The Contribution Of The Community Chest To Community Welfare Planning

By Rowland Haynes, Secretary, University of Chicago

A Paper Presented at the The National Conference of Social Work Formerly National Conference of Charities and Correction at The Fifty-Fifth Annual Session Held in Memphis, Tennessee May 2-9, 1928

The theme of the entire program of meetings of Division VIII this year as set down by the program committee is a discussion of “…the ways in which groups of people can be brought to think harmoniously and to act unitedly in matters of common interest.” The purpose of this paper is to indicate what contribution has been made by community chests to the ways of getting people to think harmoniously and to act unitedly in matters of community welfare.

The paper will first give five illustrations of aid by community chests to community planning. We shall then try to see what elements there are in these contributions which are peculiar to community chests as distinguished from councils of social agencies. We shall then discuss the contribution of community funds to the tools of community organization. And lastly we shall try to see what is the significance of these contributions to planning and organization for community action in other fields.

Illustrations of contributions of community funds to community planning. — First, community chests have contributed much to the analysis of community resources being used for the welfare programs. They have in many cities drawn up with approximate correctness an estimate of what is coming out of the community pocketbook for welfare activities. They have analyzed the amount coming from voluntary contributions, from earnings of such agencies as hospitals and Young Men’s Christian Associations, from endowment, and from tax support. For a really comprehensive plan for community welfare we need to know the amount of work needed, the amount of work being done, the financial resources of the community, and how much of these resources is being used for welfare projects. This analysis of the use of community resources has helped to give comprehensiveness to planning for community welfare. Not only have individual agencies seen that their budget problems and needs for contributions were only a part of the needs of all social agencies, but that in many cases governmental agencies were putting in more from tax support than all of the contributed help combined.

Second, community chests have greatly advanced the analysis of the relationship of capital account needs to current maintenance needs. This analysis grew out of the practical situation which arose soon after the war when many cities had a flood of demands for buildings for philanthropic agencies. This led to various efforts to spread these capital account campaigns and at last to the accumulation of experience as to how much these campaigns for buildings cut into the money available for maintenance. Out of this experience and analysis has come the recognition of the fact that a larger percentage of contributions to capital accounts must come from the wealthy, namely, from accumulated capital, than is the case in maintenance campaigns. In maintenance campaigns we are justified in seeking a contribution from all incomes, large or small. In other words, it is possible to increase the number of givers and somewhat spread the load. It has, however, been found that for capital account expenditures the load cannot be spread anywhere nearly as much as with maintenance campaigns. This analysis has further shown that appeals for capital cannot wisely be linked with appeals for maintenance. This conclusion has arisen from the fact that appeals for capital must be for a more restricted purpose-for a single type of work and often for the expansion of a limited part of the program under that type of work. A community fund maintenance appeal, however, includes a considerable variety of causes. Apparently it is not successful to link a restricted cause with a very broad and widely appealing cause.

Third, community funds have helped in the analysis of the factors influencing the relative urgencies of different types of welfare work. Because budget committees have had to sit down before the whole welfare program and its financing, or at least before the financing program of a considerable group of agencies, and because the amount of money available is always less than the amount of money needed, budget committees have been forced to reckon with the problem of relative urgencies. While these practical committees have not run off into social philosophies, they have considered quite directly such questions as the effect of the number of persons reached by the different agencies on the relative urgency of their work. They have considered the bearing of the age of persons benefiting by given charities on the relative urgency of different charities. Thus they have seen that the work for children is frequently more important than that for the aged. They have seen clearly that the bearing of the help given to critical life needs determines relative urgency. Thus they have easily stressed hospital and relief work ahead of certain types of recreation work. Yet to their credit it should be said that the character building appeal, so long as it is based on performance and not on sentimentality, has always been strong, and they have seen the importance of such character building as determining the relative urgency of appropriations. The efficiency of service rendered by the agency has been quickly recognized as a factor influencing the urgency, not of the type of work needed, but of the type of work actually done.

Fourth, the three foregoing illustrations have been from the work of community chests in various cities. Let us turn now to two activities of the chests working together through their national organization and contributions made by this joint action to community planning. The chests together have for the last four years been studying the statistics of social work, particularly those having to do with the amount of work done and the costs. This has gone through the stage of a preliminary survey, the stage of discovering what cannot be reasonably expected at this period from such statistics, and has now entered upon the stage of a definite cooperative enterprise between the national Association of Community Chests and Councils and the University of Chicago, whereby it is hoped to get statistics based on accurate monthly reporting in certain selected cities. Just as birth and death statistics over a period of years have been the basis of much of our public health planning, so these studies are likely to be the basis of future intelligent improvement of social work. They are likely to be used much more widely than by the particular group of chests collecting them. They are likely eventually to give us hints for methods of studying quality as well as quantity of social work.

Fifth, this national group of chests has this last winter held in Washington a Conference on Community Responsibility for Human Welfare. This conference had many things which are common to all such meetings, that is, the study of the practice of different chests in regard to specific problems. In this the conference was not unique; it was not unlike many other conferences where people get together to compare notes on their different methods. It seems to me, however, that the conference was unique in the two following respects: First, it put a new emphasis on the fact that responsibility for human welfare is a community responsibility. Just what do we mean by this? That welfare work is everybody’s business? No, not exactly, because what is everybody’s business is nobody’s business, and not felt as the responsibility of anyone. During the opening years of the twentieth century we heard much in the discussion of corporations of the phrase “Guilt is always personal.” In the same way responsibility is always personal and individual. By saying that responsibility for human welfare is a community responsibility we mean that it is a responsibility resting on an individual from the fact that he lives in a community, not merely from the fact that he happens to come in contact with persons in need. The older idea of responsibility for welfare work was summarized by the question, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” It was a responsibility which came from contact. This conference was unique in its emphasis on the fact that responsibility for human welfare is a responsibility of the individual from the fact that he is a member of the community. With the growth of large cities and the breaking up of opportunities for personal neighborly contacts, the strength of this source of responsibility needs to be clarified. Emphasizing this source of responsibility was a real contribution of the chests.

In the second place, the conference also made a contribution in catching the significance of the national relationships of the welfare programs of individual communities. For instance, it recognized that community work in an individual community is influenced by its relationship to national agencies which are organized, not on a community basis, but on the basis of specialized interests. The conference also discussed the relationship of national corporations giving to local community welfare work. In other words the conference caught problems, not merely of local practice, but also two significant relationships with two groups of national organizations, one a welfare group, the other a business group.

Elements in these contributions which are peculiar to community chests. Since Mr. Homer Folks has covered so effectively the aims of a council of social agencies, not related to central financing, it is appropriate that I confine myself to those elements that are peculiar to chests or to councils that are tied up integrally to central financing. Many of the things which Mr. Folks has said on the objectives of such a council I should be glad to reiterate, but I shall confine myself to the other phase, namely, the contribution of community chests as such.

First, community chests have added the important element of a definite time for reaching decisions on social welfare questions. A campaign has to be put on at a definite time. The budgets have to be prepared, or at least the total askings have to be indicated by a certain time before the campaign. In other words, decisions in regard to social welfare questions for the ensuing year have to be made by a definite date. There is a great difference between deciding a thing some time and deciding it by a definite time. Councils of social agencies may reach decisions, and often do, but they rarely have a definite period when decisions have to be reached. This necessity for an annual time for decisions has made social work advance step by step more certainly in chest cities than in non-chest cities.

Second, similarly community funds have given definiteness to decisions of relative urgency. You all know the old story of the peddler’s cart which is upset by a passing vehicle and all his wares left dirty or ruined. The crowd of onlookers is sympathetic and full of verbal regrets. One of the bystanders pulls off his hat and throws in a dollar and says, “That is how much I care. How much do you care?” Similarly, without central financing we may go through hours of committee meetings and discussions as to the relative urgency of different types of social work without coming to a definite decision as to how much more urgent, measured in the terms of dollars and cents of the funds available, one piece of work is than another for that particular community at that particular time of its social history. With chests this judgment of relative urgency has to be clearly stated. Such statement is a real contribution to understanding and progress.

Third, another contribution, and perhaps the most important one, of community chests has been found in the fact that they have interested more and bigger people in welfare projects. They have not only secured more contributors and more publicity on the welfare needs of the community, but they have enlisted more of the sort of people who are influential in the community to consider welfare needs. There have always been a choice group of thoughtful citizens who have given loyal service on the boards of charitable agencies, but the community chest movement has swept into this service, not only this restricted group, but a very large number of other men and women of intelligence who have devoted hours of time and work on budget committees, campaign teams, and the like. A striking illustration of this was noted during the last winter by a welfare worker who has occasion to travel a good deal through the country. One week he attended a committee meeting in a community chest city where the question of unemployment was being canvassed. At this meeting were many business men in close touch with the unemployment situation. They definitely voted money to help in the situation and worked out a way to get this additional money. In another city visited two weeks later there was a council of social agencies unrelated to a central financing organization. They too met to discuss unemployment. No business men were present; only a small group of social workers met, and they came to the sapient conclusion that every business firm should employ 5 per cent more workers; in other words, that jobs should be created by fiat not by economic conditions. Business men are not much interested in advisory committees. Experience with the community chest shows that they are interested and willing to give sacrificing service on committees which have real decisions to make. The community chest has made a real contribution by interesting not only more people but also more of the responsible people in the welfare program.

The contribution of the community chest to the tools of community organization. — There is a difference between community planning and community organization. It is indicated by the theme for this group of meetings set down by the program committee when they spoke of both “thinking harmoniously and acting unitedly.” Community planning has to do with thinking harmoniously. Community organization has to do with acting unitedly. What has the community chest contributed to the tools of community organization? We know, for instance, that political parties organize whole communities and have developed special machinery therefor. We know that public service corporations and business groups, like chambers of commerce, have organized whole communities and developed their own type of machinery. It is significant for the task of community work to note where the tool developed by community chests is different from the tool developed by these other activities.

For definiteness in comparison let us ask ourselves with regard to a political party, a public service corporation, and a community chest three questions: First, whom are they organizing? Second, what do they want the people organized to do? Third, what peculiar tool have they contributed to the general art of community organization?

Turning to the illustration of political parties, we find that they are organizing or attempting to organize all registered voters, that they are trying to get these voters to vote their ticket, and that their peculiar tool is the development of the precinct and ward leaders with ward and city committees of the party. Turning to public service corporations, we find that they are organizing the general public in order to get the support of public opinion to the projects of the service corporations in such utilities of common use as gas, electricity, street transportation. They organize public support for franchises, rates, and regulations. We find that these public service corporations have developed the tool of paid advertising and propaganda publicity to a very effective degree. Turning to community chests, we find that they are organizing, or attempting to organize, all who are able to give to charitable enterprises, that they are trying to get these possible donors to pledge and give. We find that the peculiar tool of the community chest is the campaign organization, involving teams, house to house canvassing, and group solicitation.

What are the unique features of this contribution of the campaign organization to the tools of community organization? The team method was used long before community chests were organized. The special contribution of the community chest has been the perfecting of this tool by annual use and the adaptation of it to strategy of the occasion in the use of personnel. For instance, a given community chest city which had long given a high per capita found itself with its agencies inadequately supported. The director of the community chest was able skilfully to assemble a small group of influential men who came to the conclusion on their own initiative that more money must be raised. They were not told this was so; they discovered it and rose to the challenge. The director of the chest was then able to get a prominent citizen, who had not before taken a position of leadership in the chest, to head the forward movement. This illustrates the perfecting of the campaign method. When a campaign is used once only it assembles a group of workers a good deal like the untrained militia of colonial days. Where the campaign method is used year after year the workers resemble the trained militia of the annual officers’ training camps.

Because of this actual use, the campaign method has been developed so that nearly every city has a division handling major gifts secured on the basis of the solicitation being done by the best person to reach a given donor. Very many cities also have a division organized on a geographical basis and handling smaller gifts. Many cities have also some form of group solicitation, either among the factory workers, school children, or both. This development has enabled us to make a comparison of the different types of solicitation and  to study their adaptation to different uses. It is no exaggeration to say that the student of social organization who studies a hundred years hence this last decade will recognize that the community funds have contributed in their campaign setup a method and tool of community organization as valuable in its field as the tool contributed by political parties and public service corporations.   Significance of these contributions on community action and consciousness.-We do not realize the contribution community chests are making to the renaissance of community spirit. The growth of cities has revealed the divisive power of sheer size and deadening inertia of numbers who do not know each other. Twenty-five years ago Jane Addams pointed out that in a big city neighborhood feeling is often weak or nonexistent, while group or class feeling is often strong. She was emphasizing the divisive tendency which comes inevitably with the growth of a city.

On the other hand, the community chest has counteracted this divisive tendency by bringing back a consciousness of the common interests of the whole community. It has developed, not an interest of the north side or of the west side, but of the whole community fund area. It has a call, not merely for the rich or the pious or the cultured, but also for the man of moderate means, for the man who has no religion or hides his religion, and for the man whose only literary interest is the newspaper. It has thrown a strong hoop around the barrel which was falling to pieces. In certain cities the habit of working together developed through the community chest has been effective in influencing civic action. The community chest has not gone into politics as such, but the habit of working together developed in the community chest has helped common recognition of common needs for civic improvement. On the train coming here I was reading William Bennett Munro’s little volume of lectures under the title of The Invisible Government. This phrase, as you probably know, was coined by Elihu Root to describe certain sinister forces in American political life. Professor Munro recognizes these sinister forces, but points out that the phrase “invisible government” may be applied to certain forces which are not sinister and which work behind the visible government forces which the visible government does not create but obeys. In this sense community chests are creating conditions of community thought which make the chests real influences in this invisible government. They are opening the door to social workers to mold the life of their community more effectively than they have ever been able to do before.

Source: Proceedings of The National Conference of Social Work Formerly National Conference of Charities and Correction At The Fifty-Fifth Annual Session Held In Memphis, Tennessee May 2-9, 1928. p. 404.   http://www.hti.umich.edu/n/ncosw/