Library Collections: Document: Full Text

Again, take the case of an old woman who has lost her sight in later life. She goes to the home of the relative upon whom she has the greatest legal and moral claim. If she could see, she would do many little things about the house that would go far toward making her welcome there. As she is blind, though -- and blind after the age of ready adaptation -- she is not a help in any way, but a great care to the family. In appealing for relief to the overseers, it would appear from the Commission's investigations that she is usually treated upon exactly the same basis as is an elderly woman with sight.

Again, take the case of a young woman who has attended a school for the blind, or who has had a good education before losing her sight, with all the refining influence and raised standards of living which go with such an early training. It is obvious that a larger percentage of such women are likely to become more or less charges upon the public than those enjoying eyesight. Her high standard of living resulting from her early education makes her feel the sting of poverty much more keenly than does the typical recipient of relief. Those best acquainted with the blind realize that the poverty line for her is much higher up in the scale of weekly income than for those who have not had her early advantages.

These are but three typical cases. One could multiply them indefinitely. The fact is, in my judgment, that blindness should be taken into consideration as a large contributing factor in making persons fit subjects for outdoor relief. The flat pension without investigation, without adjustment to other incomes, and without corresponding demand for some sort of return from the individual, is not the true solution. Blindness in itself seldom carries with it any claim upon the public, but blindness in itself does tend to convert otherwise self-supporting persons into dependents. It is not fair to the blind, whose road is already hard enough, to subject them either to the pangs of keen want because their special need is not realized; nor is it fair to subject them to the stigma accompanying the reception of outdoor relief when they are forced to this situation by no fault of their own. Blindness makes a stronger appeal to public sympathy than does almost' any other handicap. Let us not delay special provision for this class simply because other handicapped persons should be included in the social program of which special blind relief is a part. Those most enlightened concerning the problems of the blind, and those upon whose interest the blind have the greatest claim, should endeavor rather to blaze the way for handicapped classes. If, in so doing, we can formulate a plan for special aid that will dovetail into any general social program to be completed later, then so much the better.

My study of the Massachusetts situation convinced me that there were two steps which may be taken for adequately meeting the needs of the blind for relief. Perhaps the wiser plan will be to try to take one step and, should if prove inadequate, then to try the other. The first step, it seems to me, is one which the Commission can properly take without disrupting its machinery. This is the appointment of agents to act as special advocates of the blind wherever persons without sight are making a just appeal to the overseers for relief. It may be that these special advocates will in time be able to so educate the overseers and the public that justice will be done to the blind without a special relief law. This must, of course, take years to accomplish, and the patience of the blind and their friends will be tried many times before anything approaching a satisfactory condition will be obtained. Should this prove inadequate or impracticable, a special blind relief law in some form is hound to come. In formulating such a law, it appears to me that there is a valuable suggestion contained in the Mothers' Aid Law. In brief, the Mothers' Aid Law authorizes boards of overseers of towns to provide adequate relief to needy mothers of dependent children. One-third of the money thus paid is refunded to the town by the State on condition that the overseers administer the relief in a way improved by the State Board of Charities. In this way the Board of Charities is able to supervise and standardize the administration of this aid.

I would suggest that some such plan be followed in respect to the blind. The supervision, however, should be shared jointly by the Commission for the Blind and the State Board of Charities. The State Board of Charities should have the bulk of the responsibility. This would insure an administration of the blind relief in accordance with approved principles of granting relief laid down by the State Board of Charities, and at the same time the Commission for the Blind could see to it that the peculiar angle growing out of blindness is not disregarded.

One of the grounds of dissatisfaction with the State Commission for the Mind voiced by the Welfare Union is the lack of a representative blind person upon this Board. The contention is that some blind person who is taking a success in life under the handicap of blindness should be appointed. Such a person, they feel, would be, in a sense, their special representative, to whom they could appeal with a confidence of sympathy and comprehension.