What Were The Issues In The Human Services Field History

1960s

There is no doubt the 1960s witnessed revolutionary social modify in the United States. The decade ushered in massive political and cultural upheaval: the civil rights movement, antiwar protests, drug culture, women's rights, and the sexual revolution.

Amidst the rapidly changing social and economic conditions, Family Service Association of America (FSAA) examined the range and emphasis of a typical family service agency in 1960. New developments since its 1953 written report on scope and direction included:

Widespread growth of interest in mental health.
Increasing divorce rate and a growing use of marital and family counseling; many agencies had waiting lists.
Continued growth in family life teaching, services for the elderly, and group handling.
Increased fee-based business as family service agencies attracted a growing middle course clientele.
Public concern virtually increasing juvenile malversation and crime. Family service agencies responded with programs aimed at both treatment and prevention.
New strains on families every bit the effect of industrial changes, displaced employees, women in the labor force, and families moving from rural to urban areas. Flight to the suburbs left many key cities as ghettos.
Creation of the American Bar Association'south new section on family constabulary. FSAA and its Committee on Lawyer/Social Welfare were instrumental in its formation.
A growing involvement among health groups in developing "home aide" programs to intendance for patients within the home setting. Much of this activity was based on the pioneer work of family and children's agencies that adult homemaker services.
Increasing emphasis on specific health problems and money raising efforts; growth of united funds to encompass wellness drives within federated fundraising.
Closer ties between voluntary national human service organizations.
Greater participation in professional pedagogy and group education activities.
Greater leadership in customs planning and social activeness.
Interest on the part of big child and family service agencies in conducting research to uncover social problems and create effective solutions.

In the tumultuous 1960s, race relations and poverty took heart stage. The nation awakened to the hereafter needs of its quickly increasing older population. There was a new focus on the growing problems of homelessness, drug addiction, and crime.

Patterns of family unit life were irresolute rapidly in this era; in fact, the very definition of "family" began to be questioned. Child and family service agencies were grappling with significantly increased rates of divorce, out-of-wedlock pregnancies, domestic violence, juvenile delinquency, and drug and booze apply and corruption.

Many thought leaders were questioning the moral fiber of the American people. Did organized religion provide acceptable leadership and guidance? Was the family equally the basic social establishment failing in some of its nearly vital functions?

Federal Funding Offers Opportunities, Challenges

The federal government instituted social welfare legislation and programs not seen since the New Deal. The infusion of federal funding forever contradistinct the course of human service organizations.

During President John F. Kennedy'due south term, Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) eligibility was expanded. Congress passed the Manpower Development and Training Deed, the Social Security amendments, and the Customs Mental Health Centers Act. These provided a greatly increased role for social workers to provide counseling, chore preparation, and outpatient handling. FSAA added a mental health consultant to its staff to assistance craft a preventive approach to mental health intendance.

President Lyndon B. Johnson introduced a plethora of Great Society programs—and federal funding to back them up. The Economical Opportunity Human action, Civil Rights Deed, Older Americans Act, Medicare, Medicaid, and other legislation launched endless new programs to address poverty, racial inequality, health, education, housing, urban decay, and other urgent social problems. In addition, federal funding helped train a new generation of social workers to see the escalating demand.

Federal coin was funneled to the states, which contracted for services from public and individual organizations, both for-turn a profit and nonprofit. Local community action agencies became a strength, contracting with family service organizations for services. FSAA agencies began accepting regime contracts, often creating new programs to address specific needs. This was a key shift non only in the manner organizations were funded, simply in how they developed and operated their services.

At a 1963 meeting, the FSAA Board of Directors discussed the members' use of public funds. Some felt that under no circumstances could public funds be used. Others were equally strong that "you should use whatever you can, whenever you can get it, and for whatsoever purpose it tin be gotten." The board agreed that basic wellness and welfare needs were the responsibility of the government. Agencies should not have public funds to solve a temporary problem, they concurred. Rather, agencies should have a deep commitment to the job they agreed to perform.

The FSAA board focused on the safeguards necessary in using public funds. Agencies should be prepared to refuse public funds if weather were not appropriate. The board also recognized the dangers of over reliance on this new source of funding. It was already clear that United Way funding would be an always-diminishing proportion of agency revenue. Regime funding, besides, could come and become.

Based on FSAA warnings, Ed Christman, executive director of Family and Children'due south Service Center (today's Family Services of Greater Houston) sounded the alarm to his lath. "The individual counseling field volition take to secure a project, increment fees, lean more than to the middle income groups for clients, or use to individual foundations," he told them. Quoting from an FSAA report, Christman said information technology was possible that the "emotional health of the family will exist in the hands of public auspices in 25 years." His agency entered into its first buy of service contracts in 1966, including one for divorce counseling.

Infusion of Public Funds Generates Explosive Growth

"Family service agencies had focused on counseling. Period," says Bob Rice, who was executive director of Family Counseling Center of Middlesex County, N.J., and who afterward joined the FSAA staff. "With federal coin coming into united states of america for mental health services and the war on poverty, that all began to change. These new sources of funding broadened the potential ways of serving people."

The proliferation of government funding and new social welfare programs birthed many new social service agencies. Existing agencies began to offer multiple programs in response to government funding. The proportion of FSAA fellow member agencies offering one or more than specialized service in addition to family unit counseling increased from 79 percentage in 1959 to 89 per centum in 1964. The most marked change occurred in the number of agencies offering grouping treatment, from 11 percent in 1959 to twoscore percent in 1964.

Historically responsive to irresolute social conditions, family service agencies applied new knowledge well-nigh behavioral health intendance to see the changing patterns of family living.

With the divorce rate at a record high, the family service field and the American public wanted solutions. In improver, the 1960 White Firm Conference on Children and Youth heightened involvement in family counseling. Marital counseling and family life education increased tremendously.

FSAA received a grant from the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) in 1962 for a three-year projection involving interagency exploration of causes and treatment of marital problems. Fellow member agencies responded enthusiastically, and many affirmed that their participation challenged and stimulated their local staff members. The NIMH also provided a joint grant to FSAA and the Kid Study Association of America to train family unit caseworkers in leading family life education groups targeted to parents.

Child and family service agencies were pioneers in homemaker services; this field too experienced tremendous growth through the 1950s and 1960s. FSAA took a leadership role in the National Quango for Homemaker Services, formed in 1962 as a joint effort betwixt several dozen voluntary organizations and federal bureaus. Clark Blackburn, FSAA general director, chaired one of its committees. Many FSAA member agencies added homemaker services during the adjacent few decades. Of these, many spun off into customs–wide visiting nurse associations.

Regime funding did not come without strings fastened. Agencies were burdened with newly restrictive and oft onerous regulations. There were also new requirements for accreditation and quality assurance. A principal's degree in social work became the standard in the field. Agencies now emphasized fiscal, administrative, quality, and governance standards.

In 1962, FSAA's consul assembly revised membership requirements with higher standards for casework, staff training, board, and committee participation. Long the recognized trunk in family service accreditation, FSAA intended these new requirements as a valuable tool to strengthen the construction and quality of all member agencies. In meeting these requirements, agencies were held to a certain subject; accountability and transparency were essential.

Accreditation increasingly became the selling point in a competitive funding environment. FSAA continued to heighten the bar on standards. "In the voluntary field, we are going to have to weep loud and louder about maintaining standards if we are going to be at the frontier," the FSAA Board of Directors declared at its May 1968 meeting.

Duplication of Services and Funding Constraints Lead to Mergers

FSAA and other national leaders cautioned in the late 1960s that minor private agencies risked extinction. An FSAA conference for large agency executives sounded a alarm as valid today as it was more than 40 years ago: Agencies must consolidate to achieve economies of calibration and maximize impact.

A United Mode speaker at that briefing predicted that those agencies with yearly budgets under $500,000 would either be merged or become out of concern. They simply could not compete with the government, which had massive resources to rent experienced specialists and consultants. Across the country, local United Manner organizations were assessing community needs and, in many instances, recommending merger betwixt organizations to increase efficiency and provide more than comprehensive services.

In addition, child and family agencies were demonstrating an increasing overlap in programming. Both types of organizations added multiple services in this decade. This was partly due to the surge in federal funds for programming, only it was also based on a new recognition that children must be treated within the context of the family unit. In fact, agencies were losing their market place differentiation. Local United Style organizations and other major donors were urging that agencies with a common mission come up together.

"In the 1960s, there was a growing awareness that we had family service agencies providing back up for children, and child welfare organizations protecting children from 'bad' families," says Reed Henderson, who retired equally president and CEO of Family Lifeline in Richmond, Va. in 2008. Henderson also served as senior vice president for member services at Family unit Service America from 1988–1997. "Why were nosotros treating these every bit two split entities? Why weren't we working together to proceed families together, providing support for children inside these families? Around the country, a lot of child welfare and family service agencies began merging, working to go along families together rather than pulling them apart."

National Focus and Demonstration Project Button Aging Services

The 1961 White House Conference on Aging heightened awareness of the needs of the speedily growing older adult population. FSAA sent 4 delegates to the conference, which led to passage of the Social Security amendments, Medicare, fair housing legislation, and the Older Americans Act of 1965.

In 1960, the Ford Foundation awarded FSAA $300,000 for a four-year demonstration project to work with older adults. FSAA added two professionals to the national staff to manage the project. Forty fellow member agencies from 31 communities participated. The funding supported training, innovation, and improved quality in counseling, home care, and other specialized programs for older adults. It also stimulated closer cooperation at the local level between voluntary and public agencies. The FSAA Project Advisory Commission fostered the interchange of noesis gained past the participating communities. National and regional training institutes promoted cross-fertilization of evolving new concepts and skills.

In addition, shut working relationships were established with other national agencies active in the field of aging, including the National Council on Crumbling, Veterans Administration, Social Security Administration, U.S. Public Health Service, and the NIMH.

The sit-in project successfully integrated piece of work with the elderly and their families into the mainstream of agency program and exercise. "A considerable amount of skill developed, a great deal of leadership emerged, and creativity demonstrated," the projection advisory committee stated in its 1964 report. As funding drew to a close, FSAA integrated the work into numerous national clan departments.

FSAA also received a 1966 grant from the NIMH to enhance services to older adults and their families. Member agencies participated in the airplane pilot project, using a squad arroyo with a professionally–trained caseworker who supervised bureau-trained assistants.

Effectively Uniting Human Services with War on Poverty

Historically, the family unit service field had been concerned with those at the economic fringes of society. Only with the government accepting responsibility for basic human needs and with the growing affluence of the 1950s and 1960s, family unit agencies had the liberty to expand programs and serve new clientele of any income level. Evolving social work techniques now were combined with new sources of acquirement, such every bit fees for service and insurance reimbursements. Family serving agencies increasingly focused on counseling for families of any income level.

In the emerging abundance of the 1950s, poverty went nearly unnoticed. In fact, much of the public idea poverty no longer existed. Yet the 1960 U.S. Census revealed that poverty non just was prevalent, information technology was growing worse.

FSAA conducted a census of its member agencies in 1960 to determine the socioeconomic levels of bureau clients. "Although in that location has been question every bit to whether our agencies are predominantly geared for the middle class, contempo figures … point out that the greater part of our fellow member agency services were devoted to serving the poor and underprivileged groups at the time of a recent study that predates the nowadays interest in them on the part of the federal regime," reported Dorothy Fahs Brook, FSAA managing director of research at the time. Her report, "Inside the Family unit," institute that about iii-quarters of the clientele of family service agencies came from the three lowest income classes. More than lx percent of all casework interviews by family agencies were provided to those in the lower-middle, upper-lower, and lower-lower classes.

The report, however, was widely used to attack FSAA, portraying family service as a white, middle-course institution, disengaged from the poor. FSAA accepted this equally a challenge to know more and do more. Information technology used the census and other findings to spark new ways to serve families more effectively.

President Lyndon B. Johnson alleged an "unconditional war on poverty" in his 1964 Country of the Union address and shortly thereafter enacted the Economic Opportunity Act. Bully Society programs proliferated; further amendments to the Social Security Act created the Medicare and Medicaid programs. With President Johnson'southward declaration, the federal regime created numerous opportunities for the homo sector to help those in need. FSAA and fellow member agencies seized these opportunities to play a significant role in the war on poverty.

With the funding of anti-poverty programs through the 1964 Economic Opportunity Act, family service piece of work began to come total circle. Charity organization societies had begun with friendly visitors who met with the needy in their ain homes. When the federal authorities took over responsibility for relief and bones homo services in the 1930s, family unit agencies had moved into counseling and other services—typically with a "clients can come to us" approach. Now family service agencies were getting out from backside their desks, reaching across the walls of their offices, and once more working directly in low-income neighborhoods.

Like the charity organization societies and settlement houses before them, family agencies of the second half of the 20th century worked to create self-sufficiency and to address the root causes of poverty. Many family service agencies participated in community action programs funded by the Part of Economic Opportunity (OEO). It was a new twist on the former charitable idea of helping people assist themselves, and it gave ascension to an accent on customs-centered initiatives.

Civic Engagement Primary Thrust of Project ENABLE

The OEO awarded a $796,000 grant in 1966 to FSAA, the Child Study Association of America, and the National Urban League. Chosen Projection ENABLE (Instruction and Neighborhood Activity for Better Living Environment), information technology was the first nationwide demonstration funded by OEO using voluntary social agencies. Project ENABLE was a parent pedagogy neighborhood action programme—a precursor of today's civic date initiatives. It was designed to help people living in poverty proceeds competence and financial independence. Grooming institutes were developed in seven areas throughout the land. Professional social workers from local family service agencies were trained in group methods of leadership and parental teaching, and they subsequently trained groups of low-income parents as nonprofessional social work aides.

Originally funded as a multi-year program, Project ENABLE was halted past Congressional budget cuts in 1967. But most of the 64 FSAA member agencies that participated were able to complete at least ane year of outreach service to groups in poverty-stricken neighborhoods. During 1966, more than 600 groups of parents from these neighborhoods met in 6-10 calendar week discussion serial. Special preparation was provided to 95 grouping leaders and 50 community organizers. More than 200 indigenous nonprofessional social work aides were employed and received on-the-job grooming. Most of those moved into better-paying jobs, returned to schoolhouse, or moved into leadership roles as board members or volunteers.

"This was not merely education for child rearing or for living in a family, but education in identifying bug, decision making, and planning strategies for activeness relevant to all conditions that touch on family functioning," a Project ENABLE report summarized. "Project ENABLE has produced concrete results in new or better services to thousands of families, development of new manpower resource, increased utilization of available services, changes in attitudes and behavior, and touch on on every basic establishment of the customs touching the lives of the poor."

Again and over again, participating agencies, boards, and professional staff witnessed an untapped reservoir of strength amidst the project'south target population. They as well witnessed a deep motivation to collaborate in attacking individual and community problems of poverty, ghetto living, and inequality of opportunity. FSAA, the Child Study Association of America, and the National Urban League connected efforts to combine resources in breezy and formal relationships at the local and national level.

Civil Rights Movement is a Wake Upwardly Call

Even before the ceremonious rights move necessitated stiff activity, FSAA had been moving toward greater engagement with and increased recognition of the needs of the black community.

In 1963, FSAA surveyed its members about their efforts to develop services that strengthened family life for minority groups. Agencies changed their policies to facilitate admission by minority families. Many agencies expanded their office hours to evenings and dozens moved their headquarters or opened satellite offices in inner-city neighborhoods. Family life pedagogy and group techniques were targeted specifically to minority populations. Boston Family unit Services (today's Family Service of Greater Boston) for example, created a mobile unit of measurement. Passage of the Community Mental Wellness Human action in 1963 profoundly expanded community outreach, providing funding for innovative services to reach traditionally underserved populations.

The Ceremonious Rights Act of 1964 and other legislation in this decade was targeted to end racial discrimination. How it played out in the streets, on the college campuses, in the board rooms, in lawmakers' offices, and effectually the kitchen tables of America, however, was a different story.

The relatively peaceful sit-ins and marches of earlier years now boiled over into riots and violence. Generations of poverty, unemployment, and injustice fueled hopelessness and rage. The "white institution" was angry besides. Welfare rolls were growing speedily. It was popularly believed that welfare created a culture of poverty and dependence, perpetuated from generation to generation. Welfare programs and those who benefited from them were under growing attack. The social work profession was seen as role of the problem—criticized on i side for perpetuating dependence and on the other for existence out of touch and unresponsive to real bug.

FSAA called for a national policy to finish racial and indigenous discrimination, eradicate the causes of poverty, and protect and strengthen American families. The announcement read: "This policy must be translated into constructive action to remove the obstacles that block the urban poor from achieving healthy family life, and moral responsibility to speak out on principles and programs that are basic to meeting the needs and aspirations of families whose poverty and status (place them) in a minority grouping. We urge a reordering of the priorities of our nation, states and communities. The task … challenges all instruments of social and economical life to affect bones legal, economic and social changes. It demands the moral force of strong leadership."

FSAA too worked to end discrimination amongst its members. Information technology had adopted a position on civil rights at its 1963 biennial conference that called for non-discrimination in selection of lath and staff members. Yet within several years, it was articulate that although the official position of the arrangement changed, it had not noticeably altered the complexion of near association gatherings. FSAA increasingly highlighted the importance and urgency of broader representation of the total community in policy-making, as well as more cognition and understanding of families that were non white and were not middle grade.

A strong working relationship with the National Urban League helped FSAA move more chop-chop and finer toward these goals. A day-long coming together of several board and staff members at the National Urban League in February 1969 led to a workshop, Family Service and the Black Experience.

The minutes of this workshop included: "For those in omnipresence, (it) was a personal and professional landmark. A commitment was made with the clear understanding that its implementation would be difficult and often painful. It would hateful giving up comfortable means of doing things. It would mean sharing power, spending money and changing direction. The question was asked, 'If FSAA will not, who will? If nobody does, what becomes of our lodge?'"

It was agreed that commitment without action was no commitment at all. An ad hoc committee of board and staff was appointed to follow upward. Both the board and FSAA professional person staff added more than people of color to key positions. An issue of Social Casework was devoted to the black perspective, and every section and activity of FSAA gave highest priority to translating new insights into policy and programs.

The FSAA 1969 Biennial Conference, "Coming together with Alter," was aptly named. By this time, protest was everywhere—in the streets, on campuses, in churches, at every major national conference of this type. Information technology was no surprise that change took heart stage at the biennial.

Just afterwards the opening voice communication of the 1969 biennial, a grouping of African American protesters (almost all FSAA members) took over the stage and called for a black caucus.

Brian Langdon, retired president and CEO of FSW in Bridgeport, Conn., remembers information technology well. Langdon was just offset his career in the tardily 1960s; this was his first FSAA conference. "The demonstrators challenged this national organisation to stand upward for the rights of African American families and civil rights," he recalls. "That was a powerful moment that led to rapid and meaning change within FSAA. Information technology also helped all of us retrieve about things in a bigger way, both personally and professionally."

The planned biennial program for the following twenty-four hours, designated as The Day of Challenge, quickly was changed to The Day of Black Claiming. The black caucus presented specific demands to FSAA, including strong activity regarding FSAA's delivery to the National Welfare Rights Organization, greater representation on the FSAA lath by people of color, and an FSAA task force on white racism. Both the FSAA and the blackness caucus regarded these demands every bit positive challenges, motivated by a mutual concern for the future of the family service motility.

At the start national board coming together post-obit the biennial, FSAA President Paul Neal Averill observed that the feel was a healthy reflection of the prevailing mood. FSAA was challenged to update itself and maximize its potential of opportunity to raise family unit and individual operation. "FSAA intends to be among the national leaders in the public and voluntary social welfare movie as information technology responds to current needs," he said. "I believe that this intention will exist our biggest asset in our efforts to implement our preventive arroyo in dealing with the total spectrum of services not merely to minority groups, simply to all clients."

At that time, there were 2 required program services to be an FSAA member bureau; family unit counseling and family life education. Soon later the biennial, family advocacy was besides required for FSAA membership. It was the birth of today'southward public policy and advocacy efforts.

Maintaining Social Activeness and Advisable Service

The family service movement historically took ii approaches to prevention of family unit breakup: straight service and social activity. But when the federal government causeless responsibility for social welfare in the 1930s, family service moved to an emphasis on casework technique rather than social action. As private wellness insurance plans and health maintenance organizations began to cover counseling, agencies gained clientele—and income—from middle-grade families who could pay a fee for service. Over the side by side few decades, social workers increasingly went into private counseling practice. Where were the social activists who pioneered the family service movement?

For several decades, FSAA national and local leadership had exhorted the field not to abdicate its part in social activeness. They felt professionals in the field had a deep moral responsibility. They also recognized that involvement in public bug was directly tied to funding, public relations, and constructive community planning.

"Nosotros take a very basic determination to make equally to whether nosotros are going to … only react to what's going on or whether we are going to participate in our endeavour to influence some of the major decisions that are beingness made," said Aubrey E. Robinson at the 1965 FSAA General Assembly. "I happen to believe firmly that we have a role to play. If we deemphasize this role, and so with complete justification nosotros do not need to be considered while the powers that be … are determining what the individual programs will exist. They tin say … nosotros've decided for yous how you are going to operate. We haven't considered you important enough to involve you in the discussions."

Amid the turmoil of the 1960s, FSAA recognized that it must stand upward and shout. At the November 1969 lath coming together simply earlier the Philadelphia biennial, the lath had established the Family Advancement Program as a major thrust of the association. When the black protestors took the stage at the biennial conference demanding equal rights, it was articulate to every family service leader in attendance that they could no longer focus exclusively on counseling and family life education; family advocacy must be the essential third leg of the stool.

At the same time, while the tumultuous social conditions were deepening, creating ever-increasing demand for new social services, the voluntary sector was harshly criticized for its lack of credibility and effectiveness in addressing the problems of the day. In response to the these challenges, FSAA and fellow member agencies responded with artistic and experimental approaches to run across current needs, aggrandize outreach, and augment the production mix. Nigh agencies grew to multi-service operations. The cost to practice business concern increased tremendously without corresponding growth in sources of income.

Inside this rapid change, the definition of a family service program had get less circumscribed; even FSAA membership requirements were brought into question. New questions arose: In a world of burgeoning federal services, will family service organizations no longer be necessary? To what extent should public funds exist used for bureau programs? What was the place of mental health clinics within a family unit service agency? With more child welfare agencies developing family unit service programs, and vice versa, should family service remain the core program of FSAA? What leadership role should family service play?

As these changes developed within the field and within its own association, FSAA realized that the demand for its services and leadership far exceeded its limited resources. Faced with these challenges, the board voted in autumn 1966 to reassess its primary purpose and its priorities. FSAA retained management consultants Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc. to consummate a thorough study of the organisation. The study involved national lath members, FSAA staff, member bureau staff and board members, and regional and informational committees. A study commission worked with the consultants and fabricated concluding recommendations to the lath. The final Booz Allen Hamilton report was presented to the board in November 1967. The study commission met during 1968 to formulate its recommendations. These were accepted at FSAA board meetings in May and December 1968.

The Booz Allen Hamilton study ended, "The Family unit Service Clan of America has a distinctive role and purpose equally a national federation of family service agencies." The study recommended growth and expansion, including accelerated research, increased services to local affiliated agencies, strengthened national planning, intensive manpower development, and the continuation of major functions of its existing programs.

The report resulted in organizational and staffing changes. The FSAA Division of Regional Services was created in 1968. In 1969, FSAA regional councils were reorganized, with 8 councils in the Primal, Mid Atlantic, Midwest, New York/New Bailiwick of jersey, N Atlantic, Southeast, Southwest, and Due west regions. Each region appointed a vice president who served on the FSAA board of directors.

Post-obit the Booz Allen Hamilton report, the study committee gave highest priority to strengthening FSAA:

As a primary source of knowledge almost families
As the national voluntary arrangement that undertook research to identify changing needs of families, develop the best means of meeting these needs, and provide guidance and aid to member agencies in developing relevant programs
As a leader in finer influencing other voluntary and governmental agencies whose policies and programs affected families

Among all the pressing changes required to accelerate progress toward these goals, the most urgent were to increase noesis and understanding of black communities and families including their strengths and their needs, to remove barriers of advice to and from the blackness community, and to have appropriate action in developing programs, assisting member agencies, and developing social policy.

The study committee also recommended that FSAA develop a national standards development program, simply that membership, accreditation, and reaccreditation of member agencies should be transferred from the national function to the regional council level.

Merger with Child Welfare League of America Explored

A potential merger with the Child Welfare League of America (CWLA) had been a recurring theme for years at FSAA national and regional meetings. The FSAA board specifically asked Booz Allen Hamilton non to investigate the question of merger in depth. That issue would require an expansive (and expensive) additional report.

The 2 organizations had been working cooperatively for some time, particularly in the past decade. Founded in 1920, CWLA had a membership of more than than 300 agencies and represented about 15 percent of the nation's agencies serving children. Its primary areas of focus were standards, accreditation, and social advocacy on behalf of children.

FSAA and CWLA had established a Joint Board Committee on Common Concerns to bring the strength of both national agencies to bear upon improving services to families and children, and to explore additional areas of collaboration. Because many members belonged to both organizations, they created a joint dues construction in 1962. About sixty agencies were in joint membership the first year.

In 1960, FSAA and CWLA joined with the National Council on Criminal offense and Delinquency and the Travelers Aid Clan of America to form a National Survey Service, subsequently chosen the National Study Service. Created with the assist of a $20,000 grant from the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the service helped states and local communities evaluate the need for services and facilities to assistance children and families. The National Study Service became a separate corporation in 1966 with board representatives from each of the four founding organizations. Projects included a study of family credit counseling and a demonstration project on protective services to children. These iv large national organizations also came together to share articulation headquarters in New York City to stimulate farther collaborative efforts.

A number of voluntary organizations had approached both FSAA and/or CWLA for guidance as to their time to come programs. One was the National Association of Services to Unmarried Parents (NASUP), which needed to be taken under the aegis of a well established national organization to keep functioning effectively. NASUP'south membership included near 250 local children and family service agencies, land and national departments, and public health offices. The Florence Crittenton Association of America was another such group looking for sponsorship, and the four national organizations discussed a joint undertaking. In 1963, FSAA and CWLA agreed to jointly sponsor NASUP and seek foundation support to bear on the arrangement's leadership. A $xc,000 grant was secured from the Field Foundation to work on the causes and problems of illegitimacy.

Although the Booz Allen Hamilton report did not assess the feasibility of a merger with CWLA, it did recommend a serious exploration of mergers with other national organizations that had like interests. Both FSAA and CWLA voted for a report in Dec 1968 to focus on how the 2 organizations together could strengthen the national effort to heighten the children and family service fields.

Over the adjacent few years, FSAA and CWLA explored the thought of a merger. The Florence Crittenton Association of America likewise joined the merger discussions. Arrangement and member bureau leaders, executives and staff were closely involved in the process.

Ultimately, it was decided in 1974 not to pursue merger. Start-up costs of every bit much as $650,000 would have to be raised from exterior funds. CWLA and FSAA both were concerned most philosophical differences and did not want to diminish their mission and traditional focus. The Florence Crittenton Clan of America merged with CWLA in 1976. FSAA and CWLA continued to work on identifying areas of joint collaboration.

Read the next chapter from A Century of Service.

Resources Used