State Welfare Administration in California, 1930-1945

Abstract

4 ' emergency* ' provisions for the unemployed developed alongside state-county programs of assistance and for people outside the labor market. In time experts came to think that large-scale unemployment was likely to be chronic and they made proposals to combine the two systems in a form that was more rational and comprehensive. A series of contingencies postponed this decision, however, and then wartime prosperity removed its urgency. Meanwhile the constructive energies of state leaders were diverted toward developing the bureaucracy and programs that they were already administering. In retrospect, the gains of the years 1 930-1 945 were significant but partial. In 1930 the most striking feature of the state's organization for social welfare was the diversity of agencies. Some were public (tax-supported), others private (financed by voluntary contributions). Public agencies were municipal, county, or state ; private agencies had specific religious or ethnic constituencies or served the whole community. Some offered indoor (institutional) care, others (home) relief. Some gave material aid to the needy, others gave services to special groups (probationers or youth, for example). In part these differences manifested the variety of groups in the communities; in part they gave form to differing ideas about and attitudes toward social problems. The foundation of poor relief was the poor law, which charged county supervisors to take care of those who were needy for whatever reason. This was the legal basis for the county hospital (which served as an almshouse) as well as county outdoor relief.1 The theory of the poor law was the common sense that when trouble came people first shifted for