Home Economist in Community

Executive Director

Jewish Social Service Bureau, Chicago

At a recent meeting in Chicago, Professor Paul Douglas made the statement that forty per cent of the population in the United States was living on fourteen cents a day. There is no doubt that such figures are a challenge to our entire social order. However, immediately and practically, facts such as these must be the concern of those who are striving, through their daily work, to conserve standards of health and family life. Social workers and home economists who were previously in contact with a relatively small proportion of the population, now impinge on the lives of approximately fifteen per cent of the families in this country. The need for the development of relief on a mass scale has brought about vital changes in the functions and techniques of both groups, and common objectives have stimulated close association between the two professions.

It is evident, from information received from a number of communities, that the sphere of influence of the home economist is widening. Stimulation has been given from Washington, through the United States Bureau of Home Economics, which has brought out material on food budgets which is being increasingly used. Nevertheless, there has been a startling lack of uniformity in the application of the standards as set forth. Despite some improvement since the establishment of the Federal Emergency Relief Administration, great variation exists in allowances for unemployment relief, and in some parts of the country grants are still extremely low. Recent figures give the range in averages per family from $5.57 per month in one state, to $31.22 in another. This must necessarily mean great privation and suffering in many areas. Certainly no local price difference can even in a measure account for such a variation.

It is with relation to such facts that the home economist has an obligation to make herself articulate. Because of her specialized knowledge, she is in a position to know the real cost to the community of these meagre grants. She must make every effort to function as the agent for establishing basic standards, and if such standards are not accepted, she must bring to the attention of the public, along with other groups, the results of sub-standard living in terms of health and growth, and minimal normal living. This requires common thinking and concerted action in educating the public.

With regard to the former, common thinking, it appears that there is still some ground to be covered. Those of us who have had our experience in fields with a less exact approach, have been somewhat taken aback by the lack of unanimity of opinions on the subject of food standards, as expressed in the material published by various groups. A recent comparison of food budgets of families from one to seven members, as compiled by three groups of experts the Governmental Department, the Chicago Standard Budget Committee, and the Nutrition Advisory Committee in Chicago, revealed significant variation in items, and a wide variation in the amounts of the specified foods that each of them recommended. What seems to an outsider even more serious, is the fact that here and there home economists have allowed their influence to be used to further low cost feeding of the dependent group, based entirely on what has been called “paper calculations,” and which ignore all social factors. It might be said in passing that it seems mainly this group whose influence has been used to bolster up the commissary idea.

Perhaps some of these differences of opinion are entirely legitimate, and can never be obviated. However, from the point of view of the community, it is hoped that further study will bring additional clarification.