Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T18:37:45.213Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Farm, Foster Care, and Dependent Children in the Midwest, 1880–19201

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 June 2013

Megan Birk
Megan Birk*
Affiliation:
University of Texas, Pan American
*
[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Between the Civil War and World War I, the midwestern farm played an important role in the care of dependent children. Instead of paying families to take in children, welfare workers relied on farmers to take children in for free. However, the situation for dependent children and farmers changed during the Progressive Era. Movements to improve farming methods and standards of living in the hopes of keeping rural people on the land highlighted the difficulties of farm life. For the children placed in free homes with farmers, reformers sought to improve record keeping and supervision. Such reforms had unforeseen consequences. The bureaucracy needed to supervise children placed on farms increased costs, while farmers resented the intrusion. Children who labored for free on farms no longer learned skills useful in the modern, industrializing nation. As more systematic supervision became standard across the Midwest, farm placement lost its appeal. By examining the motivations for better supervision of placed-out children and how those plans became policy, this article reveals complexities, underestimated by previous scholars, in the commonly told story of the transition of child-welfare practices from an emphasis on free farm placement to paid foster care in suburban and urban settings.

Type
Essays
Information
The Journal of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era , Volume 12 , Issue 3 , July 2013 , pp. 320 - 342
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Historians of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

1

I would like to thank the UTPA faculty research council for providing summer financial support for this article. I would also thank the journal's readers for their constructive feedback, along with Brent M.S. Campney and the UTPA Women's Writing across the Curriculum group, who read early drafts.

References

2 Roosevelt, Theodore, “The Man Who Works With his Hands,” Annual Iowa Yearbook of Agriculture 8 (1907): 516Google Scholar.

3 Slingerland, William Henry, Child Placing in Families: A Manual for Students and Social Workers (Philadelphia, 1918), 40Google Scholar.

4 Tiffin, Susan, In Whose Best Interest: Child Welfare Reform in the Progressive Era (New York, 1982), 94Google Scholar.

5 Folks, Homer, “Why Should Dependent Children Be Reared in Families Rather than in Institutions,” The Charities Review 6 (Jan. 1896): 140Google Scholar.

6 Lovett, Laura, Conceiving the Future: Pronatalism, Reproduction, and the Family in the United States, 1890–1938 (Chapel Hill, 2007), 11CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Tanenhaus, David S., “Between Dependency and Liberty: The Conundrum of Children's Rights in the Gilded Age,” Law and History Review 23 (Summer 2005): 351–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 Many children from outside the region came to the Midwest as a result of various Orphan Trains, assembled by eastern institutions as a way to move urban dependents to rural areas. Holt, Marilyn Irvin, The Orphan Trains: Placing Out in America (Lincoln, NE, 1992)Google Scholar; O'Conner, Stephen, Orphan Trains: The Story of Charles Loring Brace and the Children He Saved and Failed (Chicago, 2004)Google Scholar.

8 Katz, Michael, In The Shadow of the Poorhouse: A Social History of Welfare in America (New York, 1996)Google Scholar; Crenson, Matthew, Building the Invisible Orphanage: A Prehistory of the American Welfare System (Cambridge, MA, 1998)Google Scholar; Tiffin, In Whose Best Interest; Hasci, Timothy, Second Home: Orphan Asylums and Poor Families in America (Cambridge, MA, 1997)Google Scholar; Mintz, Steven, Huck's Raft: A History of American Childhood (Cambridge, MA, 2004)Google Scholar.

9 Some children were placed from an institution (public or private), whereas others came from a placing agency such as the Children's Aid Society. The techniques for placement also varied. Some children lived with farmers under an indenture contract, whereas for others no indenture existed.

10 There was little racial diversity in the midwestern farm placement system, although ethnic diversity did exist. Because many contracts indicated a need to “treat the child like a family member,” African American children were not placed with white families unless the contract was altered to read like a labor agreement. The predominance of white, Protestant farmers in the Midwest and indeed throughout the United States meant that those families were most likely to take in children. Catholic and Jewish placing agencies attempted to locate families to care for their children in order to keep them out of the Protestant placing system; see Gordon, Linda, The Arizona Orphan Abduction (Cambridge, MA, 2001Google Scholar). For information on southern placements, Jones, Catherine A., “Ties that Bind, Bonds that Break: Children in the Reorganization of Households in Postemancipation Virginia,” Journal of Southern History 76 (Mar. 2010): 71–106Google Scholar.

11 Eleventh Annual Report of the Superintendent of Michigan State Public School for the Year Ending September 30, 1885 (Coldwater, MI, 1885), 23Google Scholar.

12 “Provision for Dependent Children,” Friends’ Intelligencer 45 (Philadelphia, 1888): 581Google Scholar.

13 For detailed information about children on farms, Riney-Kehrberg, Pamela, Childhood on the Farm: Work, Play, and Coming of Age in the Midwest (Lawrence, KS, 2005)Google Scholar.

14 Alden, Lyman, “The Shady Side of Placing Out,” National Conference of Charities and Corrections 12 (1885): 204Google Scholar.

15 States in the Midwest began legally restricting placement from eastern locations during the 1890s. For estimated totals, see “Map: Number of Children Placed Out from 1854–1910,” www.orphantraindepot.com/Map.html (accessed May 31, 2011). The Children's Aid Society and the Children's Home Finding Society (CHFS) were among the two most active placing groups. The CHFS was headquartered in Illinois.

16 “Reports of the Child Saving Section,” The Charities Review 5 (June 1895): 438Google Scholar.

17 Logansport (Indiana) Daily Journal, Sept. 11, 1899.

18 Indenture Records, Case: Clara, Perry County, Ohio, Children's Home Ledger, 1895, Ohio Historical Society, Columbus.

19 Tiffin, In Whose Best Interest, 73. Many placement contracts dictated that a cash allowance, new clothing, and other tokens were to be given to children if they completed the contract or agreement.

20 Marrill, Galen A., “Some Recent Developments in Child-Saving,” National Conference of Charities and Corrections 27 (May 1900): 227Google Scholar. Gittens, Joan, Poor Relations: The Children of the State of Illinois, 1818–1990 (Urbana, 1994), 20, 33Google Scholar; Holt, Orphan Trains, 34; Nelson, Claudia, Little Strangers: Portrayals of Adoption and Foster Care in America, 1850–1929 (Bloomington, IN, 2003), 54Google Scholar; Cmiel, Kenneth, A Home of Another Kind: One Chicago Orphanage and the Tangle of Child Welfare (Chicago, 1995), 41Google Scholar.

21 Alden, “The Shady Side of Placing Out”; Crenson, Building the Invisible Orphanage, 154; Indiana Quarterly Bulletin of Charities and Corrections 65 (June 1907): 141.

22 Annual Report, Ohio Board of State Charities (Norwalk, OH, 1890), 92–93Google Scholar.

23 Montgomery, J. B., “The State Public School Idea at its Best,” National Conference of Charities and Corrections 27 (May 1900): 234Google Scholar.

24 Snodgrass, Winfield, “The Michigan System for Caring for Dependent Children,” Christian Advocate, Aug. 1898, 34Google Scholar.

25 Annual Report, Ohio Board of State Charities (Norwalk, OH, 1891), 319Google Scholar; Indiana Quarterly Bulletin of Charities and Correction (Dec., 1895): 30.

26 Sutton, John, “Bureaucrats and Entrepreneurs: Institutional Responses to Deviant Children in the United States, 1890–1920s,” American Journal of Sociology 95 (Nov. 1990): 1379CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Charities Review, June 5, 1895, 437. Wisconsin and Minnesota followed the lead of Michigan, eventually building their own state institutions and hiring state agents to do visitation work.

27 Reynolds, W.S., “Report of the State Agent,” Report of the Board of State Charities (Indianapolis, 1911), 159Google Scholar.

28 In Indiana during 1911, the five female agents visited over 1,800 children and spent 1,358 days traveling. They found new homes for 248 children and re-placed 178 children. They also investigated 529 applications for children but only approved 105 of those. Reynolds, “Report of the State Agent,” 162–63. Also, Hutchinson, Dorothy, In Quest of Foster Parents: A Point of View on Homefinding (New York, 1943), 4Google Scholar.

29 Hall, Edward A., “Destitute and Neglected Children: The Relations between Their Care and Education in the Home and in the Institution,” National Conference of Charities and Corrections 26 (May 1899): 182Google Scholar.

30 Annual Report, Indiana Board of State Charities (Indianapolis, 1901), 125Google Scholar.

31 Elizabeth White, “The History and Development of the Illinois Children's Home and Aid Society” (MA thesis, University of Chicago, 1934), 20–23.

32 Riney-Kehrberg, Childhood on the Farm, ch. 6; Indiana Quarterly Bulletin of Charities and Corrections (Dec. 1896): 19.

33 Slingerland, Child Placing in Families, 44–45; Gardner, W. T., “Home Placing,” National Conference of Charities and Corrections (May 1900): 237–46Google Scholar.

34 Annual Report of the State Visitors for the State of Illinois (Springfield, IL, 1917)Google Scholar.

35 Ibid. In 1923, the CHFS continued to monitor almost 1,300 children annually on the state's behalf. “Home Life for Children,” (Chicago), Oct. 1923, 18. See also White, “History and Development of the Illinois Children's Home and Aid Society.”

36 Biennial Report of the State Visitor to the State Board of Administration, Illinois, for the Years 1912–1914 (Springfield, IL, 1914), 8.

37 Birk, Megan, “Supply and Demand: The Mutual Dependency of Children's Institutions and the American Farmer,” Agricultural History 86 (Winter 2012): 78–103CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

38 Lovett, Conceiving the Future, 166, 168.

39 Ibid., 51–52.

40 Ibid., 121, 130.

41 Quoted in Lovett, Conceiving the Future, 114; Bowers, William, The Country Life Movement in America, 1900–1920 (Port Washington, NY, 1974).Google Scholar

42 Lovett, Conceiving the Future, 127; Machtinger, Barbara, “The U.S. Children's Bureau and Mother's Pensions Administration, 1912–1930,” Social Service Review 73 (Mar. 1999): 111CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lindenmeyer, Kriste, A Right to Childhood: The U.S. Children's Bureau and Child Welfare, 1912–1946 (Urbana, IL, 1997)Google Scholar.

43 Danbom, David, The Resisted Revolution: Urban America and the Industrialization of Agriculture, 1900–1930 (Ames, IA, 1979);Google ScholarHurt, R. Douglas, American Agriculture: A Brief History (Ames, IA, 1994)Google Scholar.

44 Reynolds, “Report of the State Agent,” 161; Clapp, Elizabeth, Mothers of All Children: Women Reformers and the Rise of Juvenile Courts in Progressive Era America (University Park, PA, 1998)Google Scholar; Sutton, “Bureaucrats and Entrepreneurs”; Tanenhaus, David, “Justice for the Child: The Beginning of the Juvenile Court in Chicago,” Chicago History 27 (Winter 1998–99): 6Google Scholar.

45 Fox, Hugh, “The Relation of a State Board of Charities to Child Caring Societies and Institutions,” National Conference of Charities and Corrections 26 (May 1899): 385–86Google Scholar.

46 Brunner, Edmund S. and Kolb, J.H., Rural Social Trends (New York, 1969)Google Scholar, 273, 340.

47 Solomon Schindler, “Dependent Children and the State,” The Arena, Sept. 1905, 276.

48 Folks, Homer, “Some Developments of the Boarding Out System,” Charities Review (Mar. 1893): 257Google Scholar; Folks, “Why Should Some Dependent Children,” 143.

49 Barron, Hal, Mixed Harvest: The Second Great Transformation in the Rural North, 1870–1930 (Chapel Hill, 1997)Google Scholar; Neth, Mary, Preserving the Family Farm: Women, Community, and the Foundations of Agribusiness in the Midwest, 1900–1940 (Baltimore, 1995)Google Scholar; Nordin, Dennis and Scott, Roy V., From Prairie Farmer to Entrepreneur: The Transformation of Midwestern Agriculture (Bloomington, IN, 2005)Google Scholar; Hurt, R. Douglas, Problems of Plenty: The American Farmer in the Twentieth Century (Chicago, 2002)Google Scholar.

50 Quoted in Slingerland, Child Placing in Families, 124.

51 Annual Report of the State Agency for Dependent Children, Indiana, 1918, 198–99, 204. During this same year, private agencies looked after 535 placed-out children in Indiana, while state agents took care of 174. Mary Lyons-Barnett, Child Labor in Commercialized Agriculture, (PhD diss., University of Nebraska, 2002), 111.

52 Biennial Report of the Board of Control for the Michigan State Public School (Lansing, 1885), 20.

53 J.M. Mulry, “The Care of Destitute and Neglected Children,” National Conference of Charities and Corrections 26 (May 1899): 168; Zelizer, Viviana, Pricing the Priceless Child: The Changing Social Value of Children (Princeton, 1985)Google Scholar; Klebaner, Benjamin, “Poverty and Its Relief in American Thought, 1815–1861,” Social Service Review 38 (Dec. 1964): 389CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

54 Quoted in Fox, “Relation of a State Board of Charities to Child Caring Societies and Institutions,” 386.

55 Effland, Anne, “When Rural Does Not Equal Agricultural,” Agricultural History 74 (Spring 2000): 489–501Google Scholar.

56 Holt, Orphan Trains, 179. Also, Tiffin, In Whose Best Interest, 96–97.

57 On stipends awarded to mothers, Skocpol, Theda, Protecting Soldiers and Mothers: The Political Origins of Social Policy in the United States (Cambridge, MA, 1992)Google Scholar; Katz, In the Shadow, 171–72.

58 Evans, Glendower, “What Do You Know of the Children after They Leave Your Home or Institution? Do you Supervise Them?” National Conference of Charities and Corrections 34 (June 1907): 278Google Scholar.

59 Home Life for Childhood (Chicago), Sept. 8 1919.

60 Folks, “Why Should Dependent Children,” 141–43. Also, Crenson, Building the Invisible Orphanage, 314. Crenson indicates that the affordability of foster homes as opposed to the high overhead of institutions combined with changing notions about childhood helped fuel this change.

61 Rooke, Patricia and Schnell, R.L., “From Binding to Boarding Out in Britain and English Canada: A Transformation in Childhood Sentiment and Practice,” Paedagogica Historica 24 (Spring 1984): 463CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 476.

62 Hall, “Destitute and Neglected Children,” 181.

63 Katz, In the Shadow of the Poorhouse; Crenson, Building the Invisible Orphanage; Tiffin, In Whose Best Interest; Hasci, Second Home. A related trend was toward institutional specialization, for example the maintenance of institutions for disabled children, children of veterans, and children with behavioral disorders, along with the use of institutions for children considered delinquent by parents or society. Odem, Mary, Delinquent Daughters: Protecting and Policing Adolescent Female Sexuality in the United States, 1885–1920 (Chapel Hill, 1995)Google Scholar; Bush, William S., Who Gets a Childhood?: Race and Juvenile Justice in Twentieth Century Texas (Athens, GA, 2009)Google Scholar.

64 Crenson, Building the Invisible Orphanage. Adoption is sometimes mentioned as an alternative to the system of child placement. In general, however, people interested in formal adoption wanted very young children. Adoption never competed with placement because the types of children sought by prospective parents differed from those subject to placement or foster care. Berebitsky, Julie, Like Our Very Own: Adoption and the Changing Culture of Motherhood, 1850–1948 (Lawrence, KS, 2001)Google Scholar.

65 Slingerland, Child Placing in Families, 122.

66 Ibid., 130–31.

67 Ibid., 122.

68 In 1917, an estimated 200 home-finding agencies worked inside the United States, a number that did not include institutions placing children independently. Annually, these agencies placed approximately 50,000 children. Slingerland, Child Placing in Families, 39.

69 Social Service Review 66 (Spring 1992).