THE RELIEF OF FAMILIES AT HOME Having completed our survey of those relief policies which affect more or less directly all classes of the com munity, we may now turn to more distinctively charitable tasks. Among these we are to distinguish on the one hand the relief of the poor in their homes, and on the other, the care of children and of dependent adults who do not remain in their homes.
Those who, not being aged or disabled by illness or by any such complete mental infirmity as would make insti tutional care essential, still require help at their own homes, constitute the most complex and diversified class. In statistics of public relief, they are often distinguished from almshouse inmates as being in receipt of " partial support." An inference naturally drawn from this classi fication of paupers as those who are receiving "full sup port " and those who are receiving "partial support," has been of great comfort to advocates of public outdoor relief, since nothing appears more plausible than that it is cheaper for a community to give partial than to give full support. Those who hold that relief in the homes of'the poor should not be supplied from public funds, or that it should be reduced to a minimum, contend, on the other hand, that full support is the more economical, since the number of beneficiaries is universally less when only full support is offered. It is obvious that many persons would accept aid from the public treasury if allowed to remain at home, who would not wish to become inmates of a public insti tution, even though the amount of aid which they receive at home is less than the cost of their maintenance in the almshouse.
Almsgiving to street beggars, or to those who apply at the door, is another method — however reprehensible 73 of giving aid to applicants in their homes. The homes which such mendicants may claim are, indeed, likely to be low-class boarding-houses, casual shelters, or other make shifts as devoid as possible of all the elements of a normal home. Since, however, money is given outright, and no attempt is made to control the action of its recipients, it must be classed, like that distributed by public officials, with aid given to the poor in their homes.
Vastly more important than either of the above, whether greater or less in actual amount, is the relief distributed by clergymen, deacons, and others who represent the churches in their care of the poor ; and voluntary associ ations, founded either for the purpose of caring generally for the poor or for the care of some particular class, such as widows with young children, or working upon a basis of nationality or a community bond, as, for example, in New York City, the St. George's Society and the New England Society, both of which, although social rather than elee mosynary, have nevertheless created relief funds for the aid, respectively, of destitute Englishmen stranded in the community, or destitute persons of New England origin.
Doubtless it would be found that the aid given by pri vate individuals to those who appeal to them personally, if any tabulation of such aid were possible, is even greater in amount and of even greater significance in its social aspects than what is disbursed by such organized charities as have been just mentioned. When we speak of relief given to the dependent poor in their homes, it will be understood, then, that we include what is given in this way by individuals, by relief agencies, by churches, and by public officials charged with the relief of destitution.
Certain broad differences are clear between relief in the homes of the dependent and relief given in institutions, or in any other manner. The normal family, which is the unit of society, depends for the means of livelihood upon the exertions of one or more of its own members. It is self-contained — independent of outsiders. Its domestic circle is sacred. The standard of living may be high or low. The income may be liberal or the necessities of life barely supplied. Between the family which is thus self dependent and that of the true pauper there is a most striking contrast. The pauper type, whether in receipt of beggarly alms or of generous income, is a shameless and insolvent social debtor.