A Legacy of Caring

by John McCullagh

  Moberly’s objective was to close the shelter entirely. She believed that by closing it and placing all the children in foster care, the infant mortality rate could be virtually eliminated.

  She set about the task with vigour. By the end of 1921, most of the babies had been placed in foster homes, with the exception of those living in the shelter with their unmarried mothers. The agency then experimented with placing a few of those mothers along with their babies in what became known as “nursing foster homes.” It proved a workable plan and it allowed the agency to close the shelter in 1926. From that point onward, the death rate of children in the agency’s care never increased above one percent. Moberly’s faith in her vision had been justified.

  One of the earliest ads for homes for children.

  With all children in foster family care, the Infants’ Home and Infirmary was now solely a child placement agency (protection work in the community was the responsibility of the Children’s Aid Society). The shelter at 21 St. Mary Street, which was no longer needed, was sold to the Basilian Fathers for $50,000; with the proceeds, a building at 34 Grosvenor Street was purchased, renovated and furnished. It housed the agency’s offices and clinics for the next twenty-five years.

  Stable funding for the Infants’ Home

  Before Vera Moberly arrived, the Infants’ Home had depended largely on charitable donations and a small municipal grant to fund its activities. Her achievement was to negotiate membership of the agency in the Federation for Community Service. The role of the federation, founded by the Rotary Club of Toronto in 1918, was to raise and distribute funds on behalf of its member agencies. It also assisted its members in managing their organizations efficiently.

  Membership in the federation was an important development for the Infants’ Home. Using 1920 as an example, the federation’s grant of $19,892 represented almost 65 percent of the agency’s revenue of $31,221. This amount far outstripped the city’s contribution of $3,627 and the provincial grant of $1,437. Legacies, donations and client fees made up the rest of that year’s income. Expenditures in 1920 totalled $35,436. The $4,215 “deficit was absorbed through the home’s investment and endowment funds, which totalled more than $50,000.

  Membership in the Federation for Community Service was an important development for the Infants’ Home because in 1920, its grant represented almost 65 percent of the agency’s revenue.

  Moberly had very quickly achieved her second priority of placing the agency on a more stable financial footing. By 1939, the annual grant from the federation had increased to almost $47,000, the city was contributing more than $27,000 and the province about $5,700. The CAS of Toronto reimbursed the Infants’ Home close to $22,000 for caring for its wards under the age of four. Donations and income from investments enabled the agency to handily meet that year’s expenses of $116,750.

  Reform at the CAS

  As a result of the vote of confidence in its operations by the city’s board of control in 1916 — referred to in Chapter 2 — the board of management of the Children’s Aid Society of Toronto felt no need to make any changes to address the concerns of its critics. Indeed, John MacDonald, the society’s president, proudly proclaimed that nothing had changed at the agency for several years, and, by implication, nothing needed to change.

  To its critics, however, the society continued to seem more like a closed, self-serving clique than a public agency responsive to the needs of the community’s children. Some in the community wanted to go as far as to pack an annual meeting, vote against the board and install a new one. Others, believing that more could be accomplished by working from within the agency, thought a better approach would be to vote some progressive members onto the board.

  To its critics, the CAS of Toronto seemed more like a closed, self-serving clique than a public agency responsive to the needs of the community’s children.

  The latter approach prevailed and, in 1919 and 1920, led to an infusion of new board members, all of them active in modernizing community welfare. They included Professor J.A. Dale from the University of Toronto, John Appleton of the Winnipeg CAS, F.N. Stapleford of the newly formed Neighbourhood Workers’ Association, Agnes MacPherson, a professionally trained social worker, social reformer Charlotte Whitton, and Bob Mills, head of social welfare for the City of Toronto.

  These new, progressive members brought vitality to the board, helped professionalize the delivery of services, created positive links with other agencies in the community and restored the society’s public image.

  John Kidson MacDonald resigns

  One outcome of these changes was the resignation, in 1920, of John Kidson MacDonald as the society’s president, although he remained a board member with the courtesy title of honorary president until his death seven years later.

  John MacDonald, the second president of the CAS of Toronto.

  While J.J. Kelso had organized the society, he served as its president for only a few months. It was MacDonald who had provided the agency with direction and focus during its first three decades. The work of consolidation and growth was formidable, as were the challenges presented by epidemics, financial crises, war and societal change. Firm leadership had been needed, and MacDonald had provided it.

  Many of the social issues debated in those early years have a familiar ring. The society was accused of breaking up families and of leaving children in institutional care for too long. The lack of foster homes, the problems associated with placing young offenders and children in need of protection in the same shelter, and the ever-increasing need for funds seemed insoluble.

  MacDonald was involved, in one way or another, in wrestling with all of these questions. He was criticized frequently, but he was quick to defend himself and the society. Although in his later years his colleagues on the board would describe him as “splendid, strong, fearless and unwavering,” his critics would probably have substituted stubborn for unwavering. Whichever way his legacy is viewed, the second president of the CAS of Toronto was clearly a towering figure in its history.

  Bob Mills

  To help stabilize the society and redefine its functions, the board of management recognized that a full-time executive director was needed. In 1923, Bob Mills, one of the reforming members brought onto the board in 1920, was appointed to the new position of managing director.

  Many of the social issues debated in these years have a familiar ring. The society was accused of breaking up families and of leaving children in institutional care for too long. The lack of foster homes, the problems associated with placing young offenders and children in need of protection in the same shelter, and the ever-increasing need for funds seemed insoluble.

  Mills came to this position from his job as director of the social welfare division in the city’s department of health. He was, in effect, the executive assistant to Charles Hastings, the pioneering medical officer of health with whom Vera Moberly had collaborated to promote the concept of boarding home foster care.

  A statistician by profession, Mills brought order and consistency to the management of the society. He was an uncannily observant man — painstaking and careful in his habits, slow and deliberate in his thoughts and speech. These were qualities the agency needed as it reformed its operations in the face of crisis and complaint.

  Mills believed that every child had the right to responsible parenting and that he or she should receive it from his or her own family as long as it was safe for the child and the community. If it was not, the child should be placed with a substitute family. To this end, it was the responsibility of the Children’s Aid Society, in partnership with governments and the community, to provide the necessary legal safeguards, appropriate facilities, skilled staff and foster parents, backed up by necessary financial support from both private and public funds.

  Mills believed that every child had the right to responsible parenting and that he or she should receive it from his or her own family as long as it was safe for the child and the community. If it was not,
the child should be placed with a substitute family.

  Under Mills’ guidance over a period of twenty-seven years, the CAS of Toronto emerged as one of North America’s outstanding child welfare agencies. His enlightened policies and untiring efforts on behalf of children and families did much to shape the society as we know it today.

  “From a jail to a home”

  Mills’s first concern was to address the criticism that the shelter had become more like a jail than a home for needy children. He threw open the front doors and removed the bars from the windows. The building was repainted and refurnished. Fire escapes and smoke partitions were installed. The heating system was overhauled. A new main entrance was built on University Avenue, which by this time had become a much grander thoroughfare than Simcoe Street.

  Photo reprinted with permission of City of Toronto Archives, SC1, Item 2.

  From an institution housing an average of forty-five children, the shelter was returned to its original purpose as a temporary receiving home. Within ten years, the number of children resident at any one time was reduced to fifteen, while the average stay decreased from eighteen months to less than two weeks. Increasingly, the young residents began to be sent to the neighbouring Orde Street Public School rather than the shelter classroom. Recreation activities were introduced, including outings to parks, theatres and exhibitions. Two evenings a week, social work students from the University of Toronto visited to play games with the children and to read them stories.

  Increasingly, the young residents at the shelter began to be sent to the neighbouring Orde Street Public School rather than the shelter classroom. Recreation activities were introduced, including outings to parks, theatres and exhibitions. Two evenings a week, social work students from the University of Toronto visited to play games with the children and to read them stories.

  Administrative restructuring

  From its earliest days, the Children’s Aid Society of Toronto had worked with families in their own homes to investigate complaints of child abuse and neglect and, whenever possible, to avert the need for these children to be admitted to the agency shelter. The principal focus of CAS work, however, was to care for “dependent” children — those who were public wards or who needed temporary care away from home.

  With Bob Mills’s arrival as managing director, this focus changed. Content to leave the day-to-day running of the shelter to the matron, Mills focused his energies on the development of “field work for the prevention of cruelty and neglect of children, for the conservation of family life and the placing out and supervision of children in family homes.”

  To this end, he reorganized service delivery in 1923 into three work units: the shelter, a child-placing department and a family work — or protection — department. The number of staff who ran the shelter remained fairly constant over the years and was surprisingly small by today’s standards: a matron, three nurses, a cook and a housekeeper. However, the introduction of boarding home foster care, described later in this chapter, and the development of social casework methods of working with children and families required considerable additions to the number of field staff. (Social casework was introduced into the CAS of Toronto in the 1920s by Helen Lawrence, the agency’s first social work supervisor.)

  Mills reorganized service delivery in 1923 into three work units: the shelter, a child-placing department and a family work — or protection — department.

  By 1928, these field staff included twelve social workers, two supervisors, a psychologist and a half-time physician. Eleven years later, in 1939, the numbers had increased to include a supervisor and nine workers in protection, and a supervisor and twenty-three workers in child placement. There was also a full-time physician and a psychologist. Two workers in the clothing room made sure that children in care were adequately outfitted.

  By 1939, the staff had grown to include a supervisor and nine workers in protection and a supervisor and twenty-three workers in child placement. There was also a full-time physician and a psychologist. Two workers in the clothing room made sure that children in care were adequately outfitted.

  The society continued to depend, as did the Infants’ Home, on volunteers to undertake work that, in a later age, would have been regarded as suitable only for paid staff. In the era before a unionized workforce, this raised no eyebrows. Volunteers kept the accounts, provided legal advice, managed the clinics and worked as case aides and clerical assistants.

  The society continued to depend, as did the Infants’ Home, on volunteers to undertake work that, in a later age, would have been regarded as suitable only for paid staff. Volunteers kept the accounts, provided legal advice, managed the clinics and worked as case aides and clerical assistants. They also undertook the kind of assignments familiar to today’s volunteers.

  They also undertook the kind of assignments familiar to today’s volunteers. They sat on the board of management and its committees, raised funds, undertook public speaking engagements, drove workers to appointments, transported children to and from foster homes, knitted and sewed, and became special friends to children in care. Christmastime was a flurry of activity as volunteers chose, wrapped and distributed seasonal gifts for needy families and children in care.

  Then as now, volunteer work was seen to demonstrate that child welfare belonged not to a small isolated group of people but to the whole community.

  Then as now, volunteer work was seen to demonstrate that child welfare belonged not to a small isolated group of people but to the whole community.

  To support these staff and volunteers, office procedures had to be modernized. Case records were now typewritten instead of being completed by hand. An efficient system of accounting for children in various types of care was introduced. Financial records and statistics were completely overhauled. Fireproof storage was built for the protection of both casework and financial records. All this progress brought with it the need for additional accounting and clerical staff — by 1939, these included an office manager, eight stenographers, a bookkeeper and a switchboard operator.

  The agency purchased the family home of its former president, John MacDonald, at 33 Charles Street East, for use as the children’s shelter.

  The move to Charles and Isabella streets

  This growth put the squeeze on the society’s office space. From 1902 until 1924, the administrative office had been located in a single basement room of the shelter at 229 Simcoe Street. In the latter year, it took over the rooms on the first floor originally occupied by the superintendent and the matron. As the society’s field work continued to grow and the number of children in the shelter decreased, additional rooms were taken over from time to time, but the office accommodation remained inadequate.

  These pressing problems were solved in 1928, when the society decided that the Simcoe Street building no longer suited its purposes. It sold the property for $130,000 to the Canada Life Assurance Company, which built its corporate head offices on the site. With the proceeds, the agency purchased, for $40,000, the family home of its recently deceased former president, John MacDonald, at 33 Charles Street East, to be used as the children’s shelter.

  An adjacent house at 32 Isabella Street was bought to accommodate the society’s administrative offices. This location was considered appropriate as it was close to the intersection of Yonge and Bloor streets, which was rapidly becoming an important commercial district. To provide additional space and “to make an appearance in keeping with the importance of the organization,” a stone addition was added to the house and built to the street line.

  In 1928, the society purchased property on Charles and Isabella streets. This location was considered appropriate as it was close to the intersection of Yonge and Bloor streets, which was rapidly becoming an important commercial district.

  Protection work

  The task of the society’s protection workers was to “watch, advise and encourage” the parents on their caseloads so that children at potential risk could remain safe
ly at home. If not, the workers had a duty to remove the children to a place of safety — likely the home of an extended family member, the society’s shelter or a foster home.

  The year 1928 provides a good example of the nature of this work. Staff in the family work department handled 1,320 cases involving 2,610 children. They made 4,654 home visits, conducted 1,331 office interviews, made 5,908 telephone calls, attended 197 conferences and wrote 1,153 letters. They worked on Saturdays as well as several overtime hours one or two evenings a week — some were also on a night patrol, about which Bob Mills wrote:

  In 1928, staff in the family work department handled 1,320 cases involving 2,610 children. They made 4,654 home visits, conducted 1,331 office interviews, made 5,908 telephone calls, attended 197 conferences and wrote 1,153 letters. They worked on Saturdays as well as several overtime hours one or two evenings a week — some on a night patrol.

  On certain nights in the week, [CAS workers] drive through the most undesirable parts of the city, observing the movements of young children alone on the streets at night and, where necessary, taking children home and warning parents of the dangers they are allowing their children to fall into. Children selling magazines on the streets, begging and frequenting undesirable places [are] taken under supervision.

  Not much had changed, it would seem, since J.J. Kelso’s campaigns fifty years earlier on behalf of street children.

  In a minority of cases, perhaps one or two hundred a year, protection workers had to take action through the juvenile court to commit youngsters to the guardianship of the CAS. The largest numbers of these were babies born to unwed mothers who were unable to care for them. The society took these cases to court on behalf of the Infants’ Home, which, as will be discussed later in this chapter, had assumed the full responsibility of working with the city’s Protestant unmarried mothers. If guardianship was granted, the babies were placed with Infants’ Home foster families, with the CAS of Toronto assuming financial responsibility.