In 1906, the society hired, at an annual salary of $800, William Duncan into the newly combined position of secretary, inspector and superintendent of the shelter. This gave him senior management responsibilities, although the agency’s overall direction remained under the firm control of president John MacDonald. Duncan’s wife — the first names of female employees were rarely recorded — was taken on as the matron of the shelter at $400 a year, assisted by several nurses and housekeeping staff.
Mr. and Ms. Duncan carried on in these capacities until the agency hired its first executive director in 1923 — a tenure of seventeen years. At that point, Ms. Duncan retired and her husband was made honorary secretary of the board, a position he held until his death in 1926.
In 1907, the board approved the appointment of Ms. V.C. Hamilton as a “lady visitor,” at an annual salary of $400. By 1911, the number of salaried visitors had increased to three. Two of them — Ms. G. Shepphard and Ms. A. Trimble — became long-time employees of the agency, retiring in 1926 and 1936 respectively.
Although they had no professional training, these visitors were the first social workers employed by the CAS of Toronto. MacDonald described their jobs as “[going out to] see what child life in the city is without waiting for complaints or police action. The women with love of the Saviour and children in their hearts will find entrance into homes where it is not possible for men to get in.”
In 1907, the first “lady visitor” was paid $400 per year. Although the visitors had no professional training, they were the first social workers employed by the CAS of Toronto.
Between them, they investigated about a thousand cases every year. Each harried visitor was assigned a district of the city, and, along with a few volunteers, was expected to do child protection work with children in their own homes, to make admission and discharge decisions and, in such time as remained, to visit the wards of the society placed in foster homes in their area.
By 1911, the three visitors investigated about a thousand cases annually. Each was assigned a district of the city, and, along with a few volunteers, was expected to do child protection work with children in their own homes, to make admission and discharge decisions and, in such time as remained, to visit the wards of the society placed in foster homes in their area.
While these home visitors were appalled by the conditions under which many of their clients lived, they saw their raison d’être as child protection rather than the alleviation of the conditions that gave rise to children being in need of protection. Social reform was left to the churches, private charities and, notably, settlement houses such as Central Neighbourhood House. The society’s workers, however, were progressive in that they saw working with families in the community as an alternative to taking children into the agency’s care. Indeed, as early as 1894, the annual report indicated that admitting children to the shelter was secondary to working with families in their own homes:
The management and officers [of the society] are keenly alive to the fact that the parents are the natural guardians of their children, though it is sometimes a difficult task to make them realize their true responsibility. Hence, the first effort in all cases, where it is deemed proper that the society should interfere, is to bring about such changes in the parents and the home as render the separation of children from their parents unnecessary.
As early as 1894, the annual report indicated that admitting children to the shelter was secondary to working with families in their own homes.
The annual reports of the society regularly gave examples of the casework undertaken by the visitors:
In one of the poorest homes in the centre of the city, four little children were found by visitor. Children and house in deplorable condition. The mother was in hospital and the father not taking care of them. Clothing was borrowed for the baby who was placed in the Infants’ Home and the others brought to the [CAS] shelter. Home conditions improved under the supervision of the [visitor] and the children given back to the parents.
A fine little girl whose father was overseas [on active service during the First World War] was deserted by her mother. She was taken in charge by the children’s aid society and later sent to the father, who stayed in England [after the war].
Two little girls were found living in two rooms with father who was very careless and did not provide sufficient food or clothing for them. The mother had been dead for some months. The girls were brought to shelter, one of them needing medical attention which she received at once. The father was given some time to prepare a home for the children but he failed to do this, so children were made wards of the society and already one has been placed in a home where she gets every care.
Two fine little children were found living with their mother who was living an immoral life and the father serving a term at jail farm. The children were made wards of the society and in a very short time placed in good foster homes where they are loved very much.
In this era, parents whose children had been apprehended by CAS workers enjoyed few legal rights; meanwhile, children in the society’s care had no legal rights at all — the assumption was that the agency’s fiduciary responsibility toward them ensured it would act in their best interests.
Funding the work
Initially, the society had almost no money for its work, and at the end of its first year the books recorded a deficit of almost $200. In 1896, its receipts amounted to $6,575, all but $95 of which was spent on maintaining the shelter and caring for the children who lived there, as well as staff salaries and day-to-day administrative expenses.
Initially, the society had almost no money for its work. In 1892, at the end of its first year of operation, the books recorded a deficit of almost $200.
Throughout the period covered by this chapter, the only provincial aid the society received was to reimburse it for all or most of the salary and expenses of the superintendent of the shelter. In 1906, J.J. Kelso offered the agency a grant of two cents a day for each child living in the shelter, but this was refused by the board on the grounds that it would invite government interference. The board also feared that government grants “might possibly stop the flow of voluntary contributions” toward the society’s work.
In 1906, J.J. Kelso offered the agency a grant of two cents a day for each child living in the shelter, but this was refused by the board on the grounds that it would invite government interference.
In 1912, the inconsistency of government support for child welfare led to the formation of a provincial association of CASs that became known as the Ontario Association of Children’s Aid Societies. Although its establishment brought no immediate increase in government funding for the work of its member agencies, this organization did go on to play an important role in strengthening child welfare legislation, practice and administration.
In 1912, the inconsistency of government support for child welfare led to the formation of a provincial association of CASs that became known as the Ontario Association of Children’s Aid Societies.
Meanwhile, under the Children’s Protection Act, municipalities were required to contribute “a reasonable sum” — not less than $1 a week — for each child from their jurisdiction who was in the care of a CAS. In Toronto, the city and the society entered into an agreement to substitute these payments for an annual grant. Reflecting this important role as funder, the city gained the right in 1900 to be represented on the society’s board of management.
The financial arrangement the society made with the city was a mixed blessing. While it gave the agency some financial stability and enabled forward planning, it also shortchanged the society because the grant never kept pace with expenses. In 1896, the grant amounted to $3,000, representing almost 50 percent of the agency’s expenditures. By 1909, when it was raised to $4,000 (at which level it remained until 1919), it covered only about 25 percent of outlays, which that year amounted to $15,000. This included the cost of running the detention home on behalf of the city.
The financi
al arrangement the society made with the city for an annual grant was a mixed blessing. While it gave the agency some financial stability and enabled forward planning, it also shortchanged the society because the grant never kept pace with expenses.
Fortunately, however, the society was quickly becoming a favourite charity, thanks in part to the more than 200 collection boxes that were strategically placed in private homes and business offices, on bank and post office counters, in hotels and in the hallways of foster homes. They would often bring in more than $700 annually for the society’s work. In addition to cash, agency supporters also contributed food, clothing, bedding, furniture, books and toys.
In its early years, the society depended heavily on donations from the public.
Photo reprinted with permission of City of Toronto Archives, SC1, Series B, 1896 Annual Report, Page 55.
The agency supplemented this income by selling annual and life memberships in the society, through Sunday school collections and through yearly Thanksgiving donations organized in city schools. It also benefited from a number of bequests of several hundred dollars each.
These various sources of income, however, were not enough to manage the society’s business. In 1914, the Social Service Commission, a citizens’ committee that advised the city on social welfare matters, persuaded the municipality to bring its financial support more in line with the CAS’s needs. The outcome was that the city agreed to help the agency care for its wards with municipal grants on a per capita/per diem basis.
The agency and the city disagreed constantly, however, on which cases merited such compensation. In an attempt to resolve such disputes, the society eventually took the city to court. Unfortunately for the society, the judges sided with the city’s interpretation of its fiscal responsibilities toward the agency. In the meantime, the agency’s financial situation was rapidly deteriorating. By 1918, with expenditures approaching $32,000 annually, the society faced a deficit of almost $8,000.
By 1918, with expenditures approaching $32,000 annually, the society faced a deficit of almost $8,000.
It was at this time that the Federation for Community Service was being formed, and many saw membership in such a united community appeal as the solution to the society’s financial problems. However, in January 1919, after a presentation from the president of the federation — who was careful to explain that the organization would not interfere in the running of the society — the board of management voted against membership.
As a result of this decision, the agency was hindered in carrying out its work and in developing new approaches to child welfare. As Jolliffe writes, “The board lacked the leadership [necessary for] giving direction in the changing field of philanthropy. It clung tenaciously to the old ideas of private charity and scorned the financial assistance from provincial and municipal governments to which it was entitled.”
The result was that the society was unable to hire enough staff to fulfil its mandate capably. By the end of the First World War, with the city’s population approaching 500,000, the Children’s Aid Society of Toronto still employed only three salaried field workers. The sheer magnitude of their responsibilities, coupled with their lack of training, jeopardized the effectiveness of their work.
By the end of the First World War, with the city’s population approaching 500,000, the society still employed only three salaried field workers. The sheer magnitude of their responsibilities, coupled with their lack of training, jeopardized the effectiveness of their work.
Conflict and concern
Matters came to a head during and after the First World War, when many community leaders and ordinary citizens were starting to rethink the suitability of established systems as a result of the upheavals the war had caused. Among the issues that aroused concern were the needs of children and families, many of whom were the orphans and widows of soldiers killed in the war or of those who had died in the influenza epidemic of 1918.
After the First World War, many community leaders and ordinary citizens were beginning to rethink the suitability of established systems.
These matters were foremost in the minds of members of the new profession of social work, who, along with those who worked at City Hall, were becoming increasingly concerned about what they regarded as the inefficient operation of the CAS of Toronto. Their unease was shared by J.J. Kelso, who had been the founding president of the society but who was now responsible for overseeing its operation on behalf of the provincial government.
Although supportive of the work of Mr. and Ms. Duncan, who ran the shelter, Kelso was antagonistic toward the society’s board — and particularly so toward its long-time president, John MacDonald, whom Kelso believed was responsible for the agency’s doing only the bare minimum required to meet its obligations under the Children’s Protection Act. Jolliffe suggests that Kelso also came into conflict with the CAS of Toronto because he had become too personally involved in the affairs of the agency he had founded, and that MacDonald had come to resent his interference — and, by extension, that of the government. Certainly, Kelso was a man of strongly held views who tended to impose his own standards on others. It did not help that his role as provincial superintendent was ill defined, particularly in relation to local CASs.
In March 1916, Kelso expressed his concerns about the operations of the CAS of Toronto via an open letter to the mayor which was published in the local newspapers. He wrote that “friendly mediation” had failed to bring about necessary changes in the operation of the society. It was behind the times in dealing with the children who came to its attention, and too few of those in its care were being placed in foster homes. Young offenders were not receiving remedial treatment. The shelter was like a jail, with “sixty children in close confinement in the middle of the city.” The children were locked up with no opportunity for constructive activities or outdoor exercise. They slept on beds without mattresses or pillows. The building was overrun by vermin.
In March 1916, Kelso expressed his concerns about the operations of the CAS of Toronto via an open letter to the mayor which was published in the local newspapers.
Kelso’s criticisms were supported by the city’s representative on the agency’s board of management and by the local chapter of the National Council of Women, who asked for a reorganization of the society because the children, they alleged, were suffering from malnutrition.
MacDonald was incensed at these charges and reacted angrily, suggesting that they were exaggerated. This simply confirmed for many the case against the society and strengthened support for an investigation before the city’s board of control. MacDonald, defending the society before that board, claimed that Kelso had not visited the agency in five years and therefore did not know what he was talking about. He was able to convince the board of control that the concerns were overstated, resulting in a City Council resolution of confidence in the society.
Before the city’s board of control, the society’s president, John MacDonald, claimed that Kelso had not visited the agency in five years and therefore did not know what he was talking about.
The disagreement between Kelso and MacDonald, both of whom were strong-willed men, centred on methods and philosophies rather than on goals. Nevertheless, according to Jones and Rutman, it strained the relationship between Kelso and the society he had founded:
Looking back in retrospect on the altercation with the Toronto society, Kelso recognized the damage it had done to his standing in the movement and to his relationship with his old colleagues, but he felt the action was unavoidable. “This whole affair was one of the sorrows of my life,” he wrote. “But looking back, I cannot see that I could have done otherwise since I owed a supreme duty to the children of Toronto and to the social movement for which I was to a large extent responsible.”
Although Kelso felt he had lost the battle with MacDonald, his views ultimately prevailed, for the incident was to lead to a complete reorganization of the society and the way it was managed.
C
HAPTER 3
The Growth of Professionalism,
1920–1939
Life in early-twentieth-century Toronto
By the early 1900s, Toronto’s economy was booming. While Montreal was still the country’s major metropolis, Toronto was beginning to rival its dominance. The city’s banks, investment houses and insurance companies financed not only the development of large-scale forestry and mining in northern Ontario but also the settlement of the Canadian west. The mail-order catalogue of Eaton’s department store found its way into almost every home. The newly tapped hydroelectric power of Niagara Falls provided the energy that fuelled Toronto’s burgeoning factories.
While an established group of prominent upper-income families ran these businesses and dominated the local cultural, religious and social organizations, the industries also contributed to a substantial growth in the mercantile, or middle, class of people. The number of unemployed and poor, however, continued to grow; this phenomenon was the result of an increasing displacement of agricultural workers as Ontario continued to industrialize and become more urban.
It was also the effect of immigration. In the years before the First World War, many English, Scottish and, to a lesser extent, Protestant Irish immigrants settled in Toronto. A second wave of newcomers arrived in the 1920s, although their numbers did not climb as high as those during the pre-war period. By 1931, immigrants made up more than 30 percent of Toronto’s 600,000 inhabitants, the largest percentage of any city in the country. They were still mainly from the British Isles, helping to maintain Toronto’s profile as a Protestant, Anglo-Celtic city. However, a great many Catholic and Jewish people also came, as did Germans, Italians, Poles, Scandinavians and Ukrainians.
By 1931, immigrants made up more than 30 percent of Toronto’s 600,000 inhabitants, the largest percentage of any city in the country.
A Legacy of Caring Page 7