Department of Human Resom'ces/353

The counties and Baltimore City bore the financial burden of their almshouses and out-pensioners
alone, although the legislature passed all laws relating to their administration The State Cook no direct
fiscal responsibility for the poor and destitute, relief came from county taxes An unusual statewide measure
passed in 1816 for the temporary relief of the poor due to "the awful calamity of a scarcity of grain" enabled
the counties to borrow, levy, or appropriate funds for their suffering citizens, but no State monies were
provided (Chapter 192, Acts of 1816) State funds built a few State institutions in the late nineteenth
century, but they were far outnumbered by private charitable institutions The legislature, recognizing the
vital necessity for such private institutions, haphazardly granted annual appropriations to a select and
favored few, requiring no accountability or efficiency in return

Private philanthropy grew profusely, paralleling the growth of private fortunes in the nineteenth
century In Baltimore City especially, private citizens and religious bodies supported soup kitchens,
orphanages, hospitals, schools, nurseries, and old-age homes Private charitable institutions developed to
meet public welfare needs not met by almshouses, out pensions, and the few existing State institutions
Due in part to the multiplicity of charitable institutions, out-pensions in Baltimore City ceased around
1862, and, until outlawed by the legislature, City government instead appropriated funds to private
charities Baltimoreans early realized that while private charitable donations and institutions were more
than adequate to meet the needs of the City's poor, distribution was chaotic and inadequate Two
organizations, the Baltimore Association for Improving the Condition of the Poor (1849) and the
Baltimore Chanty Organization (1881), were formed to organize philanthropy according to the ideals of
"scientific chanty" which ultimately resulted in the professionalization of social work but also categorized
the poor as worthy and unworthy Both organizations, to avoid duplication of resources, used a central
registry of recipients and investigated applications for assistance Both organizations were concerned more
with solutions to underlying causes of poverty than with relief of immediate needs

Scientific chancy attacked in particular the out pensioner system, which was flawed For instance, the
Trustees of the Poor or the levy court, whichever had responsibility for the pensions, had no authonry or
manpower to check on recipients without an act of legislature A person receiving a pension could receive
it until death, no matter how circumstances changed In each county, the process was different with no
uniform standard of need or accountability In contrast, the proponents of scientific chancy wanted an
organized system with the poor classified and labeled according to need, they believed statistics would
provide enlightened forms of relief Opponents of scientific charity's campaign to end out pensions argued
that most recipients of out-pensions were mothers wich children who would be separaCed if pensions were
ended Progressives worlang for reforms such as workmen's compensacion and child labor laws embraced
che mothers' pension i^ue as well A federal conference in 1909, the White House Conference on Children,
influenced some states to establish mothers' pensions In 1916, Maryland extended partial relief to widows
with children under the age of fourteen County government administered and funded the pensions, each
application was investigated, and a mother's worthiness was considered (Chapter 670, Acts of 1916)
Pensions went to the most needy, in case county funds were not sufficient to provide pensions to all
acceptable applicants

The Great Depression beginning in 1929 and the resultant New Deal changed the structure of social
welfare The federal government established and funded programs for pbs, old age pensions, allotments
for dependent children, and distribution of surplus food commodities States were responsible for creating
the machinery to issue federally subsidized benefits In Maryland, the State role in social welfare had begun
pnor to the New Deal with the creation in 1900 of the Board of State Aid and Chanties, the first State
agency with any responsibility for social services (Chapter 679, Acts of 1900) The Board did not shape
State policy for social welfare or administer programs for the poor; instead,the Board investigated pnvate
charitable institutions and recommended to the legislature which were worthy to receive State funds
Beginning in 1922, the Board headed the Department of Charities and received annual reports from the
Stare's two tuberculosis sanitonums (Chapcer 29, Aces of 1922) Retaining its watchdog function, the
State Department of Public Welfare replaced the Board in 1939 (Chapter 99, Acts of 1939) The new
Department coordinated welfare activities in Maryland, administered Aid to Dependent Children, Old
Age Assistance, Assistance to the Needy Blind, and General Public Assistance It also licensed institutions,
agencies, or organizations having custody of either children or the elderly, was empowered to create county
welfare boards, and was the State agency authonzcd to receive federal funds and surplus commodities
under any federal act relating to public welfare Reorganized and renamed, the State Department of Social
Services took over duties of the State Department of Public Welfare (Chapter 702, Acts of 1968), until
it, too, was superseded by the Department of Employment and Social Services in 1970 (Chapter 96, Acts
of 1970) Under the State Department of Public Welfare, county welfare boards had certified eligible
persons for employment in the federal Works Progress Administration, the Public Works Administration,