 20 lbs. per person.   Potatoes 5 bus. per person.   Tomatoes and citrus fruits 125 lbs. per person.   Leafy green and yellow vegetables 200 lbs. per person.  

Other vegetables and fruits 375 lbs. per person.       Vegetables 250 lbs.     Fruits 10 lbs.     Dried Fruits 12-25 lbs. Canned Meat 5 qts. per person.   Canned Vegetables 32 qts. per person.   Canned Fruit 24 qts. per person.  

Shelter—Shelter is considered the provision of a house for a family whether owned, rented or included in labor or land agreements. In the event that a family owns the dwelling in which it lives, allowance should be made for reasonable payment on mortgages, the payment of taxes and for repair. These payments might well amount to the equivalent of rent. When ownings are free from mortgage the allowance is reduced since the cost of home ownership amounts to less when taxes, repairs and insurance are the only items to be considered.

The cost of rent in urban and rural areas varies considerably. Accurate figures for the entire state are not available.

Housing facilities, the family's own living habits, the community's attitude toward proper housing, all are factors in the rapidity with which the transition can be made from family's present housing conditions to the minimum standard suggested above.

Suggested Room Requirements 1 adult 2 adults 2 adults 1 child 2 adults 2 children 2 adults 3 children 2 adults 4 children 2 adults 5 children 2 adults 6 children 2 adults 7 children 2 adults 8 children 2 adults 9 children 2 adults 10 children 1 room 2-3 rooms 3-4 rooms 4-6 rooms 4-6 rooms 5-6 rooms 5-6 rooms 5-7 rooms 5-7 rooms 6-7 rooms 6-7 rooms 7-8 rooms

Some Factors to Consider in Clothing Costs

The amount of money needed for clothing is a big item in the family budget.

There are many factors to be considered in planning a clothing budget for a family.

1. The number in the family, and their ages. It takes very little to clothe a baby or small child. The girl or boy of high school or college age usually require more than any other member of the family; the mother next, and then the father. 2. Personal characteristics enter into the cost of clothing. Some people are very hard on clothing, while others can make garments last years. 3. The care of clothing is most important when one has a limited amount to spend. Reinforcing places in garments that receive hardest wear, as elbows to sleeves, seats of pants, backs of shoulders, extends the life of the garment. Mending breaks, snags, or tears at once is also most important. 4. Keeping clothes clean extends their life. Wash garments should be laundered frequently, and not left until so badly soiled that it takes strong soap and vigorous scrubbing to clean. Spots and stains should be removed at once, as many stains will destroy fabrics. 5. Knowing when and how to buy are most important factors to the homemaker. Often there is a saving by buying out of season. Coats, suits, and dresses are usually reduced at the end of seasons. There is no economy in buying a garment though at any time even if it is a bargain unless it is needed.

Fuel—The size and number of stoves and the amount of fuel consumed should be such as to provide adequate heat for cooking and laundering throughout the year and for warmth during cold weather. Some farm families are able to secure sufficient wood from their own farms and therefore do not have to consider this item of the budget.

Lights—The amount of light required is determined by the needs of the family. For example, if several children are of school age and study at night, sufficient lighting should be provided so that there is not undue eyestrain. It is expected that families will be reasonably frugal in the use of electricity or oil. If electricity is available it is desirable that it be used instead of oil. In the event that kerosene lamps are used as a means of lighting homes, it is necessary to add the item of kerosene.

Medical Care—A knowledge of first-aid treatment and the use of simple home remedies approved by a competent physician will lessen the need for trips to the doctor's office and in many instances prevent complications that might develop if a small injury or minor ailment is allowed to go unnoticed.

Household Needs—There are several items included in the attached list that could be made at home, thus reducing the actual cost, also making the house appear more home-like. Stools, benches, cabinets and dressing tables can be made out of boxes and boards and covered with material of some sort with very little expense. Care in the use of household articles will prolong their life.

Linens in constant use will probably not wear longer than a year. However, about one-eighth of the total cost may be sufficient to allow for depreciation and replacements per year.

Insurance—An allowance for insurance should be for protective insurance rather than for savings.

Education—All families need money for advancement. In families having children of school age, money is needed for pencils, tablets, pens and ink. Children deprived of the means of obtaining these small items tend to suffer from the mental anxiety created by the lack of the equipment necessary to get their lessons.

Recreation—Recreation must be recognized as a necessary element for normal life. In rural areas people tend to socialize by going to parties and entertainments at the school, church, or community center. Where there are children in the family, play equipment, such as home games, toys, dolls, balls, is needed for the individual child. Families should be encouraged to make their own toys and games.

Payment on Debts—Allowance should be made for reasonable payments on those debts that have been incurred for the absolute necessities of life; food, medical aid and shelter. Credit is very helpful and needed. Even a small amount each week will show the creditor that some effort toward payment is being made.

 CASES REFERRED BY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE AND ACCEPTED BY THE WORK PROJECTS ADMINISTRATION AND NATIONAL YOUTH ADMINISTRATION July 1938 - May 1940

MONTH WPA NYA MONTH WPA NYA 1940     1939     May 2,552 632 May 1,020 265 April 3,310 790 April 906 387 March 5,102 792 March 1,303 409 February 6,156 1,458 February 1,375 593 January 7,066 1,279 January 1,217 803 1939     1938     December 5,538 —— December 2,481 529 November 4,148 —— November 6,086 947 October 5,106 —— October 6,868 744 September 4,932 —— September 5,584 506 August 1,600 —— August 5,910 727 July 797 —— July 4,925 662 June 765 —— —— —— ——

ATTENDANCE—ONE DAY INSTITUTES 1938-1940

DISTRICTS I II III IV V VI VII VIII 1939                 1st series 11 13 12 12 14 8 10 11 2nd series 19 10 11 11 12 9 10 17 3rd series 20 6 11 10 13 5 12 14 4th series 25 13 12 13 16 —— 14 16 5th series 23 11 10 8 13 —— 11 14 6th series 16 12 11 11 11 —— 10 12 1940                 1st series 27 21 43 20 30 46 36 47 2nd series 33 31 51 17 40 36 39 60 3rd series 28 23 52 25 46 51 21 52 4th series 33 25 53 25 46 39 37 45

DIVISION OF MENTAL HYGIENE JAMES WATSON, M.D., Director

After 17 years of efficient service as part-time director of this division Dr. H. W. Crane resigned in September 1938 in order to give the whole of his services to the University of North Carolina. At this time the State Board of Charities and Public Welfare decided to put into effect a plan which had received much consideration. This was to secure as the new director a physician eligible to practice medicine in North Carolina and with extensive training in psychiatry including at least three years practice in mental hospitals and two years in community clinics. In addition he would be required to hold a diploma by examination of the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology.

In close coöperation with the National Committee for Mental Hygiene the training and experience of various psychiatrists were reviewed and the present director, James Watson, M.D., was appointed January 1, 1940. In the interim Dr. J. W. Nygard, who had been associated with Dr. Crane and had also rendered valuable service to the state in other positions, was acting director. Dr. Nygard took charge of the interstate transfer of patients, made many psychological tests, held advisory consultations, helped the division of institutions and corrections check up on 3,000 county home inmates, visited the state mental hospitals, and gave much psychological service to the state correctional institutions.

In the meantime, through the aid of the federal Children's Bureau, the state board was able to realize another part of its plan and organize a children's unit within the division of mental hygiene. As director of this unit there was appointed June 1, 1939, Dr. R. F. Richie, a physician eligible to practice medicine in North Carolina, with some years experience in general psychiatry and a thorough training in child psychiatry in a Commonwealth Fund fellowship. Miss Mary Scovill, a psychologist holding a graduate degree in clinical psychology and with some years of training and work in institutions for both normal and abnormal children, had been appointed November 1, 1938. In June 1939 she became the psychologist of the children's unit. The following paragraphs from the plan of the child welfare services as approved by the federal authorities indicate the relation of Dr. Richie and Miss Scovill to the division of mental hygiene.

“...The children's unit within the division of mental hygiene was organized early in the fiscal year of 1939-40 and the staff includes a part-time psychiatrist and a full-time psychologist. The psychiatrist serves mental hygiene clinics in two urban areas who reimburse the state board for his services. Approximately one-half of his time is available for child welfare services. His services to mental hygiene clinics has a two-fold purpose; that of offering treatment to children not otherwise having access to a psychiatrist, and that of broadened interpretation that comes through this service. Funds paid in by the two mental hygiene clinics are used in the development of the statewide mental hygiene program. The psychiatrist is available for consultation to the case consultants in the state office and occasionally to the child welfare services cases on a treatment basis in addition to his consultation services.

“The psychologist gives her full time to child welfare services cases. Upon requests she visits the counties for the purpose of testing children within the case loads of the child welfare workers. She also tests children in case loads of counties given consultation service, requests for which come through the case consultants....”

The work of Dr. Richie and Miss Scovill is reported by them and appears following the report of the director. The duties of the division as a whole are as follows:

(1) Provide psychiatric examination service in so far as possible to institutions, both public and private, schools, courts, county welfare departments, and agencies. (2) Interstate transfer of mental patients. (3) Providing a state clearing house regarding mental patients by filing pertinent data concerning such patients. (4) Development of research and preventive measures along mental hygiene lines. (5) Assemble and interpret statistics on mental health. (6) The inspection of state hospitals and state schools for mental defectives, and the inspection and licensing of all private mental hospitals. (7) Educational service through talks, pamphlets, institutes, etc. (8) Consultant service to all state agencies and institutions. (9) Integrate local welfare departments with state hospital service for supplying from local units of public welfare case histories and financial investigations of patients admitted to state hospitals, and supervision of patients during parole and after discharge from state hospitals. (10) Foster the development of child guidance clinics and mental hygiene clinics in urban communities and traveling mental hygiene clinics for rural areas.

During the six months he has been in office the activities of the director have been as follows:

Inspection of Institutions

The three state hospitals have been visited at least twice and a complete inspection of each has been made. Extensive reports giving the conditions found in each institution and recommendations for improvements were made to the commissioner of the board of public welfare which sent copies to the respective superintendents of the state hospitals and to the Governor.

Inspection of state hospitals and reports and recommendations are required from the State Board of Charities and Public Welfare by law, but in addition to this legal requirement there have been emphasized the following principles relative to such inspections:

(1) It is a sound psychiatric principle, nationally advocated, that mental hospitals should be periodically inspected by some responsible body not directly concerned with their management. (2) That such inspections tend to make staffs and employees strive for more efficiency. (3) Likewise such inspections tend to prevent abuses which experience shows do at times occur. (4) Again, it is a nationally advocated psychiatric principle that some such state organization as this division of the State Board of Public Welfare should help interpret to the public the work of the state hospitals and make the public aware of the needs of the institutions. Obviously, the division cannot perform this function unless by frequent visits it keeps itself informed as to the conditions prevailing in the state hospitals.

Believing that the development of a state mental hygiene program concerned with the maintenance of mental health and the adequate care of the mentally disordered can only succeed when the state hospital service is basically sound the following principles have been constantly upheld in all contacts with state hospital superintendents and their staffs:

(1) The implication involved in the change of name from “asylums” to “hospitals” should be taken seriously and the institutions concerned should devote themselves to the ideal of treating patients for their mental disorders with a view to getting them well. (2) To this end superintendents should seek to build up staffs of doctors who have the outlook of modern psychiatry and are interested in the practice of it. Doctors who hold to the old idea that the business of state hospitals consists of labeling patients and keeping them locked up for the rest of their lives have no place on the staff of a modern mental hospital. (3) Every state mental hospital should be a center of research. The view of modern psychiatry is that mental diseases in common with other diseases have a cause, a beginning, a course of development and are as susceptible to prevention and treatment. Psychiatry is a comparatively new specialty and on the above points its fund of information is woefully inadequate. It is to the intensive studies carried on by state hospital staffs that the medical profession must look for increased knowledge in this field. (4) All state hospitals should be centers of education. Every staff meeting should be an educational experience. All staff members should be available for addresses to community organizations to acquaint them with the known facts of mental disorder and to solicit their coöperation in obtaining the necessary support to treat and prevent mental breakdowns. Particularly should the staff by addresses and papers at medical meetings keep their fellow physicians acquainted with their problems and informed concerning the advances in their specialty of psychiatry. There should be close coöperation with the medical schools of the state not only in the training of doctors to supply the needed psychiatrists but to give to all medical students a more adequate knowledge of the principles of psychiatry. To this end it has been advocated that all medical students should spend a month of their senior or interne year in one of our mental hospitals. (6) Outpatient clinics should be conducted in connection with all state hospitals to give help to their paroled and discharged patients in their efforts to maintain adjustment and to stay out of the hospital. Such clinics could also give psychiatric consultation service to surrounding communities.

Obviously in their present understaffed condition and with inadequate appropriations such a program for our state hospitals is an impossibility. To secure adequate support there must be built up an enlightened public opinion. The only sure way to get adequate and permanent support for our state hospitals and similar institutions is to give the people of the state an understanding of their problems and their needs, and confidence in the work they are doing. There has been close coöperation between the superintendents and staffs of the state hospitals with this division. Most of them heartily endorse the above program.

Four private mental sanatoriums—Appalachian Hall, Broadoaks, Glenwood Park, and Pinebluff have been inspected and recommendations concerning their licenses have been made. These sanatoriums are directed by able doctors; on their staffs they have some of the outstanding physicians of North Carolina; they are regarded highly by their respective communities and the medical profession. It can be said that they are a credit to the state.

Caswell Training School has been visited but there has not been time thoroughly to inspect this school and no complete report on it has been made as yet. The superintendent and his staff have been very cooperative.

Interstate Transfer of Patients has involved much correspondence and a great many problems have arisen which the state hospital superintendents and county superintendents of welfare have coöperated in solving. Pertinent data relative to mental disorder in the state has been filed in the central files of the State Board of Charities and Public Welfare.

Educational Work has consisted of addresses to clubs, lodges, medical organizations, schools, welfare units and 22 hours of lectures in the graduate school of the University. Many news items and articles have been furnished to the newspapers and magazines of the state. The monthly meetings of the Eugenics Board have been regularly attended and interpretations of the place of eugenics in the prevention of mental disorder and mental defect have been made to professional groups.

Consultation Service has been carried on for all state and community organizations so far as time has permitted. Visits have been made to jails in various counties to examine insane people confined in them in order to facilitate their transfer to state hospitals. Arrangements have been made for psychological examinations for schools, county welfare units and orphanages by psychologists in private practice on a fee basis.

 MENTAL HYGIENE CLINIC

A community mental hygiene clinic has been organized in Raleigh under the Wake County Council of Social Agencies on a demonstration basis. With the exception of the psychiatrist the expense of this clinic is being carried by several community organizations through the Community Chest. The Family Service Society has been doing most of the social service work. When the initial period is completed it is expected that a psychiatrist's services will be secured by community funds. Psychiatric service from this division will then be offered to other communities on the same basis until mental hygiene services are available in many cities of the state. Two very excellent clinics have existed for some years, a mental hygiene clinic in Charlotte and a child guidance clinic in Winston-Salem, which have an adequate and well-trained personnel. These clinics were initiated by and are entirely controlled and financed by their respective communities. They receive and pay for psychiatric services of the child psychiatrist of the children's unit. These clinics are examples of what the division of mental hygiene will endeavor to initiate and foster in many parts of the state. There has been close coöperation with the children's unit and the child welfare services unit relative to this type of development.

 THE CHILDREN'S UNIT

The services of the child psychiatrist have been given to the Charlotte Mental Hygiene Clinic and the Winston-Salem Child Guidance Clinic for periods of two days each on alternate weeks. As director of these community organizations, the psychiatrist has participated in activities such as the quarterly program of the Charlotte Mental Hygiene Society. In Winston-Salem a discussion group for teachers was organized with the psychiatrist as leader.

Talks have been given to the following organizations: N. C. Orphanage Association, Rotary Club, Junior League, county welfare staff, private social agency board, parent education group, Durham Crime Club, N. C. Mental Hygiene Society, N. C. Neuropsychiatric Association, senior class of nurses, group of elementary school principals, Business Club, Y.M.C.A., state board study group, and a graduate class at the University of North Carolina. The psychiatrist was leader of a section on “Child Placement” at the Public Welfare Institute on October 8, 1939, and is serving as chairman of the committee on mental hygiene of the N. C. Conference for Social Service. He has participated in district public welfare institutes, child welfare institutes and home and family-life education institutes.

The agencies referring children in Winston-Salem included the Forsyth County department of public welfare, city juvenile court, the Associated Charities, Salvation Army, schools and parents. An active bi-weekly consultation service was held for the juvenile court. In Charlotte referrals were more diversified: Mecklenburg County department of public welfare, domestic relations court, Family Welfare Association, Children's Service Bureau, Travelers Aid Society, Crittenton Home, Alexander Home, Thompson Orphanage, physicians (65), departments of public welfare of nearby counties, parents and relatives. Adults are accepted for service in the Charlotte Mental Hygiene Clinic, and frequently make their own application. Even when a child is the individual referred for help, the parent or some other adult may also be treated. This is in accordance with an accepted child guidance concept. One recognizes that the child is in the formative period of personality development; the adult, on the other hand, is able to do more about his own status and that of his offspring. To show the reasons for changes—to get the adult or child to want to change—and to furnish encouragement “to carry on,” constitutes the child psychiatrist's objective.

The service of the child psychiatrist for the fiscal year included 422 interviews with children and adults. In addition there have been 331 advisory conferences with agency representatives about their clients. Children have been referred from the following counties participating in the child welfare services plan: Anson, Buncombe, Caswell, Cumberland, Durham, Iredell, Nash, Orange, Pitt, Robeson, Surry, Wake, Warren and Wilson. The problems presented by 149 individuals included truancy from home and school, disobedience, stealing, lying, conflicts between parents and children or parents with each other, failure in school, disruption of classroom, sexual delinquency, and difficulties in child placement. The diagnostic and psycho-therapeutic help given by the psychiatrist has made improvement in status possible in most of these situations. Ten individuals with serious nervous or mental disorders have been aided. Six of these have made adjustment in the community so that institutional placement has not been necessary.

PSYCHOLOGICAL SERVICES have consisted of examinations of 431 individuals during the 20 months that the psychologist has been with the division of mental hygiene. This number consisted of 418 cases under 18 years of age and 13 cases 18 years of age and over. Adults were included in the service only when they closely affected the welfare of certain children being planned for under the child welfare program. The ages of the children examined ranged from four months to 18 years.

The Stanford-Binet examination was given to almost every child of two years or older, and special pre-school or infant tests to those under two. School achievement tests and supplementary performance tests, including tests of manual ability, were given to a large percentage of the children examined. The majority of the cases were examined in the counties in which the children resided. Morrison Training School boys were examined at that institution. Psychological service was given to a total of 26 counties. This number included the 18 counties in which the child welfare services program was operating, plus eight counties which were given consultant service by the child welfare case consultants and nine other counties.

Reports of all examinations were written, one copy of each being filed in the office of the State Board of Charities and Public Welfare, and one copy sent to the county by the case consultant through whom the case was referred. Advisory consultations were held with county superintendents of public welfare, child welfare assistants, case workers, teachers, parents, and with the case consultants who guide the case work planning for children in the 18 counties in the child welfare services program. An approximate total of 276 conferences were held.

The purposes for which the examinations were requested were varied, among them the following were most frequent:

1. To determine the reason for a child's failure in school and to give advice as to educational and vocational planning for the child.

2. To aid case workers in making more intelligent and effective placement plans for children. Child welfare case workers are constantly confronted by the necessity for placing children either in boarding homes or in homes for adoption. It is essential that they have an understanding of the intellectual development and potentialities of a child for whom placement is being considered in order to provide the best possible adjustment of the child in his new home. Thus such tragedies as might be caused by placing a dull child with a family who expect to give the child a college education or placing a superior child with a family of low cultural status can be avoided.

3. To determine whether or not a child is eligible for Caswell Training School.

4. To aid in the study of children's behavior and personality problems. Truancy from school and home, disobedience, defiance of authority, lying, stealing and irregular sex activities are those commonly listed. Many a child presents behavior problems when he is not able to compete successfully with other children of his age or grade. Frustrated in his attempts to “keep up” he finally gives up trying and fights back by means of one or more of the above mentioned types of unacceptable behavior.

The psychologist has discovered certain children who have been considered complete failures and who have accepted themselves as failures, but who in reality have achieved about as much as could be expected from their intellectual levels. When an interpretation has been made through the case workers to the parents and teachers of such a child's limitations and his exact educational status, and when the child has been made to feel successful, it has been possible to change this attitude from one of indifference to one of enthusiastic interest in getting his work. A child who considers himself of no account in the eyes of others is much more likely to become a delinquent than one who feels that he is accomplishing something worth-while be it ever so small an achievement.

There is also another type of child who is discovered through the psychological examination—i.e., that child of normal intelligence who, because of some unknown reason, has had extreme difficulty in learning to read, and who, after two or three years of failure is so behind in his reading that he is a misfit in any grade. Occasionally these children are labeled feebleminded by teachers or “dumb-bells” by their classmates. Even though the school instruction often cannot be adapted to a child's individual needs because of the large number of pupils assigned to each teacher, an interpretation of his true intellectual potentialities and his educational difficulties to the teacher and parents often makes possible a better adjustment for the child through lessening the mental strain to which he has been subjected.

5. A few children were referred because of speech difficulties. While it has not been possible for the psychologist to carry on systematic speech correction in these cases because of the transient nature of her service she has given suggestions for the parents to carry out.

 RECOMMENDATIONS 1. More facilities to care for the feebleminded.

In the field of mental abnormality this is the outstanding need of the state. The Governor's Commission of 1936 estimated that there are at least 27,734 mentally defective white children in the state. Caswell Training School has an enrollment of 750. This means that approximately twenty-seven thousand white mental defectives are scattered throughout the state making trouble for communities and seriously hampering school programs. Many of these with adequate training opportunities suited to their limited ability, might develop into self-supporting citizens and others to partially self-supporting.

The state has no facilities for colored mental defectives. Several hundreds are kept in Goldsboro State Hospital for the Insane where there are no training facilities for them and where they handicap the doctors in their attempt to treat the mentally sick people.

 2. More adequate personnel for the state hospitals.

In order to function as hospitals for the treatment and cure of mentally sick people it is essential that more doctors, nurses and other employees be secured. Medical staffs should immediately be increased so that each hospital has in addition to the superintendent an assistant superintendent able to function as clinical director, and nine assistant physicians. Nurses and attendants should be increased to at least 200 in each institution. A long-time program should look towards approximating the national standards of one doctor to every 150 patients and one nurse or attendant for every eight. At least one occupational therapist and one psychiatric social worker should be provided for each hospital. It should also be recognized that standard hospital records necessary for the understanding and treatment of patients can only be maintained when there is an adequate clerical force.

 3. A psychologist for state-wide service.

The services of the psychologist of the children's unit are limited to certain counties which receive federal funds. There is much need for a psychologist who can be available for juvenile courts, correctional schools, county boards of public welfare, public schools and other organizations throughout the state which are constantly requesting the mental testing of children and adults who are community problems.

 DIVISION OF INSTITUTIONS AND CORRECTIONS W. C. EZELL, Director

The State Board of Charities and Public Welfare is authorized by section 5006 of the North Carolina statutes to, “investigate and supervise through and by its own members or its agents or employees, the whole system of charitable and penal institutions of the state, and to recommend such changes and additional provisions as it may deem needful for their economic and efficient administration.” Other duties prescribed in that section include studying the subject of crime and the care and treatment of prisoners. Other sections of the statutes provide that the state board shall have the power to inspect county jails, county homes, and all prisons and prison camps and other institutions of a charitable nature. It is also provided that plans for new county homes and jails shall have the approval of the state board before the beginning of construction.

The responsibility for executing the above duties are among those assigned to this division. The activity of the division includes inspections; investigations of complaints from, or about, state or county charitable and penal institutions; collecting information relative to populations and population movements; and approval of plans for new and renovated buildings in terms defined jointly by the State Board of Health, the state fire marshall, and the State Board of Charities and Public Welfare. Following the investigations of complaints and inspections of institutions, written reports are submitted to the responsible authorities. Whenever the findings warrant it, recommendations are also submitted in writing and usually in oral conferences. The State Board of Charities and Public Welfare has only supervisory authority.

Since the board is not administrative and has no executive or administrative power or responsibility over state or county institutions, it has no way of enforcing its recommendations. Thus the relationship is always kept on a counseling and recommendatory basis.

Supervision is interpreted to include assistance to institutions in planning buildings, programs, and policies. The division acts as a liaison representative between the local community and the institutions, and serves to bring to each some interpretations and plans of the other. Usually those policies of the institutions which concern the local departments of public welfare are formulated by the institution and this division in collaboration in an attempt to keep a coördination of effort throughout the whole state and among all agencies working on phases of the same problem. Also when state-wide policies are established for the local departments of public welfare, this division either invites institutional people for consultation or represents their point of view from the knowledge obtained by frequent visits and conferences with the institution officials.

Table 1, page 130, gives the population and population movement for the state and county institutions for one month.

The superintendent and location of the state institutions under the supervision of the State Board of Charities and Public Welfare are listed below:

Institution Superintendent Location Caswell Training School Dr. W. T. Parrott Kinston State Hospital, Goldsboro Dr. F. L. Whelpley Goldsboro State Hospital, Morganton Dr. F. B. Watkins Morganton State Hospital, Raleigh Dr. J. W. Ashby Raleigh Orthopedic Hospital Dr. W. M. Roberts, Chief Surgeon Gastonia N. C. Sanatorium Dr. P. P. McCain Sanatorium Western Sanatorium Dr. S. M. Bittinger, Asso. Supt. Black Mountain Confederate Women's Home Mrs. Ina F. Smith Fayetteville Eastern Carolina Tr. School S. E. Leonard Rocky Mount Stonewall Jackson Manual Training School Chas. E. Boger Concord Morrison Training School L. L. Boyd Hoffman State Home and Industrial School for Girls Miss Grace M. Robson Eagle Springs Farm Colony for Women Miss Elsa Ernst Kinston State Highway and Public Works Commission, Prison Dept. R. Grady Johnson Raleigh

Plans Approved for New Structures

During the biennium new or renovated county jails have been occupied, or plans for construction have been approved, in the counties of Beaufort, Catawba, Craven, Hyde, Jones, Lenoir, Madison, and McDowell. City jails have been built or plans approved in Aurora, Fayetteville, Denton and Chapel Hill. In other instance funds have been expended for permanent improvements to a less extensive degree. No new county homes have been built.

 Complaints and Inspections

The division has been without a field agent during the last half of the biennium. The director has made the necessary trips into the field to investigate all complaints which seemed to warrant an investigation on the grounds. During the biennium forty-one such written complaints have been registered against state or local institutions of a penal or charitable nature. Investigations have been made and written and oral reports and interpretations given to those in responsible authority. Twenty-two of the complaints were against county institutions and nineteen against state institutions.

Routine inspections of county penal and charitable institutions have been practically given up during the last year of the biennium because of lack of legislative appropriation for an inspector. It has been the long-time practice of the State Board of Charities and Public Welfare to try to inspect annually every county home, jail, workhouse, and the various units of the state penal, charitable, and correctional institutions. Such a program entails about 325 inspections annually. During the first year of the biennium 249 such inspections were made, but during the last year only 62 were made. Forty-one of the inspections made the last year were of state institutions and almost all of the inspections of county units were made in connection with special purposes—as for approval of new plans or relative to criticisms of the institutions.

Written reports of the findings are filed with the responsible authorities, except in a few instances where detailed oral reports were given in conferences.

 State Training Schools for Delinquents

The state training schools for white delinquents have sufficient bed capacity to meet the demands made on them. The population has shown a gradual decline, and there are no pending waiting lists.

On June 30, 1940, Jackson Training School had a population of 437 and a capacity for 500. Eastern Carolina Training School had a population of 119 and a capacity of 150. Samarcand had a population of 167 and a capacity for 200.

The needs for the delinquent Negroes have not been adequately met. A new dormitory was erected at Morrison Training School during 1938, and the intake has increased to the extent that the waiting list and waiting period have been materially reduced. There is as yet no institution for the delinquent Negro girl. Institutional facilities for Negro girls is one of the needs in the state. Such an institution should be planned to operate as a school, but where much of the educational emphasis should be placed on vocational training.

Another need which is receiving some consideration is to provide more education and vocational training for the younger and more hopeful of those persons sent to the state prison with relatively long terms. Work along this line is a part of the penal program, but what has been done is scarcely enough to insure that they will make successful and well-adjusted citizens when they are free again. A broader and more intensive program of this nature is needed.

 SUPERVISION OF DELINQUENT JUVENILES CONDITIONALLY RELEASED

During the past several years much has been said relative to the success and failure of the training schools for juvenile delinquents. Many attempts have been made to measure their success by following up the careers of the boys and girls who have been in the training schools.

It seems probable that the success, or lack of success, of adjustment in life after a period of stay in the training school is no criteria for judgment or adequate measure of the success, or lack of it, of the training school. It seems more probable that there are other factors simultaneously involved which are equally important to the successful adjustment of the child in the home after release from the training school. In the first place, modifications and adjustments need to be made by the members of the family in the home—both as to social adjustments and attitude adjustments. The old home factors did not prevent the child from becoming delinquent before institutional placement, so it seems logical to expect a possible need for their readjustment if the environment is to be helpful when the child returns to it. Another factor concerned is the help the child receives from the family and community when he returns from the institution. The child must experience difficulties and confusion in returning and in feeling that he is being pointed out as one who has been in a training school. He must also feel some sense of confusion with the new liberty outside, as well as some insecurity in that he does not have the institutional supervision and protection.

It is suspected, then, that the type of adjustment the child makes depends on the amount of help he gets from the family and the community after release, as much as on the training program in the institution. The child and the family can be helped to understand some of the problems which must be met when he returns home. If both the child and the family could understand the difficulties and be prepared for them before the actual problems arose, each would be less shocked by them and better able to meet them. It seems that we can definitely help in the post-institutional adjustment and make it more possible for the child to make a success of life after the return home.

About 1933 the State Board of Charities and Public Welfare undertook to serve as the clearing house and supervising agency for these children. It was believed that helpful supervision and aid could be supplied. The county superintendents of public welfare of the respective counties are by authority of C. S. 5017 the actual supervisors of all such persons.

The training schools dealing individually with the county units were unsuccessful in keeping accurate and current reports on the behavior and adjustment of such individuals. Since a child sent to the training school remains under its supervision until he is twenty-one, or is discharged by the school, it seemed necessary that the training school be currently informed on the matter of behavior. Such information is the basis on which discharges are issued, if the child is discharged before becoming twenty-one years of age. The statutes state that he shall be discharged when he becomes twenty-one regardless of whether he has succeeded in adjusting.

The state board and the superintendents of the training schools agreed that the state office would probably be able to get better results if it would act as a clearing house and supervise the collection of reports for all the training schools.

Keeping current supervision over these minors is made more difficult because they are subject to the control and movement of the parents. The parents frequently move from one county to another, and even out of the state. The supervisors scarcely have the power or the wish to prevent the parents' freedom of movement, nor have they power nor do they wish to prevent the children remaining with the parents. But under any system yet tried by us, many of the children become lost to the supervising agencies. Some of them get lost because of a deliberate effort to avoid supervision, but many through circumstances instead.

When the child welfare services of the U. S. Children's Bureau made funds available for work with children, a social worker was provided for work with the training schools along the lines of helping with intake, with discharge, and with the point of supervision. Later other social workers were made available to three of the training schools with a hope that better services could be arranged between the communities and the institutions. The period of trial was too short to prove conclusively that successful working plans could be found; however, some ideas were developed and are now being tried.

The plan for supervision now on trial is that the supervising agencies in the counties keep regular contacts with the supervisees by both home and office visits. The home visits are necessary if knowledge of the home conditions is to be had. The home conditions and the family relationships are vital factors involved in whether the child succeeds in making a satisfactory community adjustment. The supervising agency is either the local juvenile court or the county department of public welfare. The local worker who is supervising the case makes written reports to this office each six months on each child under supervision. The state office keeps cards of all active supervisees and a minimum of information on each. Information for the cards is taken from the written reports and the original reports are sent directly to the school which conditionally released the child. In this manner the schools are informed of the progress of their supervisees to the extent the local workers supply the information. Children are issued final discharges from supervision by the respective schools on recommendations of the local workers.

The plan is working, but not perfectly. The quality and quantity of supervision given the boys and girls has vastly improved since the plan was inaugurated. The major improvements, according to the statements of the superintendents of the training schools, is in the quality of the work.

A few local agencies have considered this phase of their work less important than other pressing duties, and have not kept in touch with and reported on the cases under supervision. The quantity of written reports has increased as the plan develops. About 915 such reports were submitted during the first year of the biennium and 1,166 during the second year. If written reports were submitted each six months on all children under supervision there would be from 1,300 to 1,400 reports annually to cover the fluctuating size of the case load.

 YOUTHS AND THE COURTS

The number of children confined in the county jails of the state has steadily dropped. The problem of children in jail has received much attention from county and state officials, as well as from the lay public and the press, since October 1933, when the attorney general ruled:

“C. S. 5048 relating to this matter may be interpreted as meaning that children may not be confined in jail, such place being designated in the statute as one where they may come in contact with hardened criminals; and in that view it would not be in compliance with the statute to provide quarters for them in the jail, and undertake thereby to see that they did not come in contact with such criminals.”

Considerable publicity was given this ruling, and a new emphasis was placed on detaining juveniles. However, community customs and usage change slowly, and it was some time before the philosophy and practice moved to action in harmony with the new concept.

There is excellent evidence that the practice now is away from using the common jail as the place to detain children. The figures for jail commitments for the past four years clearly demonstrate this. In the calendar year 1936, a total of 1,231 children were confined in county jails of the state. The number was reduced by 15 per cent to 1,070 for 1937. There was a further reduction by 17.5 per cent to 883 for 1938. During 1939, there was a further reduction to 784, or an additional reduction of 12.6 per cent below the preceding year. Thus in 1939, there were confined in jail 447 less children than in 1936, or 36.3 per cent below that year. We may expect to reach a point of diminishing returns at some early date. For the past few years, it seems that more children have been permitted to go to their own homes or homes of others pending disposition of their cases.

Confining children in jail pending a disposition of them has always appeared illogical in light of the fact that 42 per cent of them are released on probation when the case is finally heard. Less than half that number are sent to training schools or prison. Only 11.2 per cent of the 1937 children in jail were reported as sent to training schools or prison. In 1938, in a more careful follow-up, 19.4 per cent of those in jail were found to have been sent to training schools. Correspondence was had between the county and the training school in an additional 7.4 per cent of the total incarcerations, but so far as is known, in the remaining 73.2 per cent of the cases final disposition was made without resort to confinement following the hearing. The average period of jail incarceration is about ten days.

Too often young children who are only dependent or neglected are confined in the jail because no other resource seems available. Of the children held in jail in 1937, 6.1 per cent were ten years of age or under, and in 1938, 4.6 per cent were ten or under. It is the common knowledge of those who visit jails that very small children are occasionally carried along to jail when the mother is incarcerated.

Children are violators against property rights in from 48 to 50 per cent of the instances. They are charged with violations of the liquor laws in from five to six per cent of the instances. Twelve per cent of the children in jails during 1938 were held in jails two or more times during the year.

In order to have the information relative to the quantity of work done by the juvenile courts up to date, the State Board of Charities and Public Welfare is making a state-wide survey of the activities of these courts during the past five years. Such surveys for the period from 1919, when the present juvenile courts were established, through 1934 have been made and the findings published. The present survey covers the number of cases heard by the several courts of the state during the period from July 1, 1934, through June 30, 1939. The breakdown will show the race, age, sex, type of misbehavior, and disposition by court and by year, as have the previous surveys. It is hoped that the survey will add other information as to what the youths of today are doing, and what is being done to them. The findings of the survey will be available for distribution about the first of the year.

All is not dark. There are facts in the figures which indicate that progress is being made. The trend of delinquency appears to be downward, not upward. As noted above, there are fewer children incarcerated in county jails than heretofore. The same is true of the especially provided juvenile detention quarters of a few centers over the state. The number of commitments to these quarters fell from 1,221 in 1937 to 1,168 in 1938 and down to 1,040 in 1939. This represents a reduction of 14.8 per cent. The training schools for delinquents are receiving fewer applications and are experiencing a falling population. The aggregate population of the training schools for delinquents has descended from 1,061 on July 1, 1933, to 894 on July 1, 1940. This represents a 15.7 per cent reduction.

It is not the post-adolescent and young adult who are the chief contributors to the criminal population of the state, regardless of the many statements to the contrary. Those persons 25 years of age and over made up more than three-fifths of the prison admissions in 1938, and more than two-thirds of the county jail admissions during the four months from last November through February.

In 1933 the 7,328 persons under 25 years admitted to the state prison made up 50.1 per cent of the total 14,617 prison admissions. This group under 25 has contributed a progressively smaller percentage each year, and has shown an increase in actual numbers of only 124. The group of prison admissions aged 25 and over has shown a phenomenal increase by comparison. The actual numbers in the older group increased from 7,289 in 1933 to 11,421 in 1938, an increase of 4,132. Although the older group made up only 49.9 per cent of the total 14,617 admissions in 1933, they made up 60.5 per cent of the total of 18,873 admissions in 1938. See table 2, page 131, for a detailed break-down.

A sampling of the ages of persons incarcerated in county jails was made to determine the age groupings of that series of law violators. See table 3, page 131. The study showed that 33.9 per cent of them were under 25 years of age and two-thirds were 25 or older. The ratio of older persons was higher among the jail admissions than among the prison admissions. The statistics throughout indicate that the increase of crime among the younger people is little or none. The increase in prison admissions during the period from July 1, 1932, through June 30, 1938, was more than 33 times greater among the prisoners 25 years and over than it was among those under 25 years.

It is suggested that the considerable interest shown in, and the expenditures made toward helping the younger part of our population is beginning to demonstrate successful results in the prevention of antisocial behavior. The CCC, NYA, aid to dependent children and child welfare services programs are all directed toward helping some group of the younger part of the population. Within the state, full time departments of public welfare—made up of staffs who have some professional training for their jobs—have been organized in all the counties and have been active in many phases of work which are helpful, directly or indirectly, in reducing crime and delinquency. There are many other agencies and movements which can justly claim an equally important role in producing a more desirable society and the resultant decrease in maladjusted individuals living within it. Large sums of money and much time have been spent in efforts toward social amelioration. It seems that a tangible proof of effective results is to be found in the above figures.

 COUNTY JAIL POPULATION

Although sections 5008 and 5013 of the North Carolina code give authority for the State Board of Charities and Public Welfare to require population reports of the county jails, the board has always proceeded on a plan of trying to interpret the reason why such reports are needed and get the reports voluntarily submitted. The results are only slightly more than 80 per cent successful. Even those 80 per cent of the total reports give a good indication of the number, race, sex, and age of the jail commitments.

There is an unexplained inconsistency in the difference between the racial ratios of jail admissions and prison admissions in the state. The white group consistently furnishes about 58 per cent of the jail admissions while the Negro group consistently furnishes about 58 per cent of the prison admissions. The Negro group makes up about the same percentage of the workhouse populations and of those in jails at any stated time. Table 4, page 132, offers some figures for comparison of the racial composition of prison and jail admissions.

Two conclusions may be drawn from the facts presented in the tables. In the first place it appears that the white group is contributing a gradually increasing percentage of the criminals arrested and convicted. In the second place it appears that the Negro, once arrested and placed in jail, remains there longer before coming to trial, and serves a sentence for his offense considerably more frequently than does the white.

The composition of the 1939 jail admissions was broken down to show the percentage of women in the total commitments. The white women made up 7.8 per cent of the total whites, while the Negro women made up 16.2 per cent of the total Negroes. The women of both races constituted 10 per cent of the total incarcerations.

Table 5, page 132, give a summary of the jail population for one month. The figures have been adjusted upward to represent all county jails as reporting.

The Fee System for Jailers

The jailers in 75 counties still depend on fees for their principle income. The fee system allows the jailer a specified amount for each prisoner daily for feeding and guarding. The system presupposes, in effect, that the jailer's income will consist in the difference between what he is allowed for feeding and what it actually costs him to feed the prisoners. Free living quarters are usually granted the jailer's family, and turnkey fees are sometimes allowed to supplement the income.

The system almost puts a premium on a cheap and monotonous diet. The mere continued existence of the system expresses an unconcern of the local bodies which may be expected to express itself in other indications of indifference and callousness. It is not surprising that the U. S. Department of Justice has 70 of the county jails in the state on their unapproved list, and allow the use of an additional 15 for restricted purposes only. Many of our jails are unapproved because of bad administration and supervisory practices, and not because of weak physical plants.

 CITY JAILS*

* Assistance in the preparation of the material on the city jails was furnished by personnel of WPA, Official Project No. 465-32-3-356.

A survey of jail facilities in 113 North Carolina municipalities revealed a variety of practices in the handling of municipal prisoners. Sixty-eight of the 113 cities and towns studied operated their own jails. The remaining 45 municipalities depend upon the county for jail facilities.

The jails in 15 of the 68 cities consist of more than one room. Of the 53 jails having only one room 42 have two or more cells which will accommodate from one to four prisoners.

All but six of the jails have toilet facilities available at all times. Three jails have toilets available on request of prisoner, one permits use of toilet every four hours, and two jails make toilet facilities available three times daily.

A large number of jails surveyed have no bathing facilities. Only nine have baths which are accessible to the prisoners at all times. Twenty-two jails have lavatories in the cells or in the cell blocks where they can be used at any time by the prisoners. Lavatories are available upon request in three jails. Forty-three of the 68 jails studied have no lavatory facilities.

Separate quarters for women are provided in 33 jails. All of these jails have separate toilet facilities for women and all but nine have separate lavatories. Only ten of these jails have separate bathing facilities for both sexes.

Information on jail commitments, length of sentence and the jail population is not available due to the fact that only 17 of the cities and towns surveyed maintain sufficient records on these pertinent questions.

 COUNTY HOMES

The programs and problems of the county homes have received a great deal of attention during the period covered by this report. With the advent of the public assistance program these institutions have been materially affected. It has seemed wise and necessary to give enough time and effort to a study of these changes to be able to draw some conclusions as to the probable future developments in this field.

Since the passage of the federal social security act, and directly accountable to the operation of the act in the state, eleven of the counties have closed their county homes. Mitchell County closed in April 1937, but in anticipation of the coming of the old age assistance program. gram. Two others closed before the beginning of the present biennium: Cherokee and Chowan, each on June 30, 1938. During this biennial period seven others have closed: Greene on September 30, 1938; Yancy, November 30, 1938; Swain, May 30, 1939; Transylvania, July 31, 1939; Cumberland, August 31, 1939; Polk, January 1, 1940; and Madison, February 5, 1940.

There are prospects of others closing some time in the near future. Camden County now has no one in its home, but it has been retained for meeting any needs which might arise. An additional nine homes had a population of less than ten persons on June 30, 1940.

Population Trends

The total population of the county homes has shown a slow but steady decline since the beginning of the period of definitely anticipated public assistance in the state. In December 1936 there were 3,164 persons in the homes, and almost every month has shown a slight reduction. On June 30, 1940, there was a total of 2,650 persons in the 75 homes. Up to June 30, 1939, as many as 293 persons had moved out and received old age assistance alone. If the number moving out to receive blind assistance and aid to dependent children be added, it is seen that the public assistance program has been the major factor in the population reduction. It is interesting to note that of the 293 moving out for old age assistance, sixteen finally gave up the grants and returned to the county homes.

The population turnover in the county homes is quite high. During a twelve-months period studied there were 578 deaths out of a total of 1,797 separations. The deaths make up about one-third of the total separations, and the annual separations are about two-thirds of the average daily population.

A study was made of the amounts granted to the 171 persons leaving the county homes and getting old age assistance grants during the twelve months February 1, 1938, to February 1, 1939. Twenty-one received a total grant of $30 per month, and a total of 55 received as much or more than the $16.90 average per capita monthly costs of the county home care for 1939. An additional 55 received monthly grants of $10 a month or less. The average grant was $15.32 or $1.58 less than it cost on an average to keep persons in a county home.

Table 6, page 133, shows a county by county tabulation of average populations and costs of county homes for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1939.

The practice of allowing the keeper of the county home a monthly fee for his service is still practiced in fourteen counties. The fees allowed range from $17.50 to a low of $5.50 a person monthly. The average of the fees allowed is $11.02. The salaries paid to county home superintendents vary from $165.00 a month to a low of $50.00. The average of the salaries is $88.58.

 Medical and Nursing Care

A physician is available on call to all of the county homes in the state. In a very few the physician visits daily or regularly, regardless of whether called. Medical examinations are made of the patient at the time of admission in forty-eight of the homes.

Nursing care for the numerous ailing patients has never been adequate. Only nine of the county homes have trained nurses on the staff. In twenty other instances practical nurses are on duty. This service needs to be materially improved.

 Consolidation of County Homes

From the study of the types of persons in the county homes, it seems that because of mental and physical infirmities which make it necessary that they have the care of a personal attendant, many of them must be institutionalized for the remainder of their lives. We find that 45.5 per cent of the total population are either bedridden or else in need of considerable care from others. Many more of them are of such a mental status as to be unable to assume the responsibility of looking after themselves, even though they are physically able to be up and wait on themselves. Over half of the entire population are classed as feeble-minded or badly deteriorated, though harmless.

The county homes have been from their origin a sort of “catch-all” for the mentally and physically unfit of all ages. With the gradual emergence and development of specialized care for many groups—as the tuberculars, the mental defectives, mentally ill, orthopedic, and the recipients of public assistance, the residual is the more or less chronically ill. Adequate medical and nursing care cannot be economically supplied where there are less than fifty beds for each unit, and it is preferable that the units not be smaller than 100 beds. The average population of the county homes now in operation is thirty-five. Only thirteen have a population of fifty or more, while only five have a population of as many as 100 at present. It is evident that adequate care cannot be economically supplied under the present arrangements. During fiscal 1938 it cost an average of $213.12 to maintain a person in a county home, while the average state hospital cost was $191.98 or 11 per cent less.

Many people are going to continue to need institutional care. The care in those institutions, if it is to approach adequacy, must include more medical and nursing care than is now supplied. These more adequate services can best be supplied when the plants are so planned and the units are sufficiently large to warrant the employment of adequate and competent personnel. The consolidation of smaller county units seems the inevitable answer. Chapter 129 of the Public Laws of 1931 gives the necessary legal authority. Circumstances will eventually develop the practice.

 Tubercular Care

There are not yet enough beds for the tubercular patients to meet the needs, but encouraging progress has been made during the past several years, and more facilities are soon to be made available. When the report of this activity was compiled two years ago, beds were available for about 1,200 patients. At present there are beds available for about 1,800. In addition Wilson County is building a forty-bed sanatorium, and the state has under way a new sanatorium in the eastern part of the state. When both are completed, there will be beds for well over 2,000 patients.

 Interpretation of the Program

Consistent effort has been made to keep information before the public, in the belief that public action and public support will not go far beyond the general understanding of the people at large. This information has been presented through news releases to the press, special articles in Public Welfare News, and by talks before various and varied groups.

The director has served on numerous committees of from two to twenty and attended fifty-one committee meetings during the biennium on matters which were pertinent to and related to the job. He has had 1,006 individual conferences with people relative to phases of the job being done. In addition he has made thirty-four public talks before an estimated audience of 2,483 people.

The director attended the annual meetings of the American Prison Association in St. Paul and in New York. He was elected a member of the board of directors of the National Jail Association. He served as a member of the committee on standards and procedures in parole selection and release of the U. S. Attorney General's National Parole Conference, held in Washington, D. C.

 STAFF REDUCTIONS

Since the last report a drastic reduction has been made in the personnel of the division staff. At the beginning of the biennium the staff consisted of a director, field agent, four social workers for services to the correctional schools, and five secretary-stenographers, or a total of eleven. The social workers and their secretaries were paid through child welfare service funds, and six of them were discontinued on August 31, 1938. The field agent was released for lack of state appropriation on June 30, 1939. At present the staff consists of a director, secretary, and a social worker at Morrison Training School. The latter is paid jointly by the school and child welfare service funds. The division is trying to execute all the duties it was carrying when the staff was largest.

 TABLE 1

 AdmittedDismissedIn Institution on Last Day of June, 1940WhiteNegroTotalMenWomenMenWomenSTATE INSTITUTIONS:       Caswell Training School00348387————735State Hospital, Goldsboro75*54*————1,0911,2882,379State Hospital, Morganton85*70*1,1291,271————2,400State Hospital, Raleigh134*116*1,2321,150————2,382Orthopedic Hospital403761523117161Sanatorium8589184157150143634Western Sanatorium2525136166————302Confederate Women's Home00——42————42Eastern Carolina Training School118122——————122Jackson Training School178446——————446Samarcand125——174————174Morrison Training School1236————152——152Farm Colony for Women511——49————49State Highway Prison Camps1,6771,8663,949495,5511359,684Totals2,1782,3257,6073,4976,9751,58319,662COUNTY INSTITUTIONS:       100 county jails (approximated)6,9927,018508735611941,33675 county homes1261649658664673522,65029 workhouses and farms285264162802131626177 juvenile detention quarters757023438368Totals7,4787,5161,6581,0231,2797114,671GRAND TOTAL9,6569,8419,2654,5208,2542,29424,333

* Many of these were away on, or returned from, short home visits.

 TABLE 2 AGE GROUPINGS OF PRISON ADMISSIONS BY YEARS

Fiscal Year Total Prison Admissions   Under 16 Years 16 and 17 Years 18 and 20 Years 21 and 24 Years 25 and Over 1933 14,617 Number 59 1,020 2,723 3,526 7,289     Per Cent 0.403 6.978 18.628 24.122 49.866 1934 16,861 Number 60 996 2,820 3,863 9,122     Per Cent 0.355 5.907 16.724 22.910 54.101 1935 17,525 Number 49 959 2,762 3,973 9,782     Per Cent 0.279 5,472 15.760 22.670 55.817 1936 17,851 Number 79 895 2,457 3,976 10,444     Per Cent 0.442 5.013 13.763 22.273 58.506 1937 19,014 Number 80 970 2,543 3,946 11,475     Per Cent 0.420 5.101 13.374 20.753 60.350 1938 18,873 Number 90 1,009 2,362 3,991 11,421     Per Cent 0.476 5.346 12.515 21.146 60.515

“Unknown age” group included in total admissions, but considered as over 25 years in calculations.

 TABLE 3 AGE GROUPINGS OF COUNTY JAIL ADMISSIONS

(15,000 admissions chosen as a sample of some 28,000 total admissions to county jails during November, December 1939, and January and February 1940.)

AGE GROUPS Number Per Cent AGE GROUPS Number Per Cent Under 16 years 168 1.2 35 and 39 1,700 11.4 16 and 17 660 4.4 40 and 44 1,083 7.3 18 and 20 1,618 10.8 45 and 49 790 5.3 21 and 24 2,627 17.5 50 and 59 700 4.7 25 and 29 3,044 20.3 60 and 69 230 1.6 30 and 34 2,327 15.5 70 and over 5 ——

TABLE 4

  Percentages in Prison Admissions Percentages in Jail Admissions White Negro White Negro 1932 38.6 61.4 —— —— 1933 38.5 61.5 —— —— 1934 40.7 59.3 —— —— 1935 40.5 59.5 —— —— 1936 42.4 57.6 57.7 42.3 1937 45.6 54.4 58.3 41.7 1938 46.0 54.0 56.8 43.2 1939 —— —— 59.4 40.6

TABLE 5 COUNTY JAIL POPULATION* JUNE 1940

* Figures in these groups are approximations.

ADMISSIONS State Federal Total White men 3,612 201 3,813 White women 228 10 238 Negro men 2,395 115 2,510 Negro women 420 11 431 Totals 6,655 337 6,992

NUMBER REMAINING IN JAILS ON JUNE 30, 1940

  Awaiting Disposition Serving Sentence Total State Federal State Federal White men 320 88 93 7 508 White women 25 —— 47 1 73 Negro men 379 40 124 18 561 Negro women 46 3 141 4 194 Totals 770 131 405 30 1,336

TABLE 6

COUNTY HOMES FISCAL REPORTS Net Expenditure for Maintenance Year Ending June 30, 1939 Average Daily Population Monthly Per Capita Cost Value of Farm and Garden Produce Value of Property Permanent Improvements Used Sold Alamance $ 9,324.67 34 $ 22.85 $ 4,000.00 $ 0 $ 25,000.00 $ 500.00 Alexander 3,343.90 21 13.27 250.00 0 16,189.57 —— Anson 2,720.74 14 16.20 1,302.65 877.01 42,000.00 —— Ashe 1,244.31 14 10.84 700.00 827.77 20,000.00 576.56 Beaufort 6,195.38 19 27.17 250.00 0 11,800.00 —— Bertie b 3,639.61a 24c 7.22c 2,500.00 3,676.59a 61,141.00b 808.97 Brunswick 3,136.38 22 11.88 1,000.00 254.18 17,591.10 —— Buncombe 21,000.00 95 18.42 9,081.60 220.00 90,000.00 2,500.00 Burke 6,387.86 30 17.73 d 0 35,000.00 —— Cabarrus 10,766.28 40 22.43 1,200.00 0 60,000.00 —— Caldwell 4,776.15 20 19.90 d 0 15,000.00 —— Camden 258.00 2 10.75 60.00 0 1,500.00 —— Carteret 4,658.88 12 28.19 300.00 0 10,000.00 600.00 Caswell 2,317.94 12 16.10 1,000.00 468.53 30,000.00 —— Catawba 4,043.03 28 11.58 6,000.00 150.00 15,500.00 —— Chatham 7,220.67 35 17.19 1,000.00 0 45,000.00 —— Chowan* 272.81e 8 17.05 0 0 7,000.00 —— Cleveland 7,549.98 44 14.30 3,500.00 256.25 40,000.00 —— Columbus 6,305.84 31 16.95 1,200.00 0 50,000.00 583.78 Craven 7,312.48 19 32.06 0 0 35,000.00 —— Cumberland 7,591.68 49 12.91 Unknown 0 15,000.00 668.35 Davidson 5,239.40 23 18.98 1,530.00 134.10 15,000.00 —— Davie 3,157.14 16 16.45 1,200.00 317.79 13,550.89 —— Duplin 2,757.46 17 13.52 400.00 0 10,000.00 —— Durham f 40,847.65 200 17.02 24,261.92 2,387.43 386,982.55 3,379.63 Edgecombe 11,203.38 40 23.34 1,000.00 0 175,000.00 —— Forsyth g 49,099.24 172 23.79 0 4,253.62 250,000.00 925.50 Franklin 6,512.17 34 15.96 1,200.00 0 30,000.00 —— Gaston 13,571.48 62 18.24 3,500.00 317.25 45,000.00 1,881.39 Gates 480.00 5 8.00 d d 3,000.00 —— Granville 5,135.30 42 10.19 3,000.00 149.06 30,000.00 —— Greene* 477.36h 4 39.78 0 0 5,000.00 —— Guilford i 23,345.11 183 10.63 0 0 241,957.45 —— Halifax 5,752.90 34 14.10 Unknown 1,768.02 67,709.22 —— Harnett 7,558.15 40 15.75 1,000.00 493.78 60,000.00 —— Haywood 4,062.46 45 13.08 2,857.79 242.21 45,000.00 3,000 Henderson 2,901.21 16 15.11 d 0 28,000.00 —— Hertford 1,533.17 12 10.65 50.00 0 6,000.00 —— Iredell 11,525.80 50 19.21 600.00 450.63 101,902.45 —— Jackson 2,890.18 20 12.04 500.00 0 30,000.00 —— Johnston 12,106.31 54 18.58 1,000.00 0 48,000.00 —— Lee 4,414.20 19 19.36 900.00 0 26,506.00 ——

a This represents the net expenditure of tax money. The amount of money received from sale of farm produce has been deducted. The amount of produce raised on the farm and received from the Surplus Commodity Corporation, WPA sewing rooms, etc., and used in the home has not been included.

b The Bertie figures represent the combined expenditures of the county jail, county home, and county farm, which is worked by county prisoners. All are located on adjacent property.

c Average: County home inmates 24; prisoners 18; total 42; in calculating per capita cost.

d In many instances the county home farm is given rent free to the superintendent as part of his remuneration and no reports are made to the county auditor as to amount of produce raised.

e Operated only two months of the period.

f Annual operating expense and population for the Durham county home include the infirmary, work-house and county farm.

g Forsyth operates a hospital as part of the county home and all are operated on an undifferentiated budget. The revenue is from the laundry operated by the prisoners there.

h Operated only three months of the period.

i Population and expense include women prisoners who are kept and worked at county home.

* Closed during the fiscal year The operating costs cover the varying period of operation.

TABLE 6—Continued Lenoir $ 4,013.04 17 $ 19.67 $ 550.00 $ 0 $ 10,000.00 $ —— Lincoln 3,580.18 20 14.92 d 0 25,000.00 —— Macon 528.00 8 5.50 d 0 5,000.00 —— Madison 4,300.00 20 17.92 0 0 5,000.00 —— Martin 4,583.21 21 18.18 502.00 0 25,000.00 —— Mecklenburg 43,914.75 133 27.52 5,896.03 14,706.88 168,045.35 —— Montgomery 2,750.61 16 14.33 Unknown 138.18 11,464.96 —— Moore 5,883.66 25 19.61 500.00 0 10,000.00 1,000.00 Nash 16,250.56 57 23.76 3,200.00 530.76 50,000.00 —— New Hanover j 19,696.19 58 11.97 7,191.11 67.90 87,155.51 —— Northampton 5,181.19 30 13.42 1,000.00 350.00 50,000.00 —— Onslow 3,281.25 11 24.86 0 0 20,000.00 434.07 Orange 3,818.67 14 22.73 Unknown 0 5,000.00 —— Pasquotank 3,264.81 16 17.00 Unknown 0 15,000.00 —— Perquimans 1,348.10 7 16.04 0 0 10,000.00 93.06 Person 3,779.33 24 13.12 2,250.00 0 40,000.00 —— Pitt 5,288.49 23 19.16 2,475.00 1,835.74 45,000.00 —— Polk 2,654.87 13 17.02 Unknown 0 7,500.00 —— Randolph 5,421.48 30 15.05 125.00 0 53,057.00 —— Richmond 5,428.46 34 13.31 1,000.00 0 30,000.00 —— Robeson 25,479.69 99 21.45 10,100.00 249.49 204,881.58 —— Rockingham 8,636.00 60 12.00 5,200.00 0 77,000.00 —— Rowan 17,329.59 69 20.93 6,970.00 1,151.83 150,000.00 1,000.00 Rutherford 9,841.50 42 19.53 2,500.00 108.72 25,000.00 —— Sampson 8,501.71 50 14.17 2,545.00 275.00 25,000.00 1,022.05 Stanly 6,737.64 33 17.01 Unknown 479.07 100,000.00 —— Stokes 5,831.26 34 14.29 d 0 23,931.00 600.00 Surry k 1,367.66 35 3.26k 1,650.00 1,639.86 30,000.00 7,430.93 Swain* 2,288.27m 12 17.33 d 0 10,000.00 ——

d In many instances the county home farm is given rent free to the superintendent as part of his remuneration and no reports are made to the county auditor as to amount of produce raised.

j County farm and prison are operated in connection with county home. The per capita cost is calculated on a basis of including the prisoners also.

k Surry county spent $7,430.93 for “permanent improvements” some of which might be charged to “general maintenance” Also prison labor was used to raise the $3,289.86 produce used and sold. County auditor reports the monthly per capita cost of maintenance as $15.00.

m Swain County was closed after eleven months' operation.

* Closed during the fiscal year The operating costs cover the varying period of operation.

TABLE 6—ContinuedTransylvania$ 900.977$ 10.73$ 420.00$ 407.93$ 12,000.00$ ——Union6,762.924512.524,385.25313.48100,000.00——Vance5,689.141629.630040,000.00——Wake29,647.0314716.811,500.000100,000.002,759.35Warren7,501.192717.60500.00015,000.001,133.35Washington5,137.822021.411,725.00578.8312,000.00——Watauga1,275.40119.660024,000.00——Wayne8,421.184515.590025,000.00——Wilkes3,796.742512.65Unknown911.03Unknown——Wilson10,912.284619.771,215.00040,000.00——Yadkin1,782.241212.38d07,300.00——Yancey*500.00n520.00100.0001,000.00——Totals$647,943.743,078†Av. $16.90$139,843.35$ 40,988.92$955,665.63——

d In many instances the county home farm is given rent free to the superintendent as part of his remuneration and no reports are made to the county auditor as to amount of produce raised.

n Operated only five months of the period.

* Closed during the fiscal year The operating costs cover the varying period of operation.

† The average daily population here furnished is high since prisoners used for janitorial service are included.

This tabluation is based on reports submitted to the State Board of Charities and Public Welfare by the county auditors. Some interpolations have been necessary. Average annual per capita cost for fiscal year ending June 30, 1939$202.80Average monthly per capita cost for fiscal year ending June 30, 193916.90

 SERVICE UNITS County Organization Surplus Commodity Distribution Work Among Negroes Selection and Certification of Applicants for Civilian Conservation Corps COUNTY ORGANIZATION MRS. W. B. AYCOCK, Director

Since the completion of the organization of the one hundred county welfare departments in July 1937 the emphasis in the work of county organization has been placed on securing adequate qualified personnel on county welfare staffs, promoting understanding of state and county board relationships, securing the active interest and participation of county boards in interpreting and promoting the public welfare program in the counties, and in enlisting the coöperation and support of county officials, social and civic groups through county councils of social agencies and the six district welfare conferences.

In evaluating the steady progress which has been made during the past two years three factors must be considered: (1) the faithful services and skilled guidance of the field social work representatives, who have carried on the work under the functional supervision of the director; (2) the excellent coöperation at all times of county superintendents of public welfare; (3) the continued interest, understanding and support of county boards.

PROGRAM OF WORK

The responsibilities of county organization are as follows:

1. To direct the central personnel application service. 2. To direct the procedures prescribed by law for the organization of county welfare boards and to formulate policies and procedures for the state board's appointee on the county welfare boards. 3. To promote an understanding of state and county board relationships. 4. To plan and organize district welfare conferences in coöperation with district conference officers. 5. To assist in the stimulation and organization of county councils of social agencies.

In the interest of the work the field representatives have visited the county welfare departments each month and have been available for meetings with the county boards of public welfare, county commissioners and county councils of social agencies. When requested the director and field representatives have appeared on the programs of county councils of social agencies.

The director has attended the annual meetings of the North Carolina Conference for Social Service in 1939 and 1940, the annual meetings of the North Carolina Council of Youth Serving Agencies, the southern regional conference on guidance and personnel held in Raleigh in January 1940, and the fourth round table conference of the American Public Welfare Association, Washington, D. C., December 1939.

The director has served on the following departmental committees: office management, filing, staff development and classification.

Personnel

The volume of work in personnel has almost doubled during the past two years. In addition to directing and maintaining the central application personnel service the responsibilities have been increased by the following developments: the biennial election of county superintendents of public welfare was held in June 1939, with sixteen new appointments and eighty-four reappointments; in August 1938 ninety-two qualified workers were located and placed on county staffs for a temporary period of work, and were paid through special WPA intake funds; job descriptions for all state and county welfare workers were drafted and compiled in the fall of 1939; while the last two months of the biennial period have been devoted to participation in the classification plan in connection with the merit system.

The importance of employing adequate qualified personnel on county staffs has been stressed at all times. While the personal selection of county staffs is the responsibility of the county superintendents of public welfare in consultation with the field representatives, applications have been classified by the director in the state office according to the state personnel standards and the references checked. All placements have been reported to the director by the field staff and cleared. Around eight hundred applications have been received and classifid and the references checked on all social work applications before the records have been referred to the county departments for consideration in filling vacancies. Over 325 of the applicants have been interviewed by the director and referred to the county departments, or to the North Carolina Employment Service for work. Two hundred and fifty-eight placements have been cleared and reported. A complete and accurate county personnel file has been kept in the director's office and a directory of county case work staffs has been made available to the members of the state department and field staff.

While the state board found it necessary to extend the time limit from 1941 to 1943 for securing the required social work training, a larger number of workers each year have taken additional training. This is shown by the number of junior case workers who have qualified for case workers. In June 1939, there were 144 junior case workers, fifty-eight case workers, nine case work supervisors, seventeen child welfare assistants, eighty-two case aides, and in June 1940 there were 121 junior case workers, ninety-one case workers, seven case work supervisors, fifteen child welfare assistants, seventy-nine case aides. The local boards have been responsible for determining the time and length for educational leaves in order that the work of the department would not be curtailed or handicapped.

 County Board of Public Welfare

The county welfare board in each of the hundred counties is composed of three interested socially-minded citizens. One member is appointed by the state board, one member by the county commissioners and a third member selected by these two previously appointed members. The term of office for one member expires each year and after the first appointments, all members are appointed for a term of three years. These boards are required by law to meet at least once a month. The county superintendent is the executive officer of the board and serves as secretary. As soon as the boards are organized they meet and elect a chairman who serves until his term of office on the board expires. The members serve without compensation.

The county boards of public welfare in joint session with the boards of county commissioners select the county superintendents of public welfare in every county with the exception of Wake and Wilkes. In Wake and Wilkes counties the welfare board selects the superintendent of public welfare. The county welfare board acts in a joint advisory capacity to the county and municipal authorities in developing policies and plans in dealing with problems of dependency and delinquency, distribution of the poor funds, and social conditions generally including coöperation with other agencies in placing indigent persons in gainful enterprises. They have such other powers and duties as are prescribed by law, and particularly those set out in the laws pertaining to social security, old age assistance, and aid to dependent children.

The director has kept a current directory of the county board members and chairmen and it has been encouraging to note the few resignations and changes which have occurred since the organization of the boards in 1937. In May 1938 the state board appointed a member on the one hundred county boards for a term of three years; the same month of 1939 the commissioners appointed a member for a similar term, while in May 1940 the two previously appointed members selected the third member for a three-year term.

The director is responsible for submitting recommendations to the state board for consideration in naming its appointees to the county boards and for seeing that the procedures prescribed by law for the appointment of the other two members of each county board are carried out. Board members are furnished copies of pertinent laws and letters outlining their duties and responsibilities and their relationship with other boards in the county. Through the field staff and through participation in the forums for board members at district welfare conferences, a better understanding of state and county board relationships has been attained. The boards have made a valuble contribution to the public welfare program in the state in the formulation of local policies, interpreting the welfare program to the community, and in interpreting the community to the local welfare department.

 DISTRICT WELFARE CONFERENCES

Under the direction of the State Board of Charities and Public Welfare the six annual district welfare conferences held throughout the state in the fall have become an effective means of stimulating interest in the public welfare program and of interpreting its service and needs to the public. The state is divided into six districts, with a president and a secretary elected by the conference from the county superintendents of public welfare in the district.

In planning the programs of the six conferences the director is assisted by the district conference officers, and open forums and discussions are developed around the individual needs and problems of each district. The contributions and participation of county officials, members of the legislature, welfare board members, and civic leaders in the community have made the forums an important feature of the programs. Through the field social work representative the director has assisted in planning and coördinating the local arrangements. In the fall of 1938 “Public Welfare—a Democratic Process,” was the theme of the six conferences, and open forums on state and county relationships in the public welfare program, the working relationship between county officials and the county welfare department, and public assistance, were held during the morning sessions, with an address by the commissioner of public welfare, and a message from the president of the state association of county superintendents of public welfare. The luncheon sessions were devoted to the theme, with the following speakers: Governor Clyde R. Hoey, Attorney General Harry McMullan, Fourth District Congressman Harold D. Cooley and Commissioner of Paroles Edwin Gill.

In the fall of 1939 “Public Welfare—A Public Service,” was the theme for the conferences, with open forums on service through the boards, service to youth, public welfare—a sound investment, and the job itself, were held during the morning sessions, with an address by the commissioner of public welfare, and a message from the president of the state association of county superintendents of public welfare. The luncheon sessions were devoted to the theme, with the following speakers: Governor Clyde R. Hoey, Honorable D. Hiden Ramsey, general manager of the Citizen-Times, Asheville, and Commissioner of Paroles Edwin Gill.

Through coöperation of the state association of county superintendents of public welfare, these one-day conferences, have brought together each fall between twelve hundred and fifteen hundred interested citizens. It has been encouraging to note that the registration each year showed a substantial increase in the number of county officials, members of the legislature, and welfare board members, who attended and participated in the discussions of the conferences. The attendance for the past two years has been the largest ever recorded.

 COUNTY COUNCILS OF SOCIAL AGENCIES

The twenty-six county councils of social agencies throughout the state have made definite progress during the past biennium, in encouraging and securing lay participation. In most instances local citizens form the backbone of the councils, and their active interest in community social planning and their support of adequate welfare services has been of potential significance for future progress.

The state board, through the local welfare boards, sponsors the organization of local councils. The director, through the field staff, assists in the organization machinery and in the planning of local programs and meetings. New councils have been organized in Burke, Forsyth, Macon, Martin, Person and Robeson counties. The director and field representatives have attended and participated in local council meetings when requested. A directory of the councils and officers has been maintained by the director.

The state committee on councils of social agencies appointed in 1936 has been one of the chief factors in stimulating interest in councils. The members of the committee furnished the material for a handbook on councils which was compiled by the director and made available to the one hundred county welfare departments, private agencies and interested citizens throughout the state. The committee, of which the director is chairman, had been responsible for planning the program of two breakfast meetings during the annual meetings of the North Carolina Conference for Social Service. At these meetings the representatives from the local councils reported on the activities and projects in their respective councils. The splendid attendance and enthusiasm of these reports has demonstrated the value of the councils as a channel for coördinating and interpreting the welfare services in the various counties.

NORTH CAROLINA COUNTY SUPERINTENDENTS OF PUBLIC WELFARE County Superintendent Address Alamance Mr. Gerard J. Anderson Graham Alexander Mr. Luther Dyson Taylorsville Alleghany Miss Lillie Ervin Sparta Anson Miss Mary Robinson Wadesboro Ashe Miss Ruth Tugman Jefferson Avery Mr. W. W. Braswell Newland Beaufort Mrs. Justus Randolph Washington Bertie Miss Mary Bond Griffin Windsor Bladen Miss Isabella Cox Elizabethtown Brunswick Mr. C. C. Russ Southport Buncombe Mr. E. E. Connor Asheville Burke Miss Elizabeth Sneed Morganton Cabarrus Mr. E. F. White Concord Caldwell Mrs. Inah K. Squires Lenoir Camden Mr. Roy B. Godfrey Camden Carteret Mrs. George Henderson Beaufort Caswell Miss Robena McLean Yanceyville Catawba Miss Frances Lentz Newton Chatham Mrs. C. K. Strowd Pittsboro Cherokee Mrs. Linnetta Dean Murphy Chowan Mr. William Perkins Edenton Clay Miss Bettie Cabe Hayesville Cleveland Miss Mary Moffitt Burns Shelby Columbus Mrs. Johnsie R. Nunn Whiteville Craven Mrs. John D. Whitford New Bern Cumberland Mr. E. L. Hauser Fayetteville Currituck Mr. Norman Hughes Currituck Dare Mr. I. P. Davis Manteo Davidson Mr. E. Clyde Hunt Lexington Davie Miss Lucille Martin Mocksville Duplin Mrs. Harvey Boney Kenansville Durham Mr. W. E. Stanley Durham Edgecombe Mrs. Mary E. Forbes Tarboro

[NORTH CAROLINA COUNTY SUPERINTENDENTS OF PUBLIC WELFARE-Continued] County Superintendent Address Forsyth Mr. A. W. Cline Winston-Salem Franklin Mrs. J. F. Mitchiner Louisburg Gaston Miss Agnes Thomas Gastonia Gates Miss Clarine Gatling Gatesville Graham Mr. M. J. Lynam Robbinsville Granville Mrs. Lee Taylor Oxford Greene Miss Rachel Payne Sugg Snow Hill Guilford Mrs. Blanche Carr Sterne Greensboro Halifax Mr. J. B. Hall Halifax Harnett Miss Lillie Davis Lillington Haywood Mrs. Sam Queen Waynesville Henderson Mr. A. G. Randolph Hendersonville Hertford Mrs. I. F. Snipes Winton Hoke Mrs. C. H. Giles Raeford Hyde Mrs. Elizabeth G. Lawrence Swanquarter Iredell Mrs. R. M. Rickert Statesville Jackson Mr. G. C. Henson Sylva Johnston Mrs. D. J. Thurston Smithfield Jones Mr. F. J. Koonce Trenton Lee Mr. J. D. Pegram Sanford Lenoir Mr. G. B. Hanrahan Kinston Lincoln Mrs. Rose W. Grigg Lincolnton Macon Mrs. Eloise G. Franks Franklin Madison Mr. Calvin R. Edney Marshall Martin Miss Mary W. Taylor Williamston McDowell Mrs. G. W. Kirkpatrick Marion Mecklenburg Mrs. Louise O. Neikirk Charlotte Mitchell Miss Mildred Greene Bakersville Montgomery Mr. Charles J. McLeod Troy Moore Mrs. Lessie G. Brown Carthage Nash Mr. James A. Glover Nashville New Hanover Mr. J. R. Hollis Wilmington Northampton Miss Iris Flythe Jackson Onslow Miss Laura Matthews Jacksonville Orange Mr. W. T. Mattox Hillsboro Pamlico Mr. John G. Howell Bayboro Pasquotank Mr. A. H. Outlaw Elizabeth City Pender Miss Viola Scott Burgaw Perquimans Miss Ruth Davenport Hertford Person Mrs. T. C. Wagstaff Roxboro Pitt Mr. K. T. Futrell Greenville Polk Miss Ina Tyler Columbus Randolph Mr. William Henderson Asheboro Richmond Mr. O. G. Reynolds Rockingham Robeson Mrs. Kate S. McLeod Lumberton Rockingham Mrs. John Lee Wilson Reidsville Rowan Mrs. Mary O. Linton Salisbury Rutherford Mrs. O. C. Turner Rutherfordton

[NORTH CAROLINA COUNTY SUPERINTENDENTS OF PUBLIC WELFARE-Continued] County Superintendent Address Sampson Mrs. Katherine Wilson Clinton Scotland Mr. E. F. Murray Laurinburg Stanly Mr. Otto B. Mabry Albemarle Stokes Miss Ella Downing Danbury Surry Mr. Bausie Marion Dobson Swain Mr. Raymond C. Willis Bryson City Transylvania Mrs. Dora Patton Brevard Tyrrell Mr. J. W. Hamilton Columbia Union Mrs. George S. Lee Monroe Vance Miss Clara Mae Ellis Henderson Wake Mrs. T. W. Bickett Raleigh Warren Mrs. Lora P. Wilkie Warrenton Washington Miss Ursula Bateman Plymouth Watauga Miss Marguerite Miller Boone Wayne Mr. J. A. Best Goldsboro Wilkes Mr. Charles C. McNeill Wilkesboro Wilson Mr. M. G. Fulghum Wilson Yadkin Miss Joseline Harding Yadkinville Yancey Mr. L. G. Deyton Burnsville

SURPLUS COMMODITY DISTRIBUTION A. E. LANGSTON, Director

During the past two years the Federal Surplus Commodities Corporation, recently renamed the Surplus Marketing Administration, and hereinafter referred to as the SMA, has continued the practice of purchasing surplus farm products, or products processed therefrom, when such surpluses, by reason of their existence, have depressed prices below normal or fair levels.

The SMA has not gone into or taken part in any market until prices have declined below normal and then has gone in only when requested so to do.

Seldom have they found it necessary to purchase more than five per cent of any crop in order to exercise the desired stabilizing influence, and in a great many instances the purchase of one per cent or even less has attained the desired ends.

By following these practices they have, to a great extent, stabilized markets for farm products, given both the growers of and commercial dealers in farm products a much desired feeling of assurance and have helped to keep a great number of farmers and produce dealers off relief.

The practice of purchasing only top grades of farm produce, and these under rigid inspection, has resulted in a large number of growers learning how properly to grade and pack their products and should in the future reflect itself in benefits to both the growers and the commercial handlers of these products.

ALLOCATIONS AND GRANTS

While a number of means of disposing of the surpluses so purchased have been used, the bulk has been allocated or granted to the states for distribution to relief families, school lunch rooms, institutions, and organizations.

Allocations or grants to the State of North Carolina have been made to the State Board of Charities and Public Welfare.

Each grant or allocation has been made with the proviso that the commodities could only be distributed to certain groups of recipients and to them only on additional or supplementary basis.

 PRECAUTIONARY MEASURES

In order to assure that surpluses so allocated were in no instance used in such a manner as to conflict with similar products moving in commercial channels, the SMA has required that the State Board of Charities and Public Welfare enter into a written contract providing that commodities allocated to the state may not be sold but shall be distributed only as a supplement to other forms of relief.

As a further precautionary measure, the SMA has retained supervision over distribution in the state and has prescribed the maximum quantities of the various commodities which could be distributed to families of the various sizes and to other recipients.

These maximums have been held to levels that would assure that commodities were not taking the place of other purchases or constituting total subsistence.

 EDUCATIONAL FEATURES

In addition to being instrumental in teaching growers how better to grade, pack, and prepare their produce for market, as hereinbefore mentioned, the SMA, by distributing wholesome but little known foods such as whole wheat cereal, graham flour, and dry milk, has been instrumental in teaching relief recipients better food habits.

By distributing recipes and working in close conjunction with demonstrational agencies considerable progress has been made in teaching these people new and better ways in which to prepare the various foods.

It is hoped and expected that all of this will reflect itself in improved marketing conditions, better health conditions, and in an increased market for the surplus foods produced in the country.

 WELFARE DEPARTMENT OPERATIONS

The various county welfare departments have continued to be the only agencies authorized to certify recipients for the receipt of surplus commodities, and have found commodities to be of very material assistance as the county funds available for all sorts and kinds of relief have continued to be inadquate. The state makes no appropriation for direct relief.

While the SMA has defined the various types and classes of recipients that might receive commodities, the selection and designation of the individuals has been left entirely up to the welfare department.

 COMMODITY DISTRIBUTION DIVISION

The commodity distribution division of the State Board of Charities and Public Welfare has continued to be the agency charged with receiving, warehousing, repackaging, distributing, and accounting for all commodities allocated to the state.

During the past year the commodity division has entered into written operating agreements with the Work Projects Administration and with the various counties which have gone a long way toward eliminating misunderstandings and promoting more harmonious and efficient operation.

The commodity division has served the one hundred counties of the state from six districts and ten warehouses.

Practically all accounting has been done on a district basis, and the state office of the commodity division has served only in a supervisory, control and auditing capacity.

 WORK PROJECTS ADMINISTRATION PARTICIPATION

The Work Projects Administration, through a properly approved project, has furnished the commodity division with a certain amount of district supervision, together with all of the unskilled, intermediate, skilled, and professional and technical labor necessary for the operations carried on. The balance of the supervisory and administrative labor, together with the required materials, supplies, equipment and housing facilities, have been furnished by the state with assistance from the counties and cities.

In addition to the above, the Work Projects Administration has on its projects manufactured large numbers of garments of clothing and household articles which have been turned over to the commodity division for distribution to the relief clients of the state.

 STAMP PLAN

For some time there have been requests that surplus commodities be distributed through commercial channels, and just about a year ago the so-called “stamp plan” of accomplishing these ends was devised and put into operation on an experimental basis. While the stamp plan of operation has been quite successful, it has been subjected to the criticism that it is to a certain extent a duplicate of the distribution system maintained by commercial operatives.

During the past year five areas in North Carolina were designated as experimental stamp plan areas; these being Mecklenburg, Wake, Guilford, New Hanover, and Gaston counties. The first three of these got into actual operation before the end of the fiscal year and the other two shortly thereafter.

Under this plan two kinds of stamps are used: namely, orange and blue. Participants in the plan are designated by the county welfare department which also indicates the type and extent of their participation. Orange stamps are sold to the certified participants on the basis of the size of their family and their ability to purchase, while blue stamps are given free to the participants on the basis of the amount of their purchases of orange stamps and the number in their family. Orange stamps may be used to purchase almost any item of food, while the blue stamps may be used to purchase only those items designated as surplus by the secretary of agriculture.

Stamps are purchased from stamp depots maintained at convenient points in the designated areas. Purchase may be made with the stamps from any merchant in the area who has been approved to handle the stamps. Merchants obtain their supplies through channels normally used by them. Merchants turn stamps into money by depositing them with the bank for collection or by turning them in at the local audit office of the SMA when they are sent to the U. S. treasury, which issues check to cover.

All stamps are in denominations of twenty-five cents and are bound in books that are numbered and on which the name of the rightful owner appears. Every possible precaution is being used to see that there is little or no misuse or mishandling of these stamps. Flagrant violators are being prosecuted. While in most places this plan is proving to be quite popular, it is rather expensive, both to the federal government and the local communities, and must for some time be considered as being in the experimental stages.

 LUNCH ROOMS

During the past year the free lunch program in the schools of the state was considerably augmented, 2,030 school lunch rooms serving free lunches to 143,153 undernourished and needy children certified for the receipt of surplus commodities as compared with 843 lunch rooms serving free lunches to 48,890 children the preceding year.

During the past year the school lunch rooms were furnished with 4,856,388 ponds of food worth $306,850.36, as compared with 1,429,709 pounds worth $107,754.73 for the preceding year.

It is hoped that during the coming year at least 3,000 school lunch rooms can be certified to serve free lunches to 200,000 or more undernourished and needy children. There is perhaps no better way to use surplus foods than to feed them to needy and undernourished children, thus helping to produce a more healthy and better-developed future generation.

 BENEFITS DERIVED BY NORTH CAROLINA AND ITS CITIZENS BY REASON OF THE OPERATION OF THE COMMODITY DISTRIBUTION PROGRAM A. E. LANGSTON, Director

  Benefits Derived 1938-1939 Benefits Derived 1939-1940 Total Benefits Two Years Money spent in State for purchase of commodities $ 182,059.00 $2,348,000.00 $2,530,059.00 Value of food distributed in the State 1,658,116.83 1,453,056.81 3,111,173.64 Value of clothing distributed in the State 1,261,722.77 667,269.10 1,928,991.87 Value of household articles distributed in the State 36,563.65 52,147.80 88,711.45 Salaries and wages received by citizens of the State 216,284.49 279,562.37 495,846.86 Rent paid to State landlords 11,264.26 15,074.64 26,338.90 Materials, supplies and services purchased in State 19,412.07 34,144.06 53,556.13 Value commodities distributed through stamp plan —— 68,792.00 68,792.00 Total benefits $3,385,423.07 $4,918,046.78 $8,303,469.85 State cost for operating program $ 43,766.91 $ 50,934.61 $ 94,701.52 Counties cost for operating program 14,469.16 20,413.42 34,882.58 Total State and county costs $ 58,236.07 $ 71,348.03 $ 129,584.10 Per cent total cost to benefits derived 1.72 1.45 1.56 WPA payrolls and travel costs $ 194,276.89 $ 265,146.88 $ 459,423.77 Total costs including WPA payrolls, etc $ 252,512.96 $ 336,494.91 $ 589,007.87 Per cent to benefits derived 7.46 6.84 7.09

SURPLUS COMMODITIES PURCHASED IN NORTH CAROLINA BY FEDERAL SURPLUS COMMODITIES CORPORATION

COMMODITY Unit 1938-1939 1939-1940 Quantity Purchased Amount Paid Quantity Purchased Amount Paid Beans, fresh string Lb. 283,770 $ 4,221.00 86,640 $ 1,200.00 Blankets, cotton Each —— —— 495,000 450,500.00 Cabbage, fresh Lb. 1,427,924 5,712.00 6,930,095 52,500.00 Cotton, baled Lb. 525,000 33,715.00 3,446,000 343,600.00 Flour, graham Lb. 2,469,600 52,800.00 —— —— Flour, white Lb. 1,764,000 40,350.00 4,440.000 102,400.00 Grits, corn Lb. —— —— 160,000 2,900.00 Meal, corn Lb. 2,760,000 45,261.00 19,360,000 353,200.00 Potatoes, sweet Lb. —— —— 5,515.000 55,200.00 Sheeting, cotton Yd —— —— 12,838,233 986,500.00 Total purchases —— 9,230,294 $ 182,059.00 53,270,968 $2,348,000.00

SURPLUS COMMODITIES DISTRIBUTED THROUGH STAMP PLAN OF DISTRIBUTION FISCAL YEAR 1939-1940

 Orange Stamps SoldBlue StampsGrand Total All StampsGiven with OrangeGiven in AdditionTotalMecklenburg County, 3½ months$ 56,348.00$ 30,539.00$ 19,077.00$ 49,616.00$ 105,964.00Wake County, 2 months18,151.009,075.508,277.0017,352.5035,503.50Guilford County, ½ month2,985.001,492.50331.001,823.504,808.50Totals$ 77,484.00$ 41,107.00$ 27,685.00$ 68,792.00$ 146,276.00Total surplus commodities distributed through stamp plan————————$ 68,792.00
NOTE: In addition to the above three counties, New Hanover and Gaston counties were designated as Stamp Plan areas during the year; however the sale of stamps in these two counties did not start until after the end of the fiscal year.

 DETAIL OF OPERATING EXPENSES FISCAL YEAR 1938-1939

  Average Number of Persons Employed WPA Actual Costs State Counties Total Costs Relief Non-Relief Actual Costs Fair Value Actual Costs Fair Value STATE OFFICE ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS:                 Administrative salaries —— 9 —— $ 14,460.00 —— —— —— $ 14,460.00 Rent and utilities —— —— —— —— —— —— —— —— Telephone and telegraph —— —— —— 634.31 —— —— —— 634.31 Postage —— —— —— 400.00 —— —— —— 400.00 Travel and subsistence —— —— —— 3,152.14 —— —— —— 3,152.14 Office supplies and equipment —— —— —— 465.25 $ 250.00 —— —— 715.25 Total State Office Administrative Costs —— 9 —— $ 19,111.70 $ 250.00 —— —— $ 19,361.70 DISTRIBUTION COSTS:                 WPA labor 396 —— $ 194,276.89 —— —— —— —— $ 194,276.89 State supervision —— 4 —— $ 6,100.00 —— —— —— 6,100.00 County labor 11 —— —— —— —— $ 1,447.60 —— 1,447.60 Freight and express —— —— —— 180.80 —— 42.30 —— 223.10 Truck maintenance and operation —— —— —— 11,406.90 —— —— —— 11,406.90 Packing supplies —— —— —— 2,555.79 —— 307.37 —— 2,863.16 Packing equipment —— —— —— —— —— —— —— —— Warehouse rental —— —— —— 27.37 —— 11,236.89 $ 6,744.25 18,008.51 Telephone and telegraph —— —— —— —— —— 413.69 —— 413.69 Postage —— —— —— 945.20 —— 568.77 150.00 1,663.97 Office supplies and equipment —— —— —— 1,034.48 $ 580.00 203.06 —— 1,817.54 Truck rental —— —— —— —— 3,000.00 249.48 —— 3,249.48 Equipment purchases —— —— —— —— —— —— —— —— Travel and subsistence —— —— —— 2,400.00 —— —— —— 2,400.00 Miscellaneous —— —— —— 4.67 —— —— —— 4.67 Total Distribution Costs 407 4 $ 194,276.89 $ 24,655.21 $ 3,580.00 $ 14,469.16 $ 6,894.25 $ 243,875.51 GRAND TOTAL COSTS 407 13 $ 194,276.89 $ 43,766.91 $ 3,830.00 $ 14,469.16 $ 6,894.25 $ 263,237.21

DETAILS OF OPERATING EXPENSES FISCAL YEAR 1939-1940

  Average Number of Persons Employed WPA Actual Costs State Counties Total Costs Relief Non-Relief Actual Costs Fair Value Actual Costs Fair Value STATE OFFICE ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS:                 Administrative salaries —— 9 —— $ 14,405.00 —— —— —— $ 14,405.00 Rent and utilities —— —— —— —— $ 650.00 —— —— 650.00 Telephone and telegraph —— —— —— 638.16 —— —— —— 638.16 Postage —— —— —— 477.00 —— —— —— 477.00 Travel and subsistence —— —— —— 3,086.82 —— —— —— 3,086.82 Office supplies and equipment —— —— —— 581.31 540.00 —— —— 1,121.31 Total State Office Administrative Costs —— 9 —— $ 19,188.29 $ 1,190.00 —— —— $ 20,378.29 DISTRIBUTION COSTS:                 WPA labor and supervision 441 11 $ 261,437.36 —— —— —— —— $ 261,437.36 State supervision —— 1 —— $ 1,366.68 —— —— —— 1,366.68 County labor 16 1 —— —— —— $ 2,353.33 —— 2,353.33 Freight and express —— —— —— 1,231.04 —— 54.00 —— 1,285.04 Truck maintenance and operation —— —— —— 11,819.31 —— 1,195.63 —— 13,014.94 Packing supplies —— —— —— 5,285.50 —— 341.73 —— 5,627.23 Packing equipment —— —— —— 302.00 —— 154.01 —— 456.01 Warehouse rental —— —— —— 78.37 —— 14,996.27 $ 4,369.10 19,443.74 Telephone and telegraph —— —— —— 108.22 —— 416.07 ——