During the Progressive and post World War I eras, social welfare provisions became both more organized and more professional. These developments significantly shaped modern day government programs and private philanthropy. Among the Progressive contributions to social welfare organization were licensing and standard setting practices for agencies, the establishment of a policy preference for family-based care and an aversion to institutions, federated planning and fundraising for private charities, the idea that government's role in promoting social welfare is a residual one when private philanthropy proves inadequate, and the transition of the charity organization from a loose group of well-meaning volunteers to a business-like nonprofit corporation.(1) Underpinning all these contributions was the idea of professionalism--that charity should be "scientific," led by skilled professionals rather than by volunteers. As Kathleen McCarthy notes, Progressive social welfare reforms "were also the epitaph for the . . . volunteer,"(2) as well as for local initiative.(3) Although these developments brought inarguable improvements in social welfare provisions for poor and troubled people, they also set in motion a problem that persists to this day--the discouragement and resultant disengagement of communities in battling their social problems.
This paper describes one casualty of the professionalism of social welfare--the African-American self-help tradition in caring for dependent children in Chicago. The beliefs by white social welfare professionals that blacks held outmoded policy preferences, that they could not manage programs, and that they could not manage money thwarted efforts from the black community for legitimation and public support of their services. The subsequent loss of African-American agencies left black children entirely dependent on poorly funded and understaffed public facilities. Although the development of public responsibility was in some ways a gain for black children, as it was for others, black children uniquely lacked access to private, not-for-profit services once the public institution was established. Moreover, the demise of African-American agencies also meant the demise of some important service principles in caring for African-American children that were not to be rediscovered until much later.
Black self-help philanthropy flourished into the Progressive Era. As August Meier has noted, "[b]y the last decade of the [nineteenth] century it was clear that the main themes in Negro thinking on the race problem were that for the most part Negroes must work out their own salvation in a hostile environment and that, furthermore, they must be united in their efforts at racial elevation."(4) Denied access to orphanages, old peoples' homes, clinics, and settlement houses serving whites, blacks responded by establishing their own benevolent institutions.(5) By the turn of the century, W. E. B. DuBois was able to document the existence of hundreds of black charities nationwide, in northern cities as well as throughout the South.
These charities were likely to be sponsored by churches or by social clubs, especially women's clubs affiliated with the National Association of Colored Women's Clubs. They included "day nurseries" (day care centers), educational programs, recreation, and settlement houses. But old peoples' homes, orphanages, homes for single working women, and health care were especially emphasized. The common theme of all these programs was that of "social uplift": that, by helping the community's most vulnerable members, the entire community is elevated. This belief is exemplified in the National Association of Colored Women's Club's motto, "Lifting as We Climb." Philip Jackson has established that the proliferation of black charities in the Progressive Era was in part the product of a striving of the Black middle class for legitimation by white society.(6) Both Meier and Jackson have observed that the predominant black social welfare institution shifted from the self-help programs of clubs and churches in the Progressive Era to the more formal and professional Urban League in the pre-Depression era.(7) This paper argues that this shift was in part engineered by the nascent social work profession.
Few analyses have been undertaken of the unique contributions of the black self-help movement; most scholars have simply emphasized its importance as the only or primary social welfare provisions available to blacks. Edyth Ross has observed that black social work schools sustained an emphasis on community development (the modern term for efforts to improve the quality of life of the group rather than the individual) even after mainstream social work largely retreated from social reform and became preoccupied with treating individuals.(8) Linda Gordon similarly has observed that Black reformers were more likely than white reformers to emphasize universal (as opposed to criteria-restricted) benefits as well as programs for working women and their children.(9) Both scholars note less status distinction between helper and helped in the black self-help tradition than in mainstream social work.
African-American Self-Help Institutions for Chicago's Dependent Children
Until the mid-nineteenth century, dependent children (orphans or "half-orphans" whose one living parent could not support them) were either indentured or were housed with adults in almshouses.(10) The children's orphanage was a response to the newly perceived inadequacies of these methods. In the Chicago area, African-American children were at first accepted along with white children in orphanages.(11) With the growth of the African-American population late in the century,(12) and with the growing acceptance of Jim Crow,(13) black children were no longer welcome in white orphanages, and the African-American community responded by establishing orphanages of its own.(14)
The first formal African-American charity for dependent children in the Chicago area was founded in Harvey (about twenty miles south of the city) in 1899 by a relatively famous African-American evangelist, Mrs. Amanda Berry Smith.(15) After returning from missions in Europe, India, and Africa, she invested her life savings of $10,000 at the age of sixty into her children's home. Her home was founded "for the purpose of caring for colored children who, by death of parents, or otherwise, have been left without homes or natural protectors."(16) Mrs. Smith's home was approved by the State Department of Visitation of Children in 1906 as meeting acceptable care-giving standards.(17) After years of struggling financially, the Smith Home burned to the ground late in 1918, and two little girls died in the fire.(18)
Another "approved" home for African-American children was the Louise Home, founded by a volunteer probation officer, Mrs. Elizabeth MacDonald, in 1907.(19) Mrs. MacDonald had noted a disproportionate number of dependent black children ending up in jails for want of a home, so she opened up her home to them, and later rented yet another building as demand increased. The home closed in 1920, upon Mrs. MacDonald's retirement.
There is evidence of other homes founded by African-American ministers and charitable citizens during this period, although none of them appears to have operated for more than a few years, nor were any of them approved by the State.(20)
The Smith and Louise Homes, along with other black institutions of their day, are significant for a number of reasons. First, they represent a beginning recognition within the African-American community that the extended family and other informal mutual support systems could not adequately care for all black children in need. This was not an insignificant admission, for the reluctance of African Americans to seek help outside the family, noted by Charles Johnson in the '30s and by others more recently,(21) surely was true also of these earlier years. The recognition that the extended family cannot always meet all the needs, especially of dependent young and old family members, was a significant step in developing black social welfare institutions.(22)
Nevertheless, African-American orphanages like the Smith and Louise Homes drew freely from the black mutual aid tradition.(23) They were less regimented than many other orphanages of the day, and, when their charges were not "full" orphans, they saw themselves as supplementing rather than substituting for family care. They emphasized "industrial training" in jobs available to blacks--manual and farm labor for boys, domestic service for girls--recognizing the need to prepare dependent children to provide for themselves. The homes were also significant in illustrating the powerful influence of the prevailing racial ideology of the day; namely, that both blacks and whites assumed that the African-American community would care for its own.
Finally, these two homes are significant because they marked what would remain a long-standing difference of opinion between black and white social reformers about preferred methods of care of dependent children. Black reformers would continue to organize group or institutional programs long after white reformers had deemed group care archaic.
A shift in policy preference from institutions to family homes took place during the Progressive Era. This shift is probably best exemplified by Theodore Roosevelt's proclamation at the first White House Conference on Children in 1909 that "Home life is the highest and finest product of civilization. Children should not be denied it except for urgent and compelling reasons."(24) For some children, living with widowed mothers, direct relief became the policy of choice of progressive social workers. For other children, placement in "boarding homes" and "free homes" (roughly the equivalents of modern day foster care) increasingly became the preferred policy, in keeping with the deinstitutionalization movement that had earlier sought to remove children from almshouses.(25)
This shift in thought, however, was not shared universally. Catholics and some Jews especially feared that boarding care would result in the loss of religious or cultural identity of children; these groups clung to orphanages as the best way of assuring the proper training of children.(26)
African-American charity workers and professionals in Progressive Era Chicago also did not universally share the new enthusiasm for boarding care. In a study undertaken by the Cook County Board of Visitors in 1913 to find solutions to the problem of ever increasing numbers of orphaned black children in the city, one of the first two African-American graduates of the University of Chicago's new social work school opined that more and better support of black institutions could meet the increasing needs for care.(27) She did not believe boarding care was adequate for many children, that children "are merely sheltered" in family homes, and that such homes were used simply because "the colored probation officers do not know where to find a place for such a child."
Three African-American visiting nurses consulted in the course of the study had a different solution. Noting that many dependent children were not orphans at all, but rather children of extremely poor, working mothers, these nurses argued for more widespread eligibility for Mother's Pensions, the antecedent of the modern day Aid to Families with Dependent Children ("welfare") program, as well as for more day nurseries.(28)
Throughout the Progressive and pre-New Deal era, African-American "club women" continued to advocate institutional care. The Illinois Federation of Colored Women's Clubs supported efforts to rebuild the Amanda Smith Home, relocating it into the Black Belt and adding more "industrial" programs.(29) And in response to a severe dearth of boarding homes for dependent African-American children in the late '20s, two black women persuaded the Chicago and Northern District Federation of Colored Women's Clubs to establish a home (a small institution) for dependent children in March, 1928.(30)
Why were African Americans, on the whole, less enthusiastic than white social workers about home-finding as the preferred method of care? One probable reason is that they might have thought a formal home-finding program superfluous, in light of the great extent of informal caregiving already taking place. Another is that they thought institutions provided better job training than did family homes. Another likely reason is that they may have viewed foster parent recruitment not only difficult, but presumptuous. Low income families would have difficulty meeting licensing standards, and for those who could, payments were so low or unreliable that taking in boarders would probably have been more profitable. Middle-class African Americans, able to meet licensing standards, were very few in number. Further, the Progressive Era was a time of growing class consciousness within the black community,(31) and many middle income people would have been loathe to house poor children. Institutions, then, could accomplish the goal of mutual aid and at the same time avoid placing poor children in middle income homes.
Boarding Care: From Black Self-Help to Scientific Philanthropy
A committee of social welfare leaders was organized in 1919 to determine how to care for the children who survived the Amanda Smith Home fire and other black children in need. The majority of the members resolved that the best course of action would be to create a special program within the Illinois Children's Home and Aid Society (ICH&A), the only "home-finding" (today called foster care) agency for Protestant children in the city, to find boarding homes for dependent African-American children.(32) This decision meant that control of the care of black children was taken from the black community. For years, white social workers concerned about black children had argued that this work should be "in the hands" of white people, both because African Americans had such severe fundraising problems,(33) and also because black institutions were thought to be poorly managed.
The new program would be governed by the ICH&A, but have separate offices, staff, boarding homes, and fundraising responsibility. The Colored Children's Bureau was thus a strictly segregated program, with its own Advisory Committee, staff, boarding homes, and fundraising arm. It was directed by a white woman. Its Advisory Committee included only one African American, Dr. George Cleveland Hall, director of Provident Hospital. Initially, its fundraising arm, the Colored Children's Auxiliary, consisted of white businessmen, social workers, and socialites.(34) That the program was so strictly segregated is a reflection of the widespread acceptance of Jim Crow at the time, but it seems paradoxical that a major reason white social workers supported the plan for the Bureau--in an agency that had served children without regard to race for the previous 20 years(35)--was that they sought to "avoid the dangerous precedent of the separated segregated institution for Negro children."(36)
The Bureau for Dependent Colored Children formally opened its doors January 1, 1920. Its $12,000 budget, which supported the director and two African-American "visitors" (as social workers were called then), was raised from philanthropist Julius Rosenwald, other white individuals, and the Chicago Community Trust. The Bureau seems to have been quite effective in keeping many children out of boarding care by helping their families find jobs, medical care, and services.(37)
A change in leadership in ICH&A and a recession that left the agency cash-strapped by 1922 resulted in continuing struggles about the extent to which the Bureau should be supported financially by the African-American community. Uncollected pledges from white philanthropists, huge increases in referrals as the recession affected the black community especially severely,(38) and the reduction in the number of African-American relatives able to contribute to their boarding care led the new executive director to conclude that more pressure needed to be placed on the African-American community to support the Bureau. By 1923, the Colored Children's Auxiliary had become comprised of African Americans.
Neither the Auxiliary nor the Bureau could keep up with the soaring numbers of dependent African-American children in need of care, as the city's black population swelled following the first World War.(39) By 1926, 198 of the 600 children in the ICH&A's care were African American,(40) an astounding figure in light of the fact that black children in 1920 were less than 3% of all Chicago children.(41) Still, 42 dependent African-American children were held in the juvenile jail for want of boarding homes or institutional beds,(42) and a formal survey of services for black children in 1928 by the Council of Social Agencies, a confederation of charities, found them increasingly languishing in public correctional facilities because private agencies would not serve them.(43)
In the wake of this survey, and of complaints from Juvenile Court officials that they had no resources for African-American children, the Council's Committee for the Care of Dependent Negro Children asked the ICH&A to expand its services to black children on the conditions that the Council would assist in fundraising, and that the "colored community" would raise more money than it had for the Auxiliary. The ICH&A directors voted "no" to the proposal in June, 1928, fearing continuing fundraising problems and increasing Court referrals of "borderline" (mildly disabled) children.(44)
The Committee for the Care of Colored Children then convinced the Joint Service Bureau, a clearinghouse for applications to Protestant institutions in Cook County, to sponsor the program. Like the ICH&A's Colored Children's Bureau, the new Department of Child Placing for Negro Children was a strictly segregated program under white leadership. The directors of the program were white graduates of the University of Chicago's social work school, and the policy committee was comprised entirely of whites. In contrast to the ICH&A program, fundraising responsibility was also borne by whites. One of the interests of the University of Chicago in helping to sponsor the program was to provide an opportunity for the training and recruitment of black social workers, increasingly in demand as the city's African-American population expanded.(46)
The Department of Child Placing for Negro Children operated as an experiment for three years. It became a model of progressive child welfare practice. It "weighted" case loads, giving social workers with troubled or handicapped children fewer cases than those with normal children. It provided boarding home care for unmarried mothers and their babies, and supportive services for families as an alternative to child placement. It served children with serious behavior difficulties, and especially sought to find foster homes for children "for whom placement in a correctional institution was being considered."(47)
The three year experiment ended when the Department of Child Placing became a permanent public agency. A major interest of social welfare leaders in the Department was that of establishing a public agency for children. This goal was accomplished by making the Department of Child Placing an entirely publicly funded program in 1931, when it merged with a publicly funded program serving homeless youth and became known as the Children's and Minors' Service.(48) Although the Service was a limited program characteristic of the New Deal (only poor, or "relief-eligible," children were accepted), it was also a realization of a policy some reformers had been pressing for since the Progressive Era.(49) These reformers recognized that private agencies alone would not serve African-American children adequately, since white agencies segregated black children or, more often, refused to serve them altogether, and that African-American agencies were likely be poorly funded. A permanent public agency that served children without regard to race seemed the best policy alternative to providing quality service to African American and other underserved groups of children.
Justifying the Discouragement of Black Self-help
White social welfare reformers emphasized three themes in their efforts to develop professional social services for dependent African-American children:
1) Black institutions are out of step with modern policy visions. Sometimes this position was stated directly, as when Edith Abbott, of the School of Civics and Philanthropy at the University of Chicago, wrote that a boarding home program would have the "advantage of giving colored children the benefits of the best modern methods of caring for dependent children."(50) More often, however, social workers simply refused to legitimate the institutions, charging that they were substandard, and the programs languished for lack of referrals and funds. As Philip Jackson has noted, the most enduring black self-help programs were small and simple enough to be entirely supported by the black community;(51) institutional care proved to be too expensive to rely entirely on black benefactors.
2) African Americans cannot manage programs. This seems to have been a widely held view of the time. The African-American clubwoman and reformer Fannie Barrier Williams noted:(52)
It is true that more of these organizations fail than succeed, but the failure is not due to a lack of the cooperative spirit, which is the most helpful thing in our race character. The failures are mostly due to a lack of comprehension and intelligence in working out the details. The weak point is administration.
Complaints by government inspectors(53) and commissions(54) of the Amanda Smith and Louise Homes centered on management rather than the obvious lack of funding. One "visitor" (government inspector) pressed both Mrs. Smith and Mrs. MacDonald to recruit whites onto their Boards.(55) Subsequently, social welfare leaders attempted to place both the Smith Home(56) and the Louise School(57) under the auspices of white agencies. A decade later, a reapplication to the Council of Social Agencies by a home for dependent children operated by the Federation of Colored Women's Clubs was turned down for lack of proper management.(58)
3) African Americans cannot manage money. Both the Smith and Louise Homes received good reports from the State concerning the quality of care they provided, yet, unlike other "approved" institutions, neither received significant State subsidies.(59) Efforts of white social welfare leaders to involve white "men of affairs" with these institutions focused on financial management. Later, the County referred children to the home run by the Federation of Women's Clubs but refused to extend the usual boarding care payments to the program.(60) The Colored Children's Auxiliary of the Bureau for Dependent Colored Children essentially persuaded African Americans to raise money for white managers to decide how it would be spent.
This theme was even more clearly manifested in 1930, when the Department of Child Placing for Negro Children, the Council on Social Agencies, and the Urban League joined together to undertake the first systematic and comprehensive examination of social services available to African Americans in Chicago, and of fundraising practices in the black community.(61) The survey documented the dearth of services available to African-Americans relative to their need, the great reliance of African Americans on public charities because of their lack of access to private charities, and the relative generosity of African Americans in supporting their own charities.(62)
The South Side Survey served to reinforce the arguments of the researchers, largely students and faculty of the University of Chicago, that professional social work should exert a greater responsibility for the organization of social services in the Black Belt. One Survey report recommended that the Child Welfare Division of the Council on Social Agencies assume greater responsibility for improving services to African-American children in order "to discourage the well-meaning but undesirable attempts on the part of the negro group to meet these needs."(63) The researchers found giving in the black community was "generously in proportion to their economic ability," with clubs and churches especially "playing an unusually large part in attempting to meet the needs of the colored community." But they also argued that African-American charities were generally mismanaged because "negroes as a race have not learned the art of working together."(64)
From Self-help to Professional Social Services: Gains and Losses for Black Children
The creation of the public agency out of the Department of Child Placing for Negro Children was a gain for African-American children in some respects. It was the first permanently established agency for them, and it was the first agency to serve them on a non-segregated basis. Further, the requirement that children be of relief-eligible families gave African Americans good access to the Service relative to whites.
Yet the establishment of the public agency also had its drawbacks for African-American children. The agency was underfunded relative to established private agencies, and, after its first years, began to underscore the folk wisdom that "services for the poor will be poor services."(65) Further, the agency removed the pressure from white charities to serve black children, as the declining numbers of blacks accommodated by the ICH&A and the Joint Service Bureau following the creation of the Service attest.(66)
Finally, the increasing reliance on public agencies further limited the ability of the African-American community to control service delivery. Scholars have observed that black social welfare institutions changed form in the pre-Depression years, from the church and club sponsored programs to the Urban League.(67) In the case of Chicago's black dependent children, this shift was a loss. The League's Director served on various committees to determine what could be done to improve the care of dependent children, but he generally deferred to the University of Chicago contingent's recommendations. Moreover, the Chicago Urban League never got involved in the direct provision of services to dependent African-American children.(68) In Illinois, the child welfare system has been--and remains--a "mixed economy," a combination of public and voluntary services. After the public agency emerged, other groups of children continued to have the service option of community-based voluntary programs. As we have seen, African-American children did not. The loss of service options was, then, one consequence of the shift from black self-help to professional social welfare.
Another consequence is the shift in service delivery focus from self-help to social diagnosis and treatment that accompanied the professionalization of social work. For dependent children, this shift meant an increasing focus on identifying the causes of their dependency and on treating perceived psychic harm from being dependent, along with a decreasing emphasis on supporting biological parents and on "industrial" training that would prepare the children for self-sufficiency. A major question, for which there is little evidence, is whether aspects of the black self-help tradition were incorporated into public agencies and into the practice of the growing numbers of professional African-American social workers. That is, could the black community retain some control over service delivery by placing more black workers in the public sector? Edyth Ross suggests that the first African-American social work schools attempted to do this, by incorporating black community studies heavily into the curriculum.(69) On the whole, however, the professional training of social workers and the highly regulated and standardized nature of public bureaucracies placed strong pressures on African Americans to conform to mainstream diagnosis-and-treatment practice ideals.
Finally, a consequence of the shift from self-help to professional social welfare that reverberates to this day is the dearth of resources for dependent African-American children relative to need. This gap has resulted from the isolationism of public agencies from the community, and also from the continued discouragement of self-help efforts by the social welfare establishment.(70) Public child welfare agencies remain inept at "outreach" to African-American communities, and African-American community groups remain largely uninvolved in combatting child abuse and neglect other than to criticize the performance of the public agency. The effective coexistence of self-help and professional human services thus remains a major unresolved dilemma in serving our nation's poor and minorities.
Public Administration Program Chicago, IL 60605-1394
The author wishes to thank Dee Morgan Kilpatrick, Professor of Social Work at the University of Illinois, Chicago, for reading and commenting on an earlier draft.
1. See, for example: June Axinn and Herman Levin, Social Welfare: A History of the American Response to Need (2nd ed., New York, 1982), pp. 127-173; Allen F. Davis, Spearheads for Reform: The Social Settlements and the Progressive Movement 1890-1913 (New York, 1976); Roy Lubove, The Professional Altruist: The Emergence of Social Work as a Career, 1880-1930 (Cambridge, MA, 1965); and David J. Rothman, Conscience and Convenience: The Asylum and its Alternatives in Progressive America (Boston, 1980).
2. Kathleen McCarthy, Noblesse Oblige: Charity and Cultural Philanthropy in Chicago, 1848-1929 (Chicago, 1982), p. 175.
3. Ibid., p. 176.
4. August Meier, Negro Thought in America 1880-1915: Racial Ideologies in the Age of Booker T. Washington (4th ed., Ann Arbor, 1969), p. 121.
5. For discussion of the growth of black self-help efforts nationwide, see: W. E. B. Dubois, ed., Efforts for Social Betterment Among Negro Americans, Atlanta University Publications, No. 14. (Atlanta, 1909); Meier, Negro Thought in America, pp. 121-138; William L. Pollard, A Study of Black Self-Help (San Francisco, 1978); and Edyth Ross, Black Heritage in Social Welfare, 1860-1930 (Metuchen, 1978). For discussion of black self-help in Chicago, see: St. Clair Drake, "Churches and Voluntary Associations in the Chicago Negro Community," Report of the Works Progress Administration, December 1940, mimeo; Philip Jackson, Black Charity in Progressive Era Chicago," The Social Service Review 52 (September 1978): 407-17; and Fannie Barrier Williams, "Social Bonds in the 'Black Belt' of Chicago," Charities 15 (October 7, 1905): 40-43.
6. Philip Jackson, "Black Charity in Progressive Era Chicago."
7. Meier, Negro Thought in America, p. 134; Jackson, "Black Charity in Progressive Era Chicago," p. 413.
8. Edyth Ross, "Black Heritage in Social Welfare: A Case Study of Atlanta," Phylon 37 (Winter, 1976): 301-302; Ross, Black Heritage in Social Welfare, pp. 436-37 and 452.
9. Linda Gordon, "Black and White Visions of Welfare: Women's Welfare Activism, 1890-1945," Journal of American History (September 1991): 559-589.
10. Grace Abbott, The Child and the State, Vol. 2 (Chicago, 1938), pp. 3-20; Robert Bremner, ed., Children and Youth in America: A Documentary History, Vol. 2 (Cambridge, MA, 1971), pp. 247-438; Henry W. Thurston, The Dependent Child (New York, 1930).
11. Clare L. McCausland, Children of Circumstance: A History of the First 125 Years (1849-1974) of Chicago Child Care Society (Chicago, 1976), pp. 1-6.
12. Data computed from reports of the U.S. Eleventh Census and the U.S. Twelfth Census, table entitled "Ages by periods of years of the aggregate population, classified by sex, general nativity, and color, for cities having 25,000 inhabitants or more.
13. For a discussion of the growth of segregation in the 1890s, see: John Hope Franklin, From Slavery to Freedom: A History of Negro Americans, 5th ed. (New York, 1980), pp. 251-267, 295-313; Meier, Negro Thought in America, pp. 19-82; and C. Vann Woodward, The Strange Career of Jim Crow, 2nd ed. (New York, 1966).
For a discussion of growing segregation in Chicago, see: St. Clair Drake, and Horace R. Cayton, Black Metropolis: A Study of Negro Life in a Northern City, Vol. 1 (New York, 1970), pp. 20-24; Melvin G. Holli and Peter d'A. Jones, The Ethnic Frontier: Group Survival in Chicago and the Midwest (Grand Rapids, MI, 1977), pp. 215-218; Allen H. Spear, Black Chicago: The Making of a Negro Ghetto, 1890-1920 (Chicago, 1967).
14. DuBois, Efforts for Social Betterment Among Negro Americans and Pollard, A Study of Black Self-Help, St. Clair Drake, "Churches and Voluntary Associations in the Chicago Negro Community," Jackson, "Black Charity in Progressive Era Chicago," 401-17; and Williams, "Social Bonds in the 'Black Belt' of Chicago," 40-43.
15. Charlotte Ashby Crawley, "Dependent Negro Children in Chicago in 1926," Master's thesis, University of Chicago, 1927, p. 82; Sylvia Dannett, "Amanda Berry Smith (1837-1915): AME Evangelist," Profiles in Negro Womanhood, Vol. 1 (Yonkers, 1964); Amanda Berry Smith, An Autobiography of the Lord's Dealings with Mrs. Amanda Smith the Colored Evangelist (Chicago, 1969), reprint.
16. DuBois, Some Efforts for Social Betterment, p. 79.
17. "First Annual Report of the Department of Visitation of Children Placed in Family Homes," in Report of the Board of Public Charities, 1906, p. 322.
18. Crawley, "Dependent Negro Children," pp. 82-3.
19. DuBois, Some Efforts for Social Betterment, pp. 79-81.
20. Crawley, "Dependent Negro Children," pp. 86-90; Miss B. H. Haynes to Mr. W. S. Reynolds, January 9, 1915, Illinois Children's Home and Aid Society MSS, University of Illinois at Chicago Circle (UIC) Archives, Box 30.
21. Elmer P. Martin and Joanne Mitchell Martin, The Black Extended Family (Chicago, 1978).
22. Andrew Billingsley and Jeanne M. Giovannoni, Children of the Storm: Black Children and American Child Welfare (New York, 1972); Jackson, "Black Charity in Progressive Era Chicago," 401-17.
23. See Note #5.
24. Special message by the president of the United States to the Senate and House of Representatives at the conclusion of the White House Conference Meeting of 1909. Reprinted in Dependent and Neglected Children, Report of the Committee on Socially Handicapped--Dependency and Neglect--of the White House Conference on Child Health and Protection (New York, 1933), p. 56.
25. Kathleen McCarthy, Noblesse Oblige: Charity and Cultured Philanthropy in Chicago, 1848-1929 (Chicago, 1982), pp. 125-48; David J. Rothman, Conscience and Convenience: The Asylum and its Alternatives in Progressive America (New York, 1980).
26. Ibid.; also, Mitchell Alan Horwich, Conflict and Child Care Policy in the Chicago Jewish Community, 1893-1942 (Chicago, 1977).
27. Miss B. H. Haynes to Reynolds, January 9, 1913, Illinois Children's Home and Aid Society MSS, UIC, Box 30.
28. Edna L. Foley to Reynolds, January 10, 1913, Illinois Children's Home and Aid Society MSS, UIC, Box 30.
29. Adah Waters to Wilfred Reynolds, March 27, 1918; Reynolds to Waters, January 22, 1919, Illinois Children's Home and Aid Society MSS, UIC, Box 75; and Elizabeth Lindsay Davis, The Story of the Illinois Federation of Colored Women's Clubs (Chicago, n.p., 1922), pp. 102-03.
30. Suzanne Ruth Chatfield, "A Study of the Federated Home for Dependent Negro Children" (Master's thesis, University of Chicago, 1941); Federated Club Woman's Home for Dependent Colored Children," report dated July 27, 1932, Welfare Council MSS, Chicago Historical Society, Box 317.
31. Jackson, "Black Charity in Progressive Era Chicago"; August Meier, Negro Thought in America, pp. 149-157.
32. "Minutes of the Special Meeting Called to Consider Plans for the Amanda Smith Home for Girls," December 6, 1918, Illinois Children's Home and Aid Society MSS, UIC, Box 75; Leo Philips to Amelia Sears, March 1919, Julius Rosenwald MSS, University of Chicago, Box 11.
33. Edith Abbott to Reynolds, January 10, 1913, Illinois Children's Home and Aid Society MSS, UIC, Box 30.
34. Amelia Sears and Edith Wyatt to William C. Graves, June 27, 1919, Julius Rosenwald MSS, University of Chicago, Box 11; Minutes of the Meeting of the Board of Directors of the Illinois Children's Home and Aid Society of June 27, 1919, Illinois Children's Home and Aid Society MSS, UIC, Box 11.
35. Wilfred S. Reynolds, "A History of the Society," Home Life for Childhood 7 (November-December 1918): 1-7.
36. Edith Abbott to Reynolds, January 10, 1913, Illinois Children's Home and Aid Society MSS, UIC, Box 30.
37. "Summary of Year's Work and Estimated Budget for Colored Children: January 1 to December 31, 1920," Julius Rosenwald MSS, University of Chicago, Box 11; "37th Annual Report for 1920," Home Life for Childhood 9 (March 1920): 6; Edith Wyatt to Francis Shephardson, March 3, 1922, Julius Rosenwald MSS, University of Chicago, Box 11.
38. Wyatt to Shephardson, March 3, 1922.
39. St. Clair Drake and Horace R. Cayton, Black Metropolis: A Study of Negro Life in a Northern City, Vol. 1, rev. ed. (New York, 1970).
40. A.K. Stern, memo, "Summary of Investigation of the Colored Children's Auxiliary, the Department of the Illinois Children's Home and Aid Society Providing Home Placement for Negroes," December 23, 1926, Julius Rosenwald MSS, University of Chicago, Box 11.
41. Irene Graham, "Negroes in Chicago, 1920: An Analysis of United States Census Data," (Master's thesis, University of Chicago, 1929).
42. Crawley, "Dependent Negro Children in Chicago in 1926," pp. 78-80.
43. "Memorandum in Regard to Facilities for Care of Colored Dependent Children," February 1928, Illinois Children's Home and Aid Society MSS, UIC, Box 30.
44. Minutes of the meeting of the Board of Directors of the Illinois Children's Home and Aid Society, June 15, 1928, Illinois Children's Home and Aid Society MSS, Box 11; C. V. Williams to Edith Abbott, April 8, 1932, Illinois Children's Home and Aid Society MSS, UIC, Box 30.
45. Bertha Hosford to C. V. Williams, August 13, 1928; Hosford to Williams, October 4, 1928; and C. V. Williams to MacArthur, October 25, 1928, Illinois Children's Home and Aid Society MSS, UIC, Box 30.
46. Grace Elizabeth White, "Some Problems of Child Placing Agencies and Settlement and Neighborhood Houses in Chicago, 1929-1932: A Study of Some Effects of the Early Depression" (Master's thesis, University of Chicago, 1934), p. 68.
47. Helen Lasker Gilmartin, "Psychiatric Treatment of Dependent Negro Children" (Master's thesis, University of Chicago, 1940).
48. Social Service Yearbook for 1933 (Chicago, 1934), p. 30.
49. Sandra M. Stehno, "Public Responsibility for Dependent Black Children: The Advocacy of Edith Abbott and Sophonisba Breckinridge," Social Service Review 62 (September 1988): 485-503.
50. Edith Abbott to Wilfred Reynolds, January 10, 1913, Illinois Children's Home and Aid Society MSS, Box 30, UIC Archives.
51. Philip Jackson, "Black Charity in Progressive Era Chicago," pp. 414-415.
52. Fannie Barrier Williams, "Social Bonds in the 'Black Belt,'" p. 41.
53. "First Annual Report of the Department of Visitation of Children Placed in Family Homes," pp. 322-23; "Second Annual Report of the Department of Visitation of Children Placed in Family Homes," p. 233.
54. "Report of the Committee Appointed Pursuant to House Joint Resolution No. 36, To Inquire into the Methods of All Societies, Etc., Handling and Disposing of Children, Jan. 1, 1915," unpublished report available in the Illinois State Archives, pp. 380, 879.
55. Reynolds to Minnie Low, December 17, 1912, Illinois Children's Home and Aid society MSS, UIC Archives, Box 30; Reynolds to Arnold, Bartelme, Graves, and Hill, March 26, 1919, Illinois Children's Home and Aid Society MSS, UIC, Box 75.
56. E. C. Wentworth to Reynolds, October 17, 1913, Illinois Children's Home and Aid society MSS, UIC, Box 75.
57. Crawley, "Dependent Negro Children in Chicago in 1926," pp. 84-5; Reynolds to Arnold, March 26, 1918, Illinois Children's Home and Aid Society MSS, UIC, Box 75.
58. Ruth Powell, "Morgan Park Home," notes of periodic inspections from October 13, 1930 to January 1, 1932, Welfare Council MSS, Chicago Historical Society, Box 317.
59. Sixth Annual Report of the Department of Visitation of Children Placed in Family Homes, Board of Administration of the State of Illinois, For the Year Ending December 31, 1911, p. 28 and p. 120; Seventh Annual Report of the Department of Visitation of Children Placed in Family Homes, For the Year Ending December 31, 1913, pp. 50, 51, 57.
60. Suzanne Chatfield, "A Study of the Federated Home."
61. W. S. Reynolds, "Memorandum of Report of Conference on Campaign for Funds by Organizations Operating in the South Side District," Welfare Council MSS, University of Chicago, Box 4; Wilfred S. Reynolds to Raymond Rubinow, April 26, 1930, Julius Rosenwald MSS, University of Chicago, Box 11; Committee of Reynolds, Abbott, Evans, Foster, Kepecs and Rubinow to the Social Agencies of Chicago, July 21, 1930, Welfare Council MSS, CHS, Box 145.
62. Irene Graham, "Report of the South Side Survey of Social Agencies, Chicago 1930," Julius Rosenwald MSS, University of Chicago, Box 11; "Report of the South Side Survey: April, 1931: Chicago, Illinois," Julius Rosenwald MSS, University of Chicago, Box 12.
63. Irene Graham, "Six Months of the South Side Survey, July 1-December 20, 1930," Welfare Council MSS, CHS, Box 145.
64. "Report of South Side Survey: April 1931: Chicago, Illinois," Julius Rosenwald MSS, University of Chicago, Box 12.
65. Genevieve Josephine Gabower, "A Study of One Hundred Cases Referred to Children's and Minors' Service from January 15 to July 15, 1935" (Master's thesis, University of Chicago, 1936); The Social Service Year Book for 1935 (Chicago, 1936), p. 32.
66. "Report of the Realignment Committee of the Council of Social Agencies," Chicago Council of Social Agencies, 1937.
67. See Note #7.
68. Arvarh E. Strickland, History of the Chicago Urban League (Urbana, 1966), pp. 25-103.
69. Edyth Ross, Black Heritage in Social Welfare, pp. 436, 437, and 452.
70. Andrew Billingsley and Jeanne M. Giovannoni, Children of the Storm: Black Children and American Child Welfare (New York, 1972); Sandra M. Stehno, "The Elusive Continuum of Care: Implications for Minority Children and Youths," Child Welfare 69 (November-December 1990): 551-562.…