With the Speakers at Atlantic City

The following two addresses, reproduced in part, were delivered earlier in the convention.

A series of rapid and significant events involving important aspects of the general social and economic life have been altering social work programs and have been forcing a reexamination of theories, programs and results. All of us are conscious of the changing atmosphere and the pressure to redirect our thinking which this involves. Basically two important developments are affecting our work, our purposes and our plans. In the first place, overwhelming social problems have been created which are distinctive of the present decade. These are not temporary problems that will disappear in time like a minor skin eruption. Vigorous social action of a progressive character is needed for their solution. In the second place, the sources of community action upon which we have depended for solutions of former problems, primarily, the strength of voluntary philanthropy, cannot be inflated to deal with these new problems. New sources of community strength must therefore be created. With a vague recognition of this fact we have been turning hopefully to governmental action. We are not certain that we may find in it the requisite force for adequate action. The best that may be said is that government has taken on new responsibilities and is making some experimental beginnings. The outlines of a complete program are not yet apparent.

INTENSIFIED FACTORS

The social and economic factors which affect child welfare are not of recent origin. They have rather become intensified and extended to larger areas of the population. Lower standards of living diminished social resources and present and future uncertainties have involved an increasing number of children. The lack of economic security for family groups, the privations which a large part of the population experiences, the inadequate programs for housing, recreation and the organization of health and medical services, the lacks in our educational program and the inadequate facilities for dealing with special handicaps, physical, psychological and intellectual, are common problems of practically all groups of the population.

It is misleading to consider the present status as a “community program” except in the sense that we apply the term program to varied organized and spontaneous activities which affect the welfare of children. If we are realists we must admit that comprehensive planning for the welfare of all children is not implicit in our present form of social organization, neither for Jewish children as a group nor for the welfare of children in general. It is also obvious that if the needs in the general population are to be satisfactorily met by comprehensive programs extended to all children, the welfare of Jewish children in many important respects would be secured. Similarly the extent or degree of failure in general programs would detract from the welfare of any particular group.

VOLUNTARY EFFORT INADEQUATE

The inadequacy of voluntary effort to deal with basic economic problems has been recognized. Voluntary philanthropy, long considered as the particular genius of American social welfare, has under the pressure of unmet needs yielded to the public welfare principle. Where intelligent leadership prevails voluntarism is accepting the logic of circumstances and is urging and promoting the development of governmental responsibility for meeting basic needs. There is in fact a general tendency to accept this change as socially desirable and to find for private philanthropy a position of continuing usefulness as part of the general attempt to secure social welfare, whatever may be the differences of opinion concerning the most satisfactory basis of alignment. There is hope but no real assurance that the insistent social and economic problems of our time will be solved. We must admit, however, that there is considerable validity in the fear that existing political and economic controls cannot be relied upon to inaugurate and carry through a satisfactory program of public welfare. But whether we anticipate success or failure of governmental action for social welfare there exists little illusion that an alternative solution for our basic problems is possible within the capacity or interests of a form of social effort which depends upon voluntary contributions from individuals possessing surplus incomes. With some minor exceptions such a belief would be no less fallacious when applied to voluntary Jewish social work.

Before we can consider the most satisfactory type of alignment between voluntary Jewish effort and the existing or potential programs of community action, we must analyze the specific problems which are of importance to the Jewish group and which are not the concern of the total community or which may be inadequately provided for or remain unsolved by measures which successfully deal with difficulties of other population groups. It has been assumed that there are specific Jewish problems. The more important of these may be stated as:

1. Specific economic difficulties and problems of occupational adjustment which differ radically or at least present considerable variations from the economic problems of other groups.

2. The support of Jewish culture in relation to group survival and adjustment, and

3. The problems of religious and racial prejudices.