xt7tht2gbf9p https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7tht2gbf9p/data/mets.xml Maryland McCord, Elizabeth Woofter, T. J., Jr. (Thomas Jackson), 1893-1972 United States. Works Progress Administration. Division of Social Research. 1936 ii, 44 l.; 27 cm. UK holds archival copy for ASERL Collaborative Federal Depository Program libraries. Call Number Y 3.W 89/2:13 L-2 books English Washington, D.C.: Works Progress Administration, Division of Social Research This digital resource may be freely searched and displayed in accordance with U. S. copyright laws. Maryland Works Progress Administration Publications Maryland. Board of State Aid and Charities Organization and Procedures of the Maryland Board of State Aid and Charities text Organization and Procedures of the Maryland Board of State Aid and Charities 1936 1936 2019 true xt7tht2gbf9p section xt7tht2gbf9p 1 > V" 777*,» v- >7777777777 V N r l' V 4:777 777 r V r 1 V r V -
I 1111111"1|11111111111UN111111111111111111 9670
11 ,1 1 . .
1 . .
I .
1 ' 1 OF
'1 JULY 1936 1 ; L—2

 ' 9670 ,
., . In response to many requests that a study be made of social
‘ f work practice in rural areas, the Research Section of the
Division of Research, Statistics and Finance of the Federal ,
Emergency Relief Administration initiated such a survey in -
July 1935. (The study was completed by the Division of So—
cial Research of the Works Progress Administration.) ‘. “
A staff of three iminary survey
of three predomir trent parts of
the countryv-uEsce 1 County, Min-r .
nesota; and Wicon ° ’ counties were .
chosen primarily BMSIHCSS leTaTy organized 30.. ‘
cial work progran 1F”. Epression, was
still functioning ‘44.“ng Lon of general
.’ relief had been 2 649W,,,.”“-.._%\ _~ the supervi—
sion of a state c 7992:" \g '\ i
(‘3! , h! I}: 'z‘_ ‘
. M94 -\ u: . §
A comparative ans £39,133 “3: ,p‘ ared in these
three counties re e‘tgjg ‘,,_:g$gfi,¢ mning and as-
sistance in the "t. W,’ 5ocial work in
these counties a a)“ ”I“ ;upervision in
the development c “hen” ' . . ,
' As a result of t L to undertake
a survey of the w CLASS#/ of Public Wel—
, fare in Alabama a and Charities
, in Maryland with BOOK/ llationship of ,
these agencies to ls. These sur—
veys were made du .11 '
The following rep ”Naomi ,, -4" ,. -__J organization 1
of the Maryland state and local public welfare services, the
extent and, nature of the supervisory responsibility assumed
by the state agencies, and some of the effects of their
l] Changes in the Maryland situation as a result of the
‘ action of the legislature in April 1936 are noted in Appen~
dix G.
Prepared by
, Elizabeth McGord
under the supervision of
' T. J. Woofter, Jr.
' Coordinator of Rural Research I

 -‘ L“' 'V 7‘ V , 77‘ My 7 I I «in :4 if“ ‘ h 7—? ’ *0“ ~W‘”"" ”—47—”‘fiwww'fizu'l :=-T=—==t'. .,_ 1' ~22 < :-.~,_~' , A ”x; «'v- 3‘3 >“A'd|""'»""x
. l V i
i ;
i ' , 9670 ;
i . :
z t
. f .
. g g
'2 Page i
I i
w t General Appraisal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ‘i'
I L. Factors in the Development of the State Board . . l E
g Effect of Federal Program . .-. . . . . . . .. 8 i
, f II. Organization and Practice of the State Board. . . 4 ‘
‘ Legal Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . .-. . . 4 '
_ Practical Operation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 9
Sources of Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1
» E Department of Social Work Staff. . . . . . . . 6 fl
- f Inter—Relationships of Staff Members . . . . . 8 j
I Organization and Policies of the Divisions . . 9 W
" % III. Organization of the Local Units . . . . . . . . . 16 E
- L ’ County Welfare Boards. . . . . . . . . . . . . l6 5
t Local Staffs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 E
5 Social Work Practice . . . ... . . . . . . . . 19
-§ Community Attitudes. . . . . .,. . . . . . . . 20 9
,», ¥
' I J
g, Appendix A f
g Law Defining Powers and Duties of the Board of State ;
- i Aid and Charities and Providing for County Welfare 1
-. .1 Boards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
ti. Appendix B . 1
, i Specifications for Personnel . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
> E Appendix C E
v f Outline of Administrative Manual . . . . . . . . . . 35 r
M 1 E Apgendix D x
f' g Outline of Old Age Manual . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 37 I
.' 3 Appendix E a
" 1 Minutes of State Staff Meeting . . . . . . . . . . . 4O .
.. i . i »
.V' % Appendix F J
_ f : Note Regarding 1956 Legislation. . . . . . . . . . . 43 T
, » 3?
f _. E y
T" 1 ‘ 1
j a
t »- , | I
5.; i

 ~ me» u. Wr “"'v—‘ """ ’ " ' " ' " A" v“ " —" 4* ,,,__. ‘—~'—* ~—-~ »'-=z—=—::—'—_~—_;i.:. —- Av: , 7,7::._A .viz-r—lwzw._ V i ,ii. _-; ‘ 77‘ —.,-, in ,___.,'_,__, ‘ 7‘1
P ,
9670 ‘
‘ A few imgortant policies and procedures stand out as ‘
responsible for the high quality which has characterized the work of
' the Maryland Board of State Aid and Charities as a whole. These fac~ ,
tors may be summarized as follows: i
l. Unpaid local boards have been selected Jointly by the State Board V
p . and the county commissioners on the basis of interest in the pro— l
' gram, ability, and representation. These boards have offered lay 3
leadership which has usually proved to be sound and non—partisan ‘
‘ 3. Both the administrator and the director of the Department of Social f
' Work have been well trained and have high professional standards. ‘
a This has made it possible for progressive planning and sound action
to originate at the top and also to be recognized and fostered
‘ . . . ., . . 1
Wherever they have occurred in the organization. y
3. The state staff has been selected because of specific ability in the 4
field of public welfare, and individual qualifications for the work 5
to be done. This is particularly evident in the extent to which the ;
' ’ members have had previous experience in social work as well as profes~ E
sional training. Such selection of staff has been made possible by
the Board's policy of employing persons on the basis of qualifications
Without limitation by such factors as residence or political affiliation. }
z 4. LOCal staff members have been selected on the basis, first of accept—
'ubility to the county boards, and second of qualifications for the
work to be done. This has brought about close coordination of wel— ;
fare work with other community activities, and at the same time has
resulted in satisfactory standards of operation.
‘ 5. A close relationship has been maintained between the state staff and ;
i the local workers. This has provided an Opportunity for the contin~ )
uous development of the local workers while on the Job.
6. Both in the state office and in the relation of the state office to
local units every effort has been made to create conditions in which
n - r. . n . \
workers can function freely and responSioly according to each one's :
abilities and limitations. 1
7. The state staff has defined its function as making leadership and ’
supervision available for each community and each agency, rather than [
determining a pattern which must be followed exactly. The result is ‘
seen in the lack of uniform standards, both in relief and service; in
_ i _ i

 V 9670
_ ii _
the amount of initiative taken by local boards and other lay persons;‘
_ and in the willingness of board members to assume responsibility for
the work of the local agenCies.
n 8. Each community has been regarded by the state staff not as a single
unit which will either oppose or support social work but as composed
of individuals who have varying relationships to the development of ‘
local social work.
‘ 9. The state staff has been interested in both program and practice. It
has acted on the theory that a social work program merely provides
the frame-work for assistance to individuals; that sound development
of practice is also necessary; and that the futhering of this develop- v
ment is as much the responsibility of the State Department as project— ‘
ing a program-

 _ _ . -ll”, ;. .u,fll-, _ ,. ._,H ,, l,m . . . 7-77, .. .
‘ 9670 ‘

‘ I. Factors in the_Development of thgu§tate Board I
‘ Until 1930 Maryland had left the responsibility for the devel~ i
opment of social work throughout the state to private initiative, Legis- 1
lation concerning the Welfare of under-privileged citizens had been almost é
entirely pen issive. It had provided no machinery for an educational program '
to stimulate action, no Central bureau for advising and assisting county i
units, and no means by which a plan for public welfare services might be ‘
. worked out for a county too poor to adopt a program unaided. ;
State grants—in~aid were given to private institutions as early
as 1798, and later public institutions were financed from state funds, but
little or nothing had eVer been expended for a preventive, non—institutional i
public social work program. Such state aid as was given to institutions was 1
centered in the Board of State Aid and Charities organized in 1900.. §
In the report of the Social Welfare Commissionl/in 1930, the social I
work in the 23 counties was outlined as follows: ‘
Seven counties had branches of the Maryland Children's Aid Society.
One county was in the process of organizing a branch of the Society.
Three counties had family welfare agencies with paid workers, privately
One county engaged a worker paid by the county commissioners to admin~
ister relief.
One county had a probation office whose work included family adjustment.
Ten counties had no paid social workers.
One of the major recommendations of the Social Welfare Commission
was that the Board of State Aid and Charities extend its services so that
there would gradually develop a state department of welfare which would be I
comparable to the departments of health and education.
The point of view expressed in the report is important in relation
to the subsequent development of the work of the Board of State Aid and I
Charities. The report stated: ;
"Communities differ as radically and as peculiarly as indiv— E
iduals differ. Before any organization is superimposed on a county ?
there should be careful case study of that county as an 'individual' - :
and a plan evolved which will most adequately meet its needs. It is ‘
as unsound for a community as for an individual to have things done ‘
‘for' it rather than to have the initiative come from within . . . .
l/ Appointed in 1929 for the purpose of making a survey of the state‘s social
welfare program.
. _ l _


g , l

- 2 — 9670

Thus a state social Welfare program should . . . be more in the nature '

of a parent organization, which by a process of education and stimu~ 1

lation awakens in the community the desire to achieve certain results. I

Even where a state has adopted a more or less ideal scheme it is ‘

blbcked in putting it into operation through lack of pefSonnel. There ;

is a dearth of trained social workers. But even if there Were no such 3

' dearth the wisdom of constantly bringing trained persons into a commun~ :

ity from the outside is questionable . . . . We believe it is most ;

essential that a department of social welfare adopt an equalization plan 3

and reduce minimum requirements based on a businesslike estimate of what i

. the state Should spend in preventive social work to forestall high bills 1
- in the future care of maladjusted persons. . . . If these general prin—

‘ CiPles are followad in developing the present Board of State Aid and 3
Charities then the keynote of the Maryland program will be as it should i
be, growth and flexibility.”

' Immediately after the commission made its report the social worker ]

t V who had conducted the survey was employed by the Board of State Aid and

"‘ Charities to continue studying the situation and to begin carrying out some t
of the recommendations.
Early in 1933 the Governor set up an independent committee for
the distribution of emergency relief, but in the 1935 legislative session
' the Board of State Aid and Charities was made the official Em rgcncy Relief
Administration, effective July 1, 1933. t
In the 1985 legislative session the Board‘s duties and functions I
Were enlarged to make possible a more general state welfare program and
to provide for county welfare boards. This new law, which went into effect |
June 1, 1955, provided a means for receiving and dispensing Federal Social
Security funds and made pessible the realization of the recommendations made
by the commission in 1930 for the development of a department of welfare
comparable to other state departments. ‘
~ Effects of Federal Progrmn 1
The Federal Emergency Relief Administration not only provided 1
' the state with funds which could not or would not have been provided in
any other way, but it also had the beneficial effect of helping to raise 1
' standards of relief. The counties worked out their own standards to a 1
large extent and they have continued to use them since the termination of j
the E. R. A., in establishing budgets for old age pensions. In general
these budgets are higher than they would have been three years ago before 3
the counties had felt the influence of Federal money and Federal supervision. ‘ ~
The supervisory contact between state and Federal governments
under the F.E.R.A. had both negative and positive results. The whole Fed-
eral relief program emphasized consideration for the client as an individ~
ual, respect for work as such rather than work for test purposes, and
adequacy of relief. This philosophy gave weight to the type of program that
the State Board wished to establish in the counties. There was no evidence

 l :2“;
l - . E?
j , ~ 3 — - 9670 g
. , - x
§ of the old poor relief philosophy in the Federal Emergency Relief Admins ,
E istration program. In discarding such principles as publishing names of g
; clients~and other means of making relief unpleasant, the F.E.R§A§ was a 5
f decided'force in advancing local thought on the whole relief queStion. E
1 The'F.E§R.A. policy of employing trained persons to administer the work t
1 also made it easier for the State Board to overcome local resistahce to t
I trained personnel. ‘ 7 3
The procedures of the F.E.R.A. Were less helpful than'itS P01i~ i
‘ cies. The speed with which orders had to be executed often created friction t
between the state administration and the localitieS, which sometimes resis— g
‘ ted the orders, or took the attitude that the state administration should fi
solVe the problems since it was forcing the issues. Also plans conceived in E
' Washington did not always fit the local situation and did not readily allow ?
for modification. %
1 a
j The relation of the state to the Federal government changed E
‘ decidedly after the termination of F.E.R.A. grants. At the time of the W
, survey, funds were being received from the Social Security Board for old 5
. age pensions on the basis of legislation already passed. A plan for special i
child welfare services had been apprOVed by the Children's Bureau of the 5
United States Department of Labor and the Maryland allotment of $22,000 a ‘
year for this work was soon to be made available. In April 1936, the leg— 4
islature met and enacted laws which would enable the state to obtain Social j
Security funds for aid to dependent children and to the blind.l/ Members of 1
the Board of State Aid and Charities expressed the hope to the observer that ;
they would receive help from both the Children's Bureau and the Social Secur— J
1 ity Board in planning a progressive program, and that they could look to h
the Federal agencies for specialized skill and service which would supplement ’
‘ and stimulate the state staff.
The Social Security money seems to have provided the impetus nec- . g
essary to make the state and counties take immediate action to fill the gap
left by the withdrawal of Federal relief funds in 1935. Both the state legr
‘ islature and the county commissioners saw the advantage in providing means i
for matching Federal funds as soon as possible. Whether the limitation of 1
Federal funds to a few definite categories will limit the action of the i
1 state and localities in providing for more general relief is yet to be deter*
‘ 1/ see Appendix G, Rots Regarding 1936 Legislation. 1

 ”We , a ‘3‘
v j $1
V - 4 - ' 9670 §
II. Or anization and Practice of the State Board . IE
‘ l.
} Legal Brovisions E
l . *
‘ The law providing for County Welfare Boards, which went into B
i effect on June 1, 1935, also amended the law relative to the Board of g
E State Aid and Charitiesl/In order to make it comply with the provisions g
t of the Sacial Security Act. D
A _ i §
, : l . .
a t The State Board was made the agency to handle Seeial Security 3
. E and other Federal funds for welfare and relief in Maryland. It was made E
' E the "central, coordinating and directing agency" of welfare activities in E
[ the state. All activities of the County Welfare Boards and of the Depart~ M
I ment of Welfare of Baltimore City, financed in whole or in part by the p
E state, Were plaCed under its supervision, direction, and control. 3
7_ i The Board was empowered to create a County Welfare Board in A
} each county, and to select the persons from whom the county commissioners -g
i could make appointments to the local boards. The Board was further given 1
{ authority to prescribe the number, salaries, and minimum qualifications E
, E of the personnel engaged in state financed activities of the local boards. ii
? i
I - iv}
E The Board was also directed to "investigate, study, and consider E
' g the whole system of public and private institutions, organizations and fi
‘ § agencies of a charitable nature in the state, including those which receive 9i
' : part of their income from the state". It was given authority to inspect m
”“r i welfare institutions or agencies, and to suspend or revoke licenses and E
E order withdrawal of state appropriations where conditions were found to »Q
i warrant such action. V
i The law stated that the Board should consist of eight persons, b
§ including the Governor, the Director of Health, and six appointees of the d
1 Governor. Terms of office were set at four years. The Board was directed f
T to appoint a "competent person" to act as its full—time executive secretary. t
; This person should have training and experience in “social welfare and 1
; relief work". i
, 'a
, tractical Operation t
E . . t
3 While the law gaVe the Board of State Aid and Charities almost ;
i unlimited control over the work of local agencies, the Board in practice i
3 adopted the policy of exerting little absolute control. p ~
2 t
E In the matter of Old Age Assistance, for instance, the State 4
Q Board had authority to establish detailed standards for assistance. Instead &
1 of setting up rigid standards, hOWeVer, it was merely recommending that E
i i
1/ See Appendix A. ' ' ' ' ‘ t]
3 t!
- . ’

 ’W‘ IV ‘gl

"2| ,1

' if

— 5 ~ .. 9670 E

. . . 5

Old Age Assistance be based on a budget which included all the necessities t

of living. The amOunuafor individual items it left to the determination i

. of the lOcal boards. As a result of this poliCy; the budgets for Old Age 1

Assistance varied widely from county u>county. At the time of the surVey it

the range was from $9.75 per person per month in one county to $21.85 per 1%

person per month in another. IE

_ , ml

' The same policy was pursued in regard to salaries of county 3?

f workers. The Board had set a salary scale for each position in the county it

I as well as in the state organization, but it_was not insisting that this E

i scale be followed in the counties. Consequently, many local Workers were . i§

} still being paid $75 a month, the minimum salary set by the state, whereas g

under the state policy of salary increases, they should have been receiving i

{ $85. . :3


5 There Were only two ways in which the State Board definitely H

' exercised an administrative function. It audited the books of the County f

} Welfare Boards, sending a state auditor to each county about once a month; a

I and it required monthly reports from each county, all records being retained 3

I in the county office. '

In practice, the State Board's relationship with the local boards fl

l was chiefly supervisory and it extended such service to almost every function 4

l of the County Welfare Boards. Its service varied from recommending techni~ J

cal procedures to helping develOp points of view and philosophy. Its relation— l

ship to County Boards was sometimes direct, but more frequently it was through 5

the local executive, especially if this executive had not yet established ;

i himself in the community. HQWever, the state administrator,_or in a few

I cases some other member of the state staff, with One or two members of the l

E State Board, met with each County Board when it was first established. 4

i The relationship with the county commissioners was also an essen» -&

tial part of the state staff’s activity. Both directly and.through the W

local executive the staff tended to seek the advioe of the county commis~ *3

sioners whenever decisions on local matters Were being made. W

i ;«

; W 3‘

E At the time of the survey, the state was financing all of the b

1 work of the County Welfare Boards eXCept that one—third of the Old Age ASSiS“ %

g tance grants was being supplied by the counties under the law of 1935. The E

g state funds came from the one percent gross receipts tax levy for emergency i

_ l relief, effective April 1, 1935 to April 1, 1956. This money had been allon ;

i cated to the counties for relief and administrative expenses according to 3
i their needs as estimated by the counties and approved by the State Board. 3 ‘

f All funds were administered by the counties. ~ 5


E ' In the first week of April 1936 the General Assembly was to con— i

I vene for the purpose of considering further relief and Social Security a

J measuresl/in order to continue the relief work after the gross sales tax ?

i expired on April 1. ' ‘ fl

l l

1 ’ ’ _ . ___.._.___._._.._— 9:}

l/ See Appendix G, Note Regarding 1936 Legislation. w

" l

 {3‘ . i,” ,, , I ,,V, “B
j. 4 ' gsi
, .. p _ 5 _ . 9670 E
r ' The regular budget of the state made no provision for the public 'l
i administration of relief except for a small staff of the Board of State Aid J;
‘ i and Charities. The counties, besides providing one~third of the cost of Old 1H
g Age Assistance, levied taxes for "outdoor pensions" and in a few instances rm
3 for'Mothers' Aid. No Federal funds were available for Mothersi Aid at the :fl
, t time of the survey, since the state Mothers' Aid Law did not meet=the quali— EH
. V i fications set up by the‘Social Security Act.l 3 . ‘ i
V ' 14‘”
- 1 At the time of this survey, a State Committee on Policy and id
._ E Revenue for Aid to the Needy (the "Casey Committee"), appointed by the g
' E Governor, was studying the problem of continuing the relief program in fl
' E regard to both permanent long—time public assistance, and temporary aid to d
' _ E employable persons and their families not cared for by the Works Progress E
i Administration and the Public Works Administration.§/ The financing of Old f
1' f Age Assispance, Aid to Dependent Children,and other child Welfare activities d
' ' 1 was of major concern to this committee.§/ ' g
_ § Department of Social Work Staff ;§
. g ;il
' i The accompanying chart shOWS the organization of the Department i
" _; of Social Work of the Maryland Board of State Aid and Charities.é/ This I
; department perfouns the major part of the work of the Board. It functions f
} through four divisions,the Division of Field Supervision and County Organ— 'i
E ization, the Division of Case Work Supervision and Personnel, the Division A
r of Child Welfare, and the Division of Research and Statistics. Each of ‘ j
V l these divisions is under the direction of a chief directly responsible to i
i the director of the Department. fl
‘ _ V ‘l
i The personnel of the staff at the time of the survey was the same 1%
l f as that which administered emergency relief. Just prior to the survey, all i
_ '" E . members except the administrator and the director of social work had taken 5
.,. i civil service examinations for classification purposes. 1
p i The professional staff included 15 workers paid by the state. a
3 Ten of these had their headquarters in the Baltimore office and functioned ii
» j in the state as a Whole a one as the director, three in the Division of d
‘ Field Supervision and County Organization, three in the Division of 1
f l
___. ___ . . .. ..__._.________._...._.._....— .11
I _l_/ The legislation enacted. in April 1936 conformed with the Social Security gj
§ Act. b
. § 2/ Another committee (the "Boyd Committee") was appointed by the legislature d
p. ‘ at the 1935 session to make a study of the state government, including a i
- 3 study of relief. This committee reported on a number of individual cases i
at the 1936 session but its report had no important effect on legislation. 8
. 1 g] The report of the "Casey Comuittee” to the General Assembly in the April i p
; 1936 session recmmnended that the city and county relief units be given
? complete autonomy in the administration of relief, that relief funds be _
: handled by the Board of Fublic Wcrks, and that the Board of State Aid and t
’ Charities be made=a sapervisoxy, policy forming, planning, and reviewing i
body only. This plan was not acceptable to the Social Security Board and p
. 1 was not approved by the General Assembly. The original organization bill i
_ 3 enacted in 1935 (Chapter 586 of the Laws of Maryland) was allowed to stand i
i without amendment. f
E QJ There is no administrative relationship between the Board of State Aid and i
E Charities and other state departments. HOWever, the Director of Health is an H
i egeofficio member of the ROard %

 Organization Chart of Department of Social Work 3/
E 1 r :— . W’L “”7
; Boar-7.: or state Aid and Charities §
I Reuti S r av= I‘“ . ."fi'i
E , ”'X.0 ,‘ ve_ écyetjfi’ . Business and ‘
1 \Relief Administrator) —~——————~—-‘ 1.
5 g . Finance 1
L..- ._-__-‘.._.____...____..-.,_-.i ‘ _.__.._..__ .
f— “ L . 1*. ""1
; wepartmen-d of social Work | ‘—-.__.....____..._.___.,.-.,
E Director fulfil“: One Stenoy-‘rapher I
:_ _ _,. : _fi_ * ____NJ
I‘ ' ' _'-" “‘ " ' _‘"—““" ""_‘—‘"“ ‘ —"-‘—"-“’_"‘_'"" ‘—“ " ' _"E"_"‘ “"' '—————. WwMW'—‘_" "’~"‘""""
1~—————-——=—._w.«.-.___i _._____L-_ ____-, 2 ' .
9 - .- .- .o . w 1 “ivision 01“ Field i " fl-tf—i—fflflwrmwl |M_'—_mm~~w~~“~‘
Dlvi-SLOII OJ. nesaercn aha; m t . k - ‘ J— ‘ I :4‘171510-11 a]: Case work : Division Din Child‘ fl
Statiswzics ! sup {‘TISlsm an. COL1n°J’ bupervis1on and Personnel] ‘.‘Jeli‘are '
______ .. , I Urganization l " '
_—. .1 i i...— | .-.____.-_.__.,_-_-.-_-.-,_.__V.i___-__§ (“hi—M...- -__..--
1 Chief Statistician 3 Chief l i Chief 3 :Chief ‘
. ,. . . _. ,, - . _. 5
1 Statisucal Ageistants 5 ASSistant Chlel ' Case U‘e’ork Consultant 1 3 Children's Worker .
One Stenosl‘ranher «5 Field Supervisor x Rerional Case Su ervisor I Statistical Ass't t
‘3 A. i ‘ .L . .3 ‘ : ‘ i
1 l I One. Stenographer x I One Stenographer : : One Stenographer i
;_._____________ . i l i I E i
: 2 Executives Paid by E l 5 Case 81.2.pcrv.'.sors in g “—M
i State j. Counties Paid by State 2
Board of State Aid and Charities, Janrary 22, 1956 ‘
l/ The Board of State Aid and Charities has supervision over all state aided institutions and: agencies:
including: hospitals, but this work is not departmentalized.
‘ 0
~74“ r~——-—-————-—“V "W—W‘ -_i.r__..~, sums-7.x A ' w: ‘=‘-‘*‘~*"“‘:"~“v'rf“‘“aflTVH-N‘ 7»;

 1:3? V A?
. 9670
' ' ~ 8 ~ (A
Case Work Supervision and Personnel, two in the DiVision of Child Welfare,- 3
and one in the Division of Research and Statistics. Two of the 15 were fl
supervisors who had charge of the case supervision in three counties each, H
and were lecated in one of the counties. Two executives and one case super~ fl
visor, with responsibility for one county each, were attached to'the local fl
I rather than.the state staff, and were ultimately to be paid by the locali— fl
} ties.
' »
E Of the 12 members of the state social work staff who were function— fl
'1 ing in more than a local capacity, ll had college degrees, and seven had %
i} done general graduate work. Five of the 12 were graduates of schools of j
E social work, and five others had some formal training in social work. 1
,{ All of the professional training had been received since 1925. Nine of the g
; 12 had had experience in private social work, seven had had previous exper~ U
‘ { ience in public social work, and seven had had other professional or business H
‘ experience. i
L The director of the Department of Social Work had been connected i
E with the Maryland state welfare or relief program for four and one half 1
i years. The other ll staff members had been with the state staff for from .
! nine months to two and one half years. {
t ’v H
1 The ages of the staff ranged from 31 to 43 years. g
. l J
i Inter-«Relationships of Staff Members :1
-: Staff members in the state office worked together smoothly and co~ 5
v 'l Operatively. Status seemed relatively unimportant. From the administrator 4
_i down there was no evidence of an authoritative attitude. The person res- l
. ’i ponsible for a job carried the real authority for it. A
' § Staff members were unusually willing to experiment. This quality f
'I probably arose primarily from the fact that the whole staff accepted the g
! possibility of failure and did not hold any one person responsible if some i
i action proved unsuccessful. Occasional failure was recognized as the nec— 3
{ essary concomitant of a growing job and the reasonafor failure were viewed 1
E objectively. '
l 5
3 Major policies and procedures were established by the state staff as 1
1 a whole. Before taking up a question with the State Board, for example, the i
i staff usually met for a thorough discussion of the issue and decided what i
: POints Should be taken up with the Board. 3
i Lines of responsibility were not clearly defined as the transition }
§ Was just being made from an emergency to a permanent set—up. Members Of
a the staff had assumed responSibility for certain work because of their par—
; ticular interest of fitness for it, rather than because their positions l
1 reQuired it. New staff members had been taken on because they seemed to ‘J
3 have something to contribute to the total program rather than because they p
E fitted neatly into a given niche. At the time of the survey an attempt was t
9 being made to define more clearly the various responsibilities. This Was a
% being done more largely in terms of the services the present state staff could \ E
i offer than in terms of administrative machinery. p
i it
it fl

 V 9670 t
.. g .. - ‘5‘
These inter—relationships were largely due to the administrator fl
and the director of social work, who were responsible not only for the Q
formal structure of the staff but also for the atmosphere in which the W
organization functioned. T
The administrator, professionally trained in law, was lent to the 3
‘ _ relief administration at the beginning of the emergency relief program from E
[ an executive position in private social work. Both he and the director of k
’ 3 social work encouraged group discussions and group decisions by the staff. 5
t He showed great skill in dealing with the State Board and with other lay 3
' groups. 5
" ' The major specialized training of the director of social work had. f
been in research but she had also had social work training and experience. I
She gave her staff members actual responSibility for developing their own i
’ i jobs without loging control of the Situation. It was her reportl/ five 1
: years before which had set the goals now beginning to be realized. 2
t Organization and Policies of the Divisions j
s 5
' The work of the Department of Social Work was departmentalized k
as follows: W
1. Division of Field Supervision and.County Organization 3
, E —~——~—— l
’ This Division assumed major administrative responsibility for the t
1 county organizations. All county executives were directly responsible to .
'i the chief of this Division. Its duties were outlined by the State Boarda/ !
t as follows: E
t (a) S