It is far easier to drop into slipshod methods of admin istration than to maintain a high standard of real effi ciency. It is easier to decide to give half a ton of coal to all of the " deserving " families making application for it than to deal intelligently with each family, giving in some instances, when it is right to do so, several tons of coal, and in other instances merely a bucketful, until other and really adequate means are found of relieving the real or apparent distress, and in still others, where it may be done without too much danger, leaving the applicants to learn by personal privation the necessity for saving, from even a meagre income, sufficient for the purchase of fuel and of other necessaries. When the city gives a pension of $50 a year to all of the indigent blind who have resided in it for two years, it affords a shining example of inadequate relief. The indigent blind can no more be thrown into a general class and treated in a wholesale manner than can the indigent who have lost one eye or those who have failed in the management of fruit-stands. The principle upon which the charity organization societies insist is that relief should be adequate in amount, however large the number of persons or agencies that must unite to provide it, that it must be adapted to its purpose, not consisting, for exam ple, of broken food, if the need is for a shovel to enable one to take work ; that the miserable habit of finding petty excuses for acceding to the wishes of the applicant against the real judgment of the one who makes the deci sion, must be absolutely abandoned. A case record which fell into the hands of the writer recently tells the story of four generations of dependency caused directly by the character of the persons constituting the three generations which had reached maturity. An agent to whom these facts were . or should have been known, calling at the request of some citizen who had referred the case, gave groceries upon the first visit, entering upon the record " Family seems unworthy. Gave groceries because family lives in basement and father attempts to provide other wise." There was no explanation of what "otherwise" meant, but it could truthfully mean only otherwise than by honest labor ; and the action of the visitor is another instance of inadequate relief.
The charity organization societies are not exempt from the danger of demoralization. They are liable to precisely the same danger as relief societies, associations for improv ing the condition of the poor, and individual citizens who desire to be charitable. Investigation may become with them, as with others, a perfunctory and meaningless thing. For cooperation, in the proper sense of that term, there may be substituted an easy acquiescence in suggestions made by other societies or agencies, whether sensible or not. Relief for which these societies are responsible may become routine, inadequate, and inefficient. If the best societies have kept free to a considerable extent from these dangers, and have constantly renewed the high standards and the intelligent methods which at the be ginning, as we have seen, have characterized other move ments for the better organization of charity as well as their own, this happy result is due, in a very large meas ure, to the single fact that they have not, as a rule, directly disbursed relief from a fund previously accu mulated, but have, instead, obtained their relief, case by case, as it is needed for individual families. Emergent, or interim, relief must of course be available at a moment's notice, but much the greater part of the relief required may be obtained and held in trust for the family or the indi vidual who needs it. As an investigating and relief obtaining agency, it is constantly necessary for the charity organization society to justify its decisions to others to secure their assent and to win their approval. As an agency for promoting cooperation, it is necessary for the society to appeal strongly and convincingly to all branches of the charitable public. It has little temptation to be
come sentimental, and its work can be kept upon a basis of broad common sense, honest dealing with facts at first hand, maintaining a due proportion between various kinds of charitable needs, and shunning those forms of charitable activity which win easy but fleeting popularity. Even those who are not attracted by the ideal of the charity organization societies, because they do not fully under stand it, nevertheless pay a tribute to their insistence upon high standards, to their thoroughness of method, and to their uncompromising refusal to applaud enter prises which are called charitable, and in which their pro moters have great faith, unless they are really of advantage to the poor.
Of course such a position as this in the community is not, in the long run, an unenviable or even an unpopular one. In some of the older cities it is noticeable that many who were once hostile to the charity organization societies have become cordial, that attacks upon them have become less frequent, while in many of the cities in which socie ties have recently been formed they have escaped the misunderstandings and controversies which had seemed inevitable.
The controversies have, however, not always arisen from a misapprehension of the objects and methods of the societies. Pursuant to their aim of bringing about a bet ter organization of the charitable work of the community, they have often encountered antiquated, mismanaged, and, in some instances, wholly dishonest, so-called charities, and it has been a part of their duty to expose these false claimants upon the generosity of the public. Unfortu nately, very respectable citizens, who have carelepsly allowed their names to be used in connection with en terprises about which they knew little or nothing, have sometimes been affected by these exposures, and while there are instances in which they have immediately joined in the attempt to correct abuses and punish serious of fenders, there are other instances in which they have been led by personal resentment to attack the agency which is responsible for allowing the facts to be known, rather than the evils in question.
Besides the enemies which have arisen in this manner, there are many excellent people who are unable to agree with the decision reached by the societies in regard to the treatment of particular cases of destitution in which they are personally interested. They are disappointed that some other course has not been followed, and they refuse to credit the sincerity of the society in its different view, or they even neglect to ascertain what the divergent view really is. In any given case, the representatives of the society may form a mistaken judgment, and the one who feels that he has a grievance against the society may be entirely in the right as to the course which should have been taken. It is, however, probable that the number of persons who from disappointment or resentment at the action taken, or at a failure to act, may finally become con siderably greater than the number of mistakes made by the society would warrant, and a few discontented citi zens may easily establish a general public opinion unfav orable to the methods and practice of the society. All this is to be obviated only by tact in explaining the rea sons for the particular decision made and a perfect readi ness to discuss the questions involved with any who have a legitimate interest in them. Coupled with this, how ever, there should be, and to an increasing extent there is in fact, a persistent and reiterated emphasis upon the con structive and positive sides of the work of the charity organization societies, and repeated demonstration of the actual value of the results obtained in individual instances.