Your vote and how to use it

The State of New York has the largest actual number of dependent children, and the largest number in proportion to population, of any State in the Union.

In the early days it was the women who cared for the neglected children of a neighborhood, and children left homeless were usually taken into some one’s home. This care has gradually gone into the hands of the town, the county, or the State, and has become a department of government.

There are two ways of caring for homeless children: one is to place them in institutions, the other is to place them in private families. In both cases the State usually has to pay for their support. If the right kind of a home can be found for a child it seems to have a much better chance for a healthy, happy childhood, and for a useful future when placed with a family, than when placed in an institution. The custom in New York State has been to place children in institutions.

It is the business of each local official, town overseer of the poor, county superintendent of the poor, and city commissioner of charities, to provide for destitute children. In the early days he used to provide for them by giving what was called “outdoor relief” to the parent, if either parent was living; if the child was homeless it was sent to the almshouse. For many years past, children between the ages of three and sixteen have not been allowed in almshouses, but have been committed to institutions.

Besides this public care, private charitable agencies began to establish orphan asylums, and homes for friendless children. These institutions often developed from small beginnings into large establishments, and began to draw on the public funds for at least a part of the maintenance of their inmates, and sometimes for their entire support. It was argued that if the State did not pay for the support of the children in the orphan asylum it would have to take care of them elsewhere.

No Definite Authority: For many years the authority between State and local governing boards has been divided. As a consequence, inspection of children’s institutions has amounted to very little, or has been, at least, ineffectual.

This inadequate inspection, in addition to divided authority, encouraged neglect and abuse. The report of conditions in private institutions in New York City, made in 1916 as the result of an official investigation, showed that dirt, insufficient food, vermin, disease, and lack of common sanitary precautions were common. Education was so much below the standard of the public school, with little or no vocational training, that children were discharged with no preparation for earning a living. There was not only an utter absence of home atmosphere, but methods and restrictions were used like a prison or reformatory. So little care was given when the children left the institution, that they often went out entirely friendless, with no one to call upon for council or advice, and utterly unprepared for independent life.

These conditions were allowed to exist, partly because of the divided authority and responsibility, largely because those in authority were not deeply interested. As the report said, “the committing authorities have not looked upon the problem as of sufficient moment to make it any part of their business to formulate and promulgate any competent standard to govern the service maintained in children’s institutions.”

New York City has tried the experiment of “boarding out” all dependent children between two and seven years of age, taking care to place Catholic children in Catholic homes, Jewish children in Jewish homes, and so forth. In some respects, this is a better method than committing children to institutions, but it is only successful if the child is carefully placed, and its welfare watched by appointed visitors.

In New York State, 1900-1913, the average infant mortality-rate of children under two years of age was 86.4 per 1,000, while the death-rate in eleven large infant asylums was 422.5 per 1,000. That is, under the care of the mother, even including the ignorant mother, only one-fifth as many babies died as when the children were cared for by the State.

Experience shows that children are not only safer and healthier with their own mothers than in institutions, but that they have a better chance with foster mothers than in asylums. In 1914, the New York City Health Department, as an experiment, placed seventy-five infants to board with foster mothers, with the result that the infant death-rate dropped forty-eight per cent.

Boards of Child Welfare: In 1915, the Legislature authorized the appointment of boards of child welfare in each county. These boards were to investigate needy cases and had the power to grant an allowance to a destitute mother for the care of her children.[6] This work is dependent on the appropriations granted by the county. County authorities are slow to act in matters that require appropriations. At the end of the first year, fifty-seven counties had organized boards, but only thirty-four had made appropriations; 6,014 children had been kept from asylums and 1,969 homes had been saved from being broken up. In New York City, the number of children in institutions has decreased 3,000 since the Child Welfare Board began its work. In 1917 New York City appropriated $1,250,000 for widowed mothers. The average monthly allowance, the first year of the Welfare Board’s work, for each child under sixteen, was $7.99, which is $3 less than it would have cost to keep the child in an institution.

It is now admitted that everything possible should be done to prevent a home from being broken up by poverty; that if the mother is living, and is a fit person to bring up her children, it should be made possible for her to keep them. That the mother is usually a fit person to bring up her child, is proved by the experience of the Board of Child Welfare of New York City, which examined four thousand cases of mothers who applied for pensions, and found only in fourteen cases that the mother was not to be so trusted.

In many of the Western States the widowed mothers’ compensation, or pension laws, have been extended to cover children of delinquent, injured, or crippled fathers, and sometimes even of fathers imprisoned in penal institutions.

Some States also have other provisions which reduce the number of dependent children. In Washington a man who deserts his family is put to work and his wages are paid to his wife and children. This seems more sensible than the law which imprisons the man, and lets the State support him, while his wife has to support herself and children. In Kansas, the wages of a prisoner are given to his family. In California and Illinois, the father must help support the illegitimate child.

The care of dependent children is work for which women are especially fitted by both training and inclination. In Colorado, the State Home for Dependent Children must have two women on its board of five members. In the State Industrial Home for Girls, three of the five members of the board must be women.

The Problem of the Delinquent Child is one that needs the greatest care and expert attention. If the dependent child is an appealing figure, the delinquent child is an indictment of a community. He is usually the product of neglect, of overcrowding, of bad living conditions, and of defects in the educational system.

To treat the child offender as if he were grown up and responsible, and to punish him in the same way as an adult, is to make a criminal of him. The manner in which his first offense against the law is handled, often determines the future of such a child.

Children’s Courts: It used to be common for children of all ages to be detained with older, hardened criminals indiscriminately, exposed to contamination and disease, and to try them in an open court-room with all other cases. The modern policy is to try all cases against children, with the exception of murder, in special courts.

The entire policy of a children’s court is based on prevention instead of punishment, to make friends with a delinquent child, to show him the danger ahead of him, to watch over him like an older, wiser friend, and to help him to keep straight. The terror and disgrace of an open court-room are replaced by a quiet, friendly talk in the judge’s room.

A large number of all children who are arrested are ungovernable or disorderly, children who have run away from home, or who are associating with dissolute or vicious persons. Another large class comes into the courts because of improper guardianship; neglected children, or those exposed to physical or moral danger. These cases are not classed technically as delinquents, but are tried by what are known as special proceedings.

The total number of children arraigned in the children’s courts of New York City in 1916 for delinquency was: boys, 5,929; girls, 150; in special proceedings, boys, 3,893; girls, 2,972, a total of 12,944. The largest percentage of cases for any offense for boys was petty larceny, and for girls was sex offenses and incorrigibility.

In 1916 the Police Department of New York City made in its report an analysis of juvenile arrests, showing the nature of the offense, the age, sex, nativity, occupation, and employment of the child. The largest number of arrests were for offenses against property. Practically half of all the delinquents were native-born children of foreign-born parents.

The attitude of the police force of New York City during the last few years has been helpful in handling the problem of juvenile delinquency. The police are now instructed to try to prevent small infringements of the law by children, and many trivial offenses are adjusted out of court.

A considerable proportion of the children who come repeatedly into the children’s courts are feeble-minded. During 1917, the children’s court of New York City, for the first time, had a clinic attached to the court, where children suspected of being mentally deficient could be examined. There is still, however, no place where they can be committed temporarily for observation, and there is great need of a graded institution that will provide for the treatment and care of the different classes of mentally deficient children.

The system of probation for child offenders is of the greatest possible assistance in reclaiming the child; it also decreases the number of children who are committed to institutions, thus saving the State money. To make probation effective, children must be visited frequently in their homes, and be kept on probation long enough to make probable a complete reformation. Women, and not men, should be appointed as probation officers for delinquent girls, but, as the appointments are often political, men are given the preference, and are even put in charge of girls.

The present Children’s Court in Greater New York dates from 1915, and under the presiding justice of the court has been brought to a high state of intelligent and sympathetic handling. The city of Buffalo also makes special provision for delinquent children. In most of the cities of the State, the judges of the court of special sessions set certain days for children’s cases.

Among the improvements needed in the New York State law is a provision to give the children’s court jurisdiction over children of sixteen and seventeen years of age. This is especially needed in cases of wayward girls. In Colorado the juvenile court handles cases of offenders under eighteen. Also, it is a criminal offense in Colorado to contribute to the delinquency of a child, and the children’s court has jurisdiction over adults contributing to such delinquency. This is a provision needed in the New York State law. Colorado also has a law prohibiting the publication of the name or picture of a girl under eighteen in a case of delinquency. This is important, as procurers and other men who have been the cause of a girl’s delinquency often go free, because the girl and her family wish to avoid publicity.

The children’s courts in New York State should also have the power to appoint legal guardians for children in case of need.

To be a judge of a juvenile court requires exceptional qualifications: quick sympathy, and intelligent understanding of the many causes which contribute to child delinquency.

A large part of the problem comes back to the environment of the child, to crowded living conditions, deficient education, lack of vocational training, and absence of opportunities for recreation. The pitiful striving of children for pleasure and play, and the inadequate provisions of our cities to meet this need, are often responsible for the first delinquent step. Many improvements in this direction, as well as improvements in the law, are needed to bring the protection that New York State gives its children up to the level of the best found in other States.