Library Collections: Document: Full Text

Topic No. 1 "ORGANIZATION"

SURVEY BY O.H. BURRITT, Principal
Pennsylvania Institution for the Instruction of the Blind, Overbrook, Pa.

A SURVEY OF THE ACTIVITIES OF THE MASSACHUSETTS COMMISSION FOR THE BLIND FOR THE TEN -- YEAR PERIOD, 1907-1917

TOPIC No. 1.

Organization (including, legislative authority, appropriation, personnel of board, central office staff, with qualifications, salaries, etc., division of labor, relations to each other and to the Board), outlined with a view to securing your advice as to scope of work of a Commission for the Blind; favorable details of organization, definitions of blindness, etc., further legislation, etc.

LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY

An examination of the law creating the Commission and the amendments thereto indicates that the Act creating it was wisely drawn, in that it allows large latitude of action to the Commission. With but one or two exceptions, the activities of the Commission are permissive, not mandatory.

First. The Commission is authorized (Section 2) "to prepare and maintain a register of the blind in Massachusetts, which shall describe their condition, cause of blindness, and capacity for education and industrial training."

Data as to the numbers registered in accordance with this provision of the Act are not immediately available for each of the ten years of the Commission's existence. They are, however, available in published form for the past five years; i.e., for the fiscal years ending with November 30, 1911, to 1915, inclusive. These figures show that the Commission has maintained an average registration annually of over 1,500 blind persons, of whom an average of about 525 per annum have been registered for the first time. The record for the last year of the period is 1,872 registered, 561 of them for the first time.

Second. It is provided by Section 3 that "the Commission shall act as a bureau of information and industrial aid, the object of which shall be to aid the blind in finding employment and to develop home industries for them. For this purpose the Commission may furnish materials and tools to any blind person, and may assist such blind persons as are engaged in home industries in marketing their products."

The sixth annual report states that "the agents of the Commission have had a close acquaintance with more than 3,500 of the 6,000 persons technically blind who are or who have been registered with the Commission. To do this they have made at least 20,000 visits in almost every city and town of the Commonwealth...." As there has been material increase in the appropriation, this work has probably not decreased in amount. Through these visits and the many calls for information at its office, the Commission seems to be fulfilling its function "as a bureau of information."

How is the Commission fulfilling its duty of aiding the blind in finding employment and of developing home industries for them? The summary of its activities for the year ending November 30, 1915, shows that either by the provision of training, regular or temporary employment, shop industry or canvassing, aid has been afforded to 226 individuals, and that home industry has been fostered by loans, equipment, use of canvasser, use of salesroom, etc., in the case of 148 other blind persons. That with all the effort put forth in the fostering of home industries there has resulted the meager return to the workers of less than $1,600, speaks forcefully of the difficulties that are encountered in efforts to develop home industries. On the other hand, that the 113 employees in the Commission's shops and the thirteen blind or partially blind employees on the staff were paid approximately $43,500 is the strongest argument for the extension of these opportunities until the State has met the used of every blind person who has the mentality and the physical stamina to profit by them.

Third. By the provisions of Section 4 of the Act, the Commission is authorized "to establish, equip, and maintain one or more schools for industrial training and workshops for the employment of blind persons, to pay to employees suitable wages, and may devise means for the sale and distribution of the products of such schools and workshops." Under the power conferred upon it, the Commission "has established workshops," is apparently paying suitable wages, and has devised means for the sale and distribution of the products. The writer understands that training is provided in many instances for those who afterward become wage earners in the shops.

Fourth. The provisions of Sections 5 and 6, making it possible for the Commission to provide for the temporary support of an individual under raining, whether within or without the State, are liberal and apparently adequate. The number thus provided for is restricted somewhat by the funds available for the purpose, but more by the prospects of subsequent remunerative employment.

Fifth. Ample authority, too, has apparently been granted to the Commission by Section 7, in the matter of the appointment of the necessary officers and agents. The number and their compensation are restricted by that portion of the appropriation that may justly be considered available for this phase of the Commission's activities.

Sixth. It is not strange that the amendments provided by Sections 9 and 10 should have been sought early in the Commission's history. No business can be operated without some capital, and this is preeminently true of a business which is conducted upon so small a margin of profit or, more generally, at a positive loss, as is the case where the artisans are laboring under the handicap imposed by blindness.

Seventh. The writer believes that the transfer by Chapter 201 of the Acts of 1916 of the supervision of the instruction of the adult blind at their homes from the Director of the Perkins Institution, to the Commission will result in an increase in efficiency and in a decrease of the per capita cost of such instruction. While this instruction is educational work, it is educational work for adults, and as such it is a prerogative of the Commission, and not of a school for the education of the young blind. Under the present plan, better supervision will be possible, and the method in vogue in the assignment of cases will undoubtedly save the time and traveling expenses of the home teachers, while it will insure a more exact definition of the needs of the adult blind of the State.

From all that I could learn in the time at my disposal while in Boston, and from a careful study of the Acts creating the Commission and defining its powers, I conclude that the legislature has clothed the Commission with authority adequate for the accomplishment of the purposes for which it was created.

APPROPRIATION

In the nine-year period for which figures are available, the appropria-, don has been increased from $40,000 in 1906-1907 to $68,000 in 1914-1915. This increase of 671 per cent in the appropriation has made possible an increase of 165 per cent in the number of blind persons reached, of 72 per cent in the number materially benefited, of 66 per cent in the number regularly employed in the Commission's shops, and of 439 per cent in the earnings of the blind people employed in the Commission's shops, salesroom, and staff. Stated another way, in approximate figures, by, increasing its appropriation two-thirds, the State has multiplied the number of blind people reached 2 2/3 times, the number materially benefited 1 3/4 the number regularly employed by 1 2/3, and the earnings of the blind by 5 2/5.

To state that the extent of the work to be undertaken is determined by the amount of the appropriation is axiomatic. With its appropriation of $67,000 for the year 1914-1915, the Commission gave material assistance to approximately 800 blind persons at a per capita expenditure of $83.75. While some of this number might have received greater financial assistance by a pension system, it is a matter of very grave doubt whether equal benefit could have been conferred upon 800 blind people by the distribution of $83.75 in cash to each individual. Under a pension system it is not easy to vary the amount of assistance according to the need of the individual. The Ohio plan is the only form of public pension known to the writer that admits of any adjustment of the amount of assistance in accordance with the need and the desert of the individual, a principle which is fundamental in the administration of the pension of the Gardner's Trust Fund in England.

If the cost to the State of a pension system for the blind be compared with that of the various lines of activity of the Commission, it will be wholly in favor of the latter method. The usual amount of annual pension to a blind person in the few states that have provided them is $150. If each of the 800 blind persons materially benefited last year through the Commission's activities had received an annual pension of $150, the cost to the State would have been $120,000. But the moment a pension system is inaugurated by the State, experience proves that the number of blind people applying for aid will increase enormously. The United States cen-sus of 1910 gives the number of blind in Ohio as 3,740. With reports missing from nine counties, the records of the County Commissioners in June, 1914, showed 3,578 names on the pension rolls to whom had been paid the sum of $299,595. It is generally agreed that the United States census figures of 1910 err in returning too small numbers of blind people. One estimate is that Ohio in 1910 had at least 4,500 blind. The same census enumerates 2,046 blind persons in Massachusetts. Increasing this number in/the same ratio, Massachusetts would have 2,500 blind. As the proportion of suitable applicants for a pension would be approximately the same in Massachusetts as in Ohio, about 1,920 would have to be provided for, which, at an annual rate of $150, would require $288,000, or about 4.1 times the amount appropriated in 1914-1915. But the investigations of the Commission lead it to believe that there are in Massachusetts at least 4,000 blind persons, in which case the number of probable pensioners must be increased accordingly. A conservative estimate of the annual cost of a pension system for the blind of Massachusetts is $400,000, and it might easily reach $500,000.

But various possible forms of relief are to be considered by another member of the Survey Committee. I have considered it here only in relation to the amount of the appropriation. That some form of relief must be provided for a very considerable number of the mentally deficient, ill, aged, and infirm blind is incontrovertible; but I firmly believe that this relief should be provided through the usual channels of relief after due investigation and recommendation by the Commission through its field workers. Such a plan will save duplication of work, with increased benefit to the blind.

In order to continue its present activities, enlarge its work along the lines suggested elsewhere in this report, and provide relief where necessary, the annual appropriation to the Commission should be increased to at least 8150,000. This amount is easily less than one-half the cost of the initial year of a pension system, and the resulting benefit to the blind will, it is believed, be much greater.

III. PERSONNEL OF THE COMMISSION

Number

A small, active body of workers is the most effective kind of organization; the present number of Commissioners (five) meets well this requirement. The sole reason for any increase in the number is the possible gain in the representation of a somewhat greater diversity of interests. This gain is wholly problematic; it will be considered later in another connection.

Sex

The New York State Commission on the Adult Blind found in 1903 that of the 6,008 persons returned as blind by the census enumerators of 1900, 45 per cent were women; 55 per cent men. As the Commission's activities are concerned with both sexes, it is very appropriate that there should be a representation of both sexes in the membership of the Commission; and as the men probably predominate, the present proportion of two women and three men seems entirely logical.

Points of View Represented

In the matter of adequate representation of divergent points of view,: social and economic, the Commission seems well constituted. One of the first essentials in the work of any State Commission is that strict business,: principles shall be applied. The presence on the Commission of two eminently successful business men should insure this. That these gentlemen give liberally of their time both to attend the meetings of the Commission and, in their capacity as members of the Shop Committee, to consider and pass upon the varied and perplexing problems of shop management that continually arise, does insure the application of business principles just so far as there can be applied in shops where the workers are laboring under su serious a handicap as blindness imposes.

The presence on the Commission of two women, both well known for their humanitarian and philanthropic activities, one of whom has had many years of experience in relief work of all kinds, insures that the purely business point of view shall not be so prominent that the philanthropic and humanitarian aspects of the Commission's activities shall be lost sight of.

That one of these women has been blind for many years assures the Commission that it has at least the point of view of those who have lost sight in adult life.

That the fifth member of the Commission is an educator of the blind whose two years' experience as a teacher in the Royal Normal College for the Blind in London, England, under that eminent teacher of the blind, Sir Francis Campbell, himself blind, has been followed by twenty-six years' experience as the directing head of two of our leading schools for the blind, insures to the Commission constantly the point of view of a leader in the education of the blind in America.

The question may fairly be raised whether one or two additional points of view might be represented on the Commission with advantage to the blind. Would it be helpful if there were added to the Commission a physician, and one blind from birth or early childhood? Unquestionably, it is important that the Commission have the benefit of these two points of view, but it is not absolutely essential that they be represented in the personnel of the Commission. The viewpoint of the former is constantly secured through the close association with such institutions as the Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary, through constant interviews which the Commission's employees have with oculists who have attended patients during the oncoming of blindness, and through the work on prevention and in behalf of those with defective vision which is a part of the work delegated by law to the Commission. And the point of view of all the blind is unquestionably secured to the Commission through its thirteen blind and partially blind employees and the seven home teachers, four of whom are totally and one partially blind, supplemented by the many shades of opinion expressed by the workers in the Commission's shops and in their own homes. The chief, if not the only reason, then, for adding to the numbers of the Commission is with a view to disarming criticism, which, in the judgment of the writer, would not be effected by the addition of a blind person to the Commission. Such increase is, therefore, not recommended.

Meetings

Regular meetings of the Commission are held every two weeks -- a provision which seems to the writer deserving of special commendation, as it insures to the Commissioners a much more intimate knowledge of the many problems with which they must deal. Monthly meetings of organizations, public and private alike, are usually considered quite sufficient and are the customary thing. The State and the blind for whose benefit the Commission exists are to be congratulated upon having a Commission whose members are able and willing to give to their official duties double the time that is usually, expected of the members of such bodies.

Inquiry elicited the information that the meetings are regularly attended by a majority of the Commissioners, and that it is rare that the number (three) necessary for a quorum is not present.

IV. CENTRAL OFFICE STAFF

It is extremely difficult for an outsider with but a limited time at his disposal to secure accurate information upon such questions as the qualifications, division of labor, and relation to each other and to the Commission of a staff of workers. The writer spent three-entire days and portions of two days of his stay in Boston in the central office and among the staff of that office, conferring with nearly all of them and talking quite at length with several. Quite extended conferences were held with the General Superintendent, the Superintendent of Training and Employment for Men, the Superintendent of Training and Employment for Women, the Field Agent for the Prevention of Blindness, the Field Worker who distributes the case work, the Field Worker on Employment, the Accountant, and with three home teachers. These conferences were wholly informal and quite intimate and sympathetic, with the result that the writer feels that he acquired rather intimate and first-hand knowledge of the staff. The following observations are the result of the information thus gained:

Qualifications

The impression made upon an earnest searcher after the truth concerning the qualifications of the staff is that the Commission has been extremely fortunate in the selection of its force. For several years I have followed with intense interest the work of Miss Wright, and a closer and somewhat critical examination of the organization which she has worked out under the general direction of the Commission intensifies the belief that she is by training and experience peculiarly adapted to the position she holds. I have known, too, for some time Mr. Holmes, Miss Rand, Mr. Greene, Mr. Cole, and Miss Lewis. I have always believed that each of these five workers was peculiarly fitted to his particular task, and the more intimate knowledge gained of their general qualifications only served to strengthen this belief.

I spent several hours looking into the operations of the salesroom, the methods in vogue in helping the blind workers in their homes by furnishing them raw materials, supervising and directing their work and marketing their products, and discovered nothing to criticize unfavorably and no changes in method to suggest. Miss Rand and Miss Cummings seem to be working with intelligence, sympathy, and remarkable devotion upon an exceedingly difficult and discouraging problem.

There is great need for opportunities for work for blind people, particularly women, in their homes, but there is scarcely a more difficult problem in the entire range of work for the adult blind. There is great need of the development throughout the entire country of suitable educational methods and opportunities for pupils with impaired vision. Toward the solution of this important problem the Massachusetts

Commission has already made important contributions, and the work of Mr. Greene for the prevention of blindness and for the education of those with defective sight is well and favorably known.

As the problems involved in the work under the supervision of Mr. Holmes, Mr. Cole, and Miss Lewis belong chiefly to other members of the Survey Committee, I concerned myself with them only as they seemed to be a part of the topic assigned to me.

I spent some little time at Woolson House Shop and took dinner with the workers there. Woolson House and the shop connected with it are expensive to maintain; but every one working for and with blind women realizes how exceedingly difficult it is to find remunerative industries for this needy portion of the blind population. Miss Lewis is working sympathetically, conscientiously, and intelligently at a very difficult problem. I am unable to make any constructive criticism here; I can only commend both the shop management and the service rendered by and through Woolson House. I trust the recent efforts made to extend the service of the House along new lines will prove successful.

My visit to the Cambridge Industries was too hurried to warrant any expression of opinion beyond the statement that I was impressed with the air of industry that obtained in the shops and the apparent spirit of contentment among the workmen. This seemed particularly to be true in the broom and willow departments. I could not avoid contrasting the present condition of these men occupied and contented in their work with their condition under any pension system that could be devised.

I spent from two to three hours with Mr. Holmes, getting his point of view concerning his own work and also with reference to future work for the blind of the State. His direction of the work of the Massachusetts Commission for the Blind shops, so far as it can be judged at long range, seems along lines dictated by common sense and reason. I gave considerable thought and attention to a possible larger field of usefulness for Mr. Holmes's powers, being particularly urged to do so by the General Superintendent. Mr. Holmes, too, gave me his fullest confidence and talked frankly and freely. I am unable, however, to make any very helpful recommendations here. The General Superintendent's suggestion that he might be very helpful in the consideration and assignment of cases appealed to me as a possible field for larger service.

Salaries

I have been furnished with duplicate copies of the information concerning each employee of the Commission which the Executive Council Committee on Standardization of Salaries requires each employee, in a "permanent or regularly established position in the State service," to furnish upon suitable blanks known as "Form A." These blanks call for detailed information upon a number of points, among which are the following which are germane to the subject of the salaries of the Commission' employees; viz., salary, detailed description of work, time devoted to work and vacations. A careful study of these blanks fails to reveal any extravagances in salaries paid. On the contrary, a careful reading of the state merits of the duties of the employees and their hours of labor conveys the impression that in this matter of salaries the Commission is applying strict business principles.

But I question, whether in a few instances salaries should not be increased. E.g., I am surprised to learn that the General Superintendent is not receiving a larger compensation. Considering her training, experience, social, and executive ability, she can easily command a larger salary. A man who would do the work as efficiently as I believe she is doing would command double the salary.

If the Accountant is doing her work as satisfactorily as appears, her compensation seems rather inadequate. Her position is one of exceptional responsibility and her duties seem arduous. But the business men on the Commission are better judges of this than the writer.

If the work of the Home Teachers is as satisfactory as a superficial examination of it indicates, it would seem that their compensation should be increased. And I make this recommendation all the more emphatic if I am correct in my understanding that they have been receiving these salaries since the teaching of blind adults in their homes was begun fifteen years ago. Would it not be well to adopt the idea of a graduated increase in compensation upon the basis of length of satisfactory service? I have just learned that the New York State Commission has recently determined upon the following schedule of salaries for its home teachers, increases being contingent upon satisfactory service:

First year $720.00
Second year 780.00
Third year 840.00
Fourth year 900.00
Fifth year 1,000.00

As Home Teachers are usually granted an additional allowance for guides and for traveling expenses for both themselves and guides, these salaries seem rather excessive. But I believe the principle to be sound. I recommend its adoption to the Commission, the amount and rate of increase to be determined by conditions in the State of Massachusetts.

After all, the matter of compensating its employees can best be determined by those who know conditions more intimately than is possible' for an outsider to learn them in five days. These impressions are noted, however, in the performance of my duties as a member of the Survey Committee.

Division of Labor Impressions gained by my rather intimate association with the central office staff for several days are to the effect that the staff is well organized with a view to preventing overlapping of duties and to securing the best possible results for the blind of the State. I was particularly well impressed with the method of handling the "case work," a method that I heartily commend to workers for the blind elsewhere. While I gave only a superficial examination to the individual card records, because this topic was assigned to another member of the Committee, I believe these records are exceptionally well kept. Records of this kind have little value unless kept strictly up to date; and to keep them up to date requires that a large amount of detailed clerical work be done with accuracy and dispatch. From my own limited experience and observation, I know that only those who have a rather intimate knowledge of systems of record keeping have any conception of the vast amount of labor involved. Herein lies the only reason for my mention of the topic, viz., that while a merely superficial knowledge of the requirements of the central office may lead one to suppose that the staff is larger than it need be, one need not pursue his investigation far to satisfy himself that each member of the staff has his full quota of important work. The farther I pursued my investigations the more fully I became convinced that when the full scope of the Commission's activities was understood, the need for every member of the staff became apparent.

Relations to Each Other and to the Commission

I understand that the division superintendents are appointed and may be removed from office by the Commission, but that they are directly responsible to the General Superintendent. There seems here to be a division of responsibility or accountability that is incompatible with the highest' efficiency. Experience has established beyond question the fact that the best results are obtained where the entire responsibility of an organization is placed in the hands of one individual, who is held responsible for results. There is no question in my mind that all the division superintendents should be chosen by the General Superintendent, subject to the approval of the Commission. And in order that there be no possible misunderstanding among the division superintendents or any of the officers of the Commission, this policy should be clearly announced.

In my investigations I learned that there is a slight misunderstanding on the part of one, possibly of two, of the division superintendents on this question of accountability. One expressed the feeling that the General Superintendent has gradually assumed authority which she did not originally have and which, as he understood it, it was not the intention of the Commission that she should possess. So far as I could learn, all the others understood that they were directly responsible to the General Superintendent and the plan was wholly satisfactory.

I realize that the present General Superintendent was not appointed immediately to succeed her predecessor; that the organization continued without change for some time; and that she has gradually acquired substantially all the powers and duties of General Superintendent. Inquiry from members of the Commission, from the one division superintendent most pronounced in his dissatisfaction with the present arrangement, and from the General Superintendent herself, led me to the conclusion that, with these exceptions, there is now a fairly clear understanding that the General Superintendent has entire charge under the Commission of all its activities, and that the division superintendents are responsible to the Commission through the General Superintendent. The requirements by the Executive Council Committee on Standardization of Salaries that in answering the inquiries concerning "each permanent or regularly established position in the State service" each employee of the Commission in his "official record" shall describe his work in detail, indicating as clearly as possible the scope and character of his duties, whether office, traveling, or field work, and whether he supervises or directs the work of other employees, coupled with the discriminating manner in which these records have been "approved" and signed, should, and I believe will, be of distinct value in clarifying this whole matter of the relations of the entire staff to each other and to the Commission.

I would particularly commend the method pursued at the meetings of the Commission, whereby the division superintendents are present while their recommendations are being considered. This plan should result in better acquainting the Commission with the problems these superintendents have to meet and in enabling the Commission to know its employees better, with the resulting ability to judge with greater fairness their qualifications for their positions and the degree of success being attained in their work. If the General Superintendent is always present at these meetings and her opinion is frequently asked, no division superintendent can get the wrong notion of his relation to the General Superintendent and to the Commission.

V. DEFINITION OF BLINDNESS

A visit to any one of our residential or day schools for the blind will furnish concrete evidence of the difficulty of formulating a workable definition of blindness. "Border line" cases, whether of sight or mentality, furnish a large proportion of the most difficult problems in all work for the blind. After several years' study of the problem, the oculist at the Pennsylvania Institution for the Instruction of the Blind, Dr. T. B. Holloway, has determined that as a general rule a boy or girl who possesses only one-tenth or less of normal vision is eligible as a pupil of the school. Substantially the same view has been expressed by the oculists of several other schools for the blind. All information available seems to substantiate view that the Commission's statement in their sixth annual report lovers the ground admirably, and that it would be difficult to formulate it better statement of the problem.

VI. SCOPE OF WORK OF A COMMISSION FOR THE BLIND

The ideal towards which a State Commission for the Blind should aim s the largest possible service to every blind person within the confines of the State. This ideal has been well stated in the Ninth Annual Report of the Commission, under the topic, "Summary of Work of the Past Year." My study of the Commission's activities leads me to believe that the Commission is working towards this goal as rapidly as possible with the funds placed at its disposal.

I have never considered relief work as a province of a Commission for the Blind; but with the apparent tendency toward providing State pensions for the blind population, the question may fairly be raised whether he powers and duties of the Commission may not well be increased to permit the granting of needed relief. Whether this relief should be distributed through the Commission or through the ordinary channels for granting relief is a question upon which there may be an honest difference of opinion; but upon the statement that the Commission has or can secure betterer than any other organization the facts upon which the need for relief is apparent, there can be only unanimity of opinion. If the Commission is granted the necessary increase in appropriation by slight additions to its corps of field workers, it can easily investigate every case of blindness needing relief. Indeed, the necessary facts with reference to a large number of cases are already within the possession of the Commission. All that is needed is that the State shall empower the Commission to make all the necessary investigations and provide the funds for the additional field workers and for the needed relief. Such a plan will be far more satisfactory and economical than a general pension system.

General Conclusions

During my five days' study of the Commission's activities and of the organization through which it attempts to carry on the work it is authorized to do, I made an honest attempt to discover the strength and the weakness of the organization. I approached the problem in an entirely, unprejudiced state of mind, but with a determination to know the truth. In this effort I was afforded every assistance by members of the Commission, by the General Superintendent, the division superintendents, and by every member of the staff, who could answer such questions as I raised or supply information I was seeking. There was manifest on the part of every employee an earnest desire to aid me in getting at the truth, and there was a notable absence of any effort to prejudice my opinions in any way.

I have endeavored to set forth my findings as fully and as helpfully as possible and to speak with entire candor. Careful search failed to reveal any serious fundamental defects in the organization or in the methods of, the Commission's activities. In general, I have only commendation for the Commission and its employees, and hope that the State legislators may be wise enough to grant a generous increase in funds, that the Commission may be given an opportunity to prove the correctness or the incorrectness of its plans to provide relief for the blind in some other manner than by a general pension system.

Respectfully submitted,
(Signed) O. H. BURRITT.
February 2, 1917.