the relief of 34 widows with 106 children, and from January I to November 1, 1917, granted relief to the amount of $3,634.40 to 28 widows with 92 children.

Suffolk County. This county during the year ending October 31, 1917, granted relief amounting to $9,937.50 to 67 widows with 201 children. This Board believes that much has been done towards improving the health of the mothers and the children under its care.

Tompkins County. In 1916 the sum of $500 was expended in this county for the relief of 6 widows with 19 children, while in 1917, up to September 1, the sum of $670 was expended for the relief of 4 widows with 13 children.

Wayne County. In this county the sum of $1,622 was expended during 1916 for the relief of 14 widows with 42 children.

Yates County. During 1916 this county expended $290 for the relief of 5 widows with II children. During the first 9 months of 1917 it expended $292 for the relief of 4 widows with 9 children.

From the Boards of Child Welfare of the Counties of Clinton, Columbia, Franklin, Fulton, Greene, Jefferson, Orange, Orleans, Saratoga, Schenectady, Schoharie, Schuyler, Tioga, Ulster, Washington, Westchester and Wyoming, I learn that no appropriations for the work have been made by their respective boards of supervisors. This is, unfortunately, doubtless the case in other counties.

From Mr. Charles H. Johnson, Secretary of the State Board of Charities, I have received the following interesting data for the year 1916:

57 Counties have organized Boards of Child Welfare in New York State.

32 Counties have made appropriations.

25 Counties have made no appropriation.

I County has no Board (Hamilton County).

Total amount of appropriations for the thirty-two Counties — $1,631,371.

Number of children cared for during the nine months ending June 30, 1916, 6,384, representing 1,983 families.

Number of children discharged from supervision of Boards, 326.

Number of children remaining under care of Boards on June 30, 1916, 6,058, representing 1,873 families.

Total amount of appropriations made for the year, 1916, $692,671.49.

Total expenditures for the nine months ending June 30, 1916, $179,974.73.

While the operations of the Child Welfare Law are successful in the City of New York where the statute was most urgently needed for reasons hereinbefore explained, and in other large centers of population, there are, as will be seen, many counties of the State in which it is inoperative because of the failure of the boards of supervisors to make appropriations. Such boards, unfortunately, seem to prefer to continue the old methods of relief, too much mixed up with politics, through the regular poor law officers of the locality.

Summarizing the situation, as I am disposed to view it, several things are of the utmost importance in this work. They are, briefly stated, as follows:

(1) Child Welfare Boards should be established and properly supported in every county in the State. They should be composed of the best and highest type of citizenship, as the Child Welfare Law contemplates, in order to keep this most important work out of the rut of ordinary politics. The mere fact that some counties have at present good and high minded Poor Law officers who can dispense relief satisfactorily under the provisions of the Poor Law is no reason why the system of relief to widows and their children should not be safeguarded by Child Welfare Boards of high character during all the years to come, even after such poor law officers have, in the course of time, been gathered to their fathers.

(2) The Law should be somewhat modified and broadened in its scope. Widows and their children born here should be brought under the beneficent provisions of the Law, which was purposely made narrow during its trial period so as to avoid every possible evil and abuse.

(3) Further, it is a question as to whether or not all chil

dren requiring public relief in the home or elsewhere, should not be brought under the care of the Child Welfare Boards. Perhaps this should not be done immediately, but it is a question worthy of consideration by this and other bodies interested in the care of children as to whether or not this should not be the ultimate aim of those interested in the work of these Boards.

THE CHAIRMAN: We are glad to have the expression of those of practical experience; we have such a person tonight, Mr. George G. Prince, of the Office of the Superintendent of the Poor, of Erie County, Buffalo, whom I will ask to open the discussion on this paper.

MR. GEORGE G. PRINCE: Mr. Chairman Mr. Chairman - Ladies and Gentlemen of the Conference:

I read, with a great deal of interest, Mrs. Einstein's paper, which was sent to me a few days since. I had also read her paper delivered at the New York State Conference of Charities and Correction of 1910, and as the law advocated by her in that paper has become a reality, the plans as suggested in it being carried out almost to the letter by enactment of Chapter 228 of the laws of 1915, also known as Article 7-A of the General Municipal Law, or Chapter 24 of the Consolidated laws, providing for Child Welfare Boards, and, the results of the law's operation being fully what had been hoped for by her, I did not feel that her ideas could have been changed materially since then. Mrs. Einstein's paper dwells on what has been accomplished in the way of betterment of the condition of widows with children, so that it is not necessary for me to enter into that phase of the subject to any extent. To my personal knowledge, I know that her statements are conservative.

The special phase I wish to dwell upon more particularly is the need of extension of the powers of the Child Welfare Boards, and I recommend the following amendments:

Ist. By eliminating from Subdivision 1, Sec. 153, the words: "for a period of two years immediately preceding the application, and whose deceased husband was a citizen of the United 'States and a resident of the State at the time of his death."

2nd. Repealing the whole of Subdivision 4 of Section 153, which provides that the allowance made shall not exceed the amount that it would cost to maintain the children in an institution.

3rd. By amending the law, empowering such Boards to provide necessary temporary medical attendance in the home, and such dental treatment of the members of the family as may be required.

4th. A general amendment of the law to make it apply to all resident families where children are involved, who must be supported in either the family home or institution, thus placing the destitute and neglected children under the control of the Child Welfare Board.

5th. Amend Section 154 to make the appropriation of funds for the Child Welfare Board mandatory.

The law, as enacted, provides that only widows with children who are residents of the county or city for at least two years, immediately preceding the application, and whose husbands were citizens of the United States and residents of the State at the time of their death, are entitled to consideration by the Boards of Child Welfare.

There are many widows who should not be debarred from consideration by this Board simply because the husband has neglected to perform his duty to the United States by becoming naturalized. The time that a family should be required to live in a county or city before being entitled to consideration should be only that of having acquired a legal settlement, as provided by Section 40 of the Poor Law, which in our State is one year. In other words, the wife should not suffer because of the husband's omissions.

Subdivision 4, Section 153, provides that the allowance fixed by the Board for the care of children with a widowed mother, shall not exceed the cost to the public to maintain the children in an institution. While the law does not say that the widow shall not work, it does say that she shall give the children proper care and supervision. In the case of a widow with two children, it is utterly impossible for her to maintain herself and children on what the Board is able to allow her under its present limitation,

which in the County of Erie is $6 per week for the care of two children. If she happens to be a woman able to do work at home which would help her to make up the difference of the cost of maintenance of the family, she might get along very well. If, however she were only able to do housework, washing or scrubbing, as many of them are, then it would be necessary to have the children cared for in a Day Nursery or leave them alone without supervision, or with friends who might possibly look after them, or receive additional aid from other sources. This does not carry out the spirit or intent of the law. Therefore, I consider that the Board should not be limited in its allowance, but be permitted to give such an amount as will meet the needs of the family.

It further should be within the power of the Board to furnish necessary dental or medical attention to the mother, or especially to the children who come under her supervision. The allowances made at the present time are only those necessary to maintain the family in food and clothing and shelter. In order that the family may have the aforesaid necessities provided, application must be made either to the Superintendent of Poor, Overseer of the Poor of the Town, or private charities, thus dividing the responsibility for the relief of the family.

Section 154 makes it permissive for the Board of Supervisors of a County, and the Board of Estimate and Apportionment and the Board of Aldermen of a City, to which the article is applicable, annually, to appropriate such a sum as may be required to carry out the provision of this article. In twenty-five Counties of the State the Law has been inoperative because of the failure of the boards upon which rests the responsibility for making appropriation to provide necessary funds.

Mrs. Einstein has suggested a general modification of the law to apply to all families where children are involved. I believe this is the proper course, and the Board's power should be broad enough to deal with the problem where permanent outdoor relief must be furnished. The overseers of the poor of the towns and many of the cities are limited in the amount of relief they are allowed to furnish. In the City of Buffalo, the precedent was established years ago that the Department of Poor allow not