How Did The Need For Human Services Aas Program Arise

1960s

At that place is no doubtfulness the 1960s witnessed revolutionary social alter in the U.s.. The decade ushered in massive political and cultural upheaval: the ceremonious rights movement, antiwar protests, drug culture, women's rights, and the sexual revolution.

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

Widespread growth of interest in mental health.
Increasing divorce rate and a growing employ of marital and family counseling; many agencies had waiting lists.
Continued growth in family life didactics, services for the elderly, and group treatment.
Increased fee-based business equally family service agencies attracted a growing middle form clientele.
Public business organization about increasing juvenile delinquency and crime. Family service agencies responded with programs aimed at both treatment and prevention.
New strains on families as the issue of industrial changes, displaced employees, women in the labor forcefulness, and families moving from rural to urban areas. Flight to the suburbs left many central cities as ghettos.
Cosmos of the American Bar Clan'due south new section on family law. FSAA and its Commission on Lawyer/Social Welfare were instrumental in its formation.
A growing involvement among wellness groups in developing "home adjutant" programs to care for patients within the home setting. Much of this activity was based on the pioneer work of family unit and children's agencies that developed homemaker services.
Increasing emphasis on specific health bug and money raising efforts; growth of united funds to encompass health drives inside federated fundraising.
Closer ties between voluntary national human service organizations.
Greater participation in professional education and group education activities.
Greater leadership in customs planning and social activeness.
Interest on the part of large child and family service agencies in conducting inquiry to uncover social problems and create effective solutions.

In the tumultuous 1960s, race relations and poverty took center stage. The nation awakened to the future needs of its speedily increasing older population. In that location was a new focus on the growing issues of homelessness, drug addiction, and offense.

Patterns of family life were changing rapidly in this era; in fact, the very definition of "family" began to exist 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 alcohol utilise and abuse.

Many thought leaders were questioning the moral fiber of the American people. Did organized religion provide adequate leadership and guidance? Was the family as the basic social institution failing in some of its most vital functions?

Federal Funding Offers Opportunities, Challenges

The federal government instituted social welfare legislation and programs not seen since the New Bargain. The infusion of federal funding forever altered the grade of man service organizations.

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

President Lyndon B. Johnson introduced a plethora of Great Society programs—and federal funding to back them up. The Economic Opportunity Act, Ceremonious Rights Act, Older Americans Act, Medicare, Medicaid, and other legislation launched countless new programs to address poverty, racial inequality, health, pedagogy, housing, urban disuse, and other urgent social problems. In addition, federal funding helped railroad train a new generation of social workers to meet the escalating demand.

Federal money was funneled to the states, which contracted for services from public and private organizations, both for-profit and nonprofit. Local community action agencies became a force, contracting with family unit service organizations for services. FSAA agencies began accepting regime contracts, ofttimes creating new programs to address specific needs. This was a fundamental shift not just in the way 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 nether no circumstances could public funds exist used. Others were equally stiff that "you should utilize whatsoever you can, whenever you lot tin can get it, and for whatever purpose information technology can be gotten." The board agreed that basic health and welfare needs were the responsibility of the authorities. Agencies should non take public funds to solve a temporary problem, they concurred. Rather, agencies should have a deep commitment to the task they agreed to perform.

The FSAA board focused on the safeguards necessary in using public funds. Agencies should be prepared to reject public funds if weather were not advisable. The lath also recognized the dangers of over reliance on this new source of funding. Information technology was already articulate that United Style funding would be an ever-diminishing proportion of agency acquirement. Government funding, too, could come and become.

Based on FSAA warnings, Ed Christman, executive manager of Family unit and Children's Service Center (today'southward Family Services of Greater Houston) sounded the alert to his board. "The private counseling field will have to secure a projection, increase fees, lean more to the middle income groups for clients, or apply to private foundations," he told them. Quoting from an FSAA report, Christman said it was possible that the "emotional health of the family unit will be in the hands of public auspices in 25 years." His agency entered into its first purchase of service contracts in 1966, including i for divorce counseling.

Infusion of Public Funds Generates Explosive Growth

"Family unit service agencies had focused on counseling. Period," says Bob Rice, who was executive director of Family unit Counseling Center of Middlesex County, N.J., and who later joined the FSAA staff. "With federal money coming into us for mental health services and the war on poverty, that all began to change. These new sources of funding broadened the potential means 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 member agencies offer one or more specialized service in addition to family counseling increased from 79 percent in 1959 to 89 percent in 1964. The most marked change occurred in the number of agencies offering group treatment, from 11 pct in 1959 to 40 percent in 1964.

Historically responsive to irresolute social atmospheric condition, family service agencies practical new knowledge most behavioral health care to encounter the changing patterns of family living.

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

FSAA received a grant from the National Institute of Mental Wellness (NIMH) in 1962 for a three-year project involving interagency exploration of causes and treatment of marital issues. Member agencies responded enthusiastically, and many affirmed that their participation challenged and stimulated their local staff members. The NIMH likewise provided a articulation grant to FSAA and the Child Written report Association of America to train family caseworkers in leading family life educational activity 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 Council for Homemaker Services, formed in 1962 as a joint effort betwixt several dozen voluntary organizations and federal bureaus. Clark Blackburn, FSAA general manager, chaired i of its committees. Many FSAA member agencies added homemaker services during the next few decades. Of these, many spun off into community–wide visiting nurse associations.

Government funding did not come without strings attached. Agencies were burdened with newly restrictive and often onerous regulations. There were also new requirements for accreditation and quality balls. A master's caste in social work became the standard in the field. Agencies now emphasized fiscal, administrative, quality, and governance standards.

In 1962, FSAA'due south delegate assembly revised membership requirements with college standards for casework, staff training, board, and commission participation. Long the recognized body in family unit 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 field; accountability and transparency were essential.

Accreditation increasingly became the selling signal in a competitive funding environs. FSAA continued to heighten the bar on standards. "In the voluntary field, nosotros are going to take to cry loud and louder nearly 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 Atomic number 82 to Mergers

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

A United Way speaker at that conference predicted that those agencies with yearly budgets under $500,000 would either exist merged or go out of business. They simply could non compete with the regime, which had massive resources to rent experienced specialists and consultants. Across the land, local United Way organizations were assessing community needs and, in many instances, recommending merger between organizations to increase efficiency and provide more 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 exist treated inside the context of the family unit unit of measurement. In fact, agencies were losing their market differentiation. Local United Way organizations and other major donors were urging that agencies with a common mission come up together.

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

National Focus and Demonstration Project Push Aging Services

The 1961 White House Conference on Aging heightened awareness of the needs of the apace growing older adult population. FSAA sent four delegates to the conference, which led to passage of the Social Security amendments, Medicare, off-white 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 piece of work with older adults. FSAA added two professionals to the national staff to manage the project. Forty 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. Information technology likewise stimulated closer cooperation at the local level between voluntary and public agencies. The FSAA Project Informational Committee fostered the interchange of knowledge gained by the participating communities. National and regional training institutes promoted cross-fertilization of evolving new concepts and skills.

In add-on, close 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 Wellness Service, and the NIMH.

The demonstration project successfully integrated work with the elderly and their families into the mainstream of agency program and practise. "A considerable corporeality of skill developed, a great deal of leadership emerged, and creativity demonstrated," the project informational committee stated in its 1964 report. As funding drew to a close, FSAA integrated the work into numerous national association departments.

FSAA likewise received a 1966 grant from the NIMH to enhance services to older adults and their families. Member agencies participated in the pilot projection, using a team arroyo with a professionally–trained caseworker who supervised agency-trained assistants.

Finer Uniting Human Services with War on Poverty

Historically, the family unit service field had been concerned with those at the economic fringes of lodge. But with the government accepting responsibility for basic human needs and with the growing affluence of the 1950s and 1960s, family 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 revenue, 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 affluence of the 1950s, poverty went almost unnoticed. In fact, much of the public thought poverty no longer existed. Yet the 1960 U.S. Census revealed that poverty not only was prevalent, information technology was growing worse.

FSAA conducted a demography of its member agencies in 1960 to determine the socioeconomic levels of agency clients. "Although in that location has been question equally to whether our agencies are predominantly geared for the middle class, recent figures … point out that the greater part of our member agency services were devoted to serving the poor and underprivileged groups at the time of a recent study that predates the present involvement in them on the part of the federal government," reported Dorothy Fahs Beck, FSAA managing director of research at the time. Her study, "Within the Family," found that near 3-quarters of the clientele of family unit service agencies came from the iii lowest income classes. More than 60 percent of all casework interviews by family agencies were provided to those in the lower-middle, upper-lower, and lower-lower classes.

The report, yet, was widely used to set on FSAA, portraying family service every bit a white, middle-class institution, disengaged from the poor. FSAA accepted this as a challenge to know more and do more. It used the census and other findings to spark new ways to serve families more finer.

President Lyndon B. Johnson declared an "unconditional war on poverty" in his 1964 Land of the Union accost and shortly thereafter enacted the Economic Opportunity Deed. Great Society programs proliferated; further amendments to the Social Security Act created the Medicare and Medicaid programs. With President Johnson'south declaration, the federal regime created numerous opportunities for the man sector to assist those in demand. FSAA and 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 Economical Opportunity Act, family service work began to come full circle. Charity arrangement societies had begun with friendly visitors who met with the needy in their own homes. When the federal government took over responsibleness for relief and bones homo services in the 1930s, family agencies had moved into counseling and other services—typically with a "clients tin can come to us" approach. Now family service agencies were getting out from behind their desks, reaching beyond the walls of their offices, and once more working straight in low-income neighborhoods.

Like the charity organization societies and settlement houses before them, family agencies of the second one-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 Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO). It was a new twist on the old charitable idea of helping people assistance themselves, and it gave rise to an accent on community-centered initiatives.

Civic Appointment Main Thrust of Projection ENABLE

The OEO awarded a $796,000 grant in 1966 to FSAA, the Child Written report Association of America, and the National Urban League. Called Projection ENABLE (Education and Neighborhood Action for Amend Living Environment), it was the showtime nationwide demonstration funded past OEO using voluntary social agencies. Project ENABLE was a parent didactics neighborhood action program—a forerunner of today'southward civic date initiatives. It was designed to assistance people living in poverty gain competence and financial independence. Training institutes were developed in seven areas throughout the state. Professional social workers from local family unit service agencies were trained in group methods of leadership and parental instruction, and they later on trained groups of low-income parents as nonprofessional social work aides.

Originally funded as a multi-year program, Project ENABLE was halted by Congressional budget cuts in 1967. Just most of the 64 FSAA fellow member agencies that participated were able to consummate at to the lowest degree one year of outreach service to groups in poverty-stricken neighborhoods. During 1966, more than 600 groups of parents from these neighborhoods met in six-10 week discussion series. Special preparation was provided to 95 grouping leaders and l community organizers. More than 200 indigenous nonprofessional social work aides were employed and received on-the-chore training. Most of those moved into better-paying jobs, returned to school, or moved into leadership roles equally board members or volunteers.

"This was non only education for kid rearing or for living in a family unit, but education in identifying problems, decision making, and planning strategies for action relevant to all conditions that bear on on family performance," a Project ENABLE report summarized. "Project ENABLE has produced concrete results in new or improve services to thousands of families, development of new manpower resources, increased utilization of bachelor services, changes in attitudes and behavior, and affect on every bones institution of the community touching the lives of the poor."

Again and again, participating agencies, boards, and professional staff witnessed an untapped reservoir of forcefulness amongst the project'south target population. They also witnessed a deep motivation to collaborate in attacking individual and community bug of poverty, ghetto living, and inequality of opportunity. FSAA, the Child Study Association of America, and the National Urban League continued efforts to combine resource in informal and formal relationships at the local and national level.

Civil Rights Movement is a Wake Up Phone call

Even before the civil rights movement necessitated strong action, FSAA had been moving toward greater engagement with and increased recognition of the needs of the black community.

In 1963, FSAA surveyed its members virtually their efforts to develop services that strengthened family life for minority groups. Agencies inverse their policies to facilitate access past 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 teaching and group techniques were targeted specifically to minority populations. Boston Family Services (today'due south Family Service of Greater Boston) for example, created a mobile unit of measurement. Passage of the Community Mental Health Act in 1963 greatly expanded customs outreach, providing funding for innovative services to achieve traditionally underserved populations.

The Civil 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 around the kitchen tables of America, nevertheless, was a dissimilar story.

The relatively peaceful sit down-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 establishment" was aroused also. Welfare rolls were growing chop-chop. 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 equally part of the problem—criticized on one side for perpetuating dependence and on the other for being out of bear on and unresponsive to real problems.

FSAA called for a national policy to terminate racial and indigenous bigotry, eradicate the causes of poverty, and protect and strengthen American families. The declaration read: "This policy must be translated into effective activeness to remove the obstacles that block the urban poor from achieving healthy family unit life, and moral responsibleness 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 group. We urge a reordering of the priorities of our nation, states and communities. The task … challenges all instruments of social and economic life to bear upon basic legal, economic and social changes. Information technology demands the moral force of strong leadership."

FSAA likewise worked to end discrimination among its members. It had adopted a position on ceremonious rights at its 1963 biennial briefing that chosen for non-discrimination in selection of board and staff members. Yet inside several years, it was articulate that although the official position of the organization changed, it had non noticeably altered the complexion of most association gatherings. FSAA increasingly highlighted the importance and urgency of broader representation of the total community in policy-making, as well equally more knowledge and understanding of families that were not white and were non centre class.

A stiff working relationship with the National Urban League helped FSAA move more rapidly and effectively toward these goals. A twenty-four hour period-long meeting of several board and staff members at the National Urban League in Feb 1969 led to a workshop, Family Service and the Blackness Experience.

The minutes of this workshop included: "For those in attendance, (it) was a personal and professional person landmark. A commitment was made with the clear agreement that its implementation would exist difficult and often painful. It would mean giving upward comfortable ways of doing things. It would mean sharing ability, spending money and irresolute direction. The question was asked, 'If FSAA will not, who will? If nobody does, what becomes of our social club?'"

It was agreed that commitment without activeness was no commitment at all. An advertizing hoc committee of board and staff was appointed to follow up. Both the board and FSAA professional staff added more people of color to central positions. An event of Social Casework was devoted to the black perspective, and every department and action of FSAA gave highest priority to translating new insights into policy and programs.

The FSAA 1969 Biennial Conference, "Coming together with Change," was aptly named. Past this time, protest was everywhere—in the streets, on campuses, in churches, at every major national briefing of this type. It was no surprise that alter took center stage at the biennial.

Just after the opening speech of the 1969 biennial, a group 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 it well. Langdon was just get-go his career in the belatedly 1960s; this was his first FSAA conference. "The demonstrators challenged this national system to stand up for the rights of African American families and civil rights," he recalls. "That was a powerful moment that led to rapid and significant change within FSAA. Information technology also helped all of us think near things in a bigger way, both personally and professionally."

The planned biennial program for the post-obit day, designated as The Day of Challenge, quickly was changed to The Twenty-four hours of Blackness Challenge. The black caucus presented specific demands to FSAA, including strong action regarding FSAA'due south commitment to the National Welfare Rights Organization, greater representation on the FSAA board by people of color, and an FSAA chore force on white racism. Both the FSAA and the black conclave regarded these demands equally positive challenges, motivated by a common concern for the hereafter of the family unit service movement.

At the commencement national board meeting following the biennial, FSAA President Paul Neal Averill observed that the experience was a salubrious reflection of the prevailing mood. FSAA was challenged to update itself and maximize its potential of opportunity to enhance family and individual functioning. "FSAA intends to be amongst the national leaders in the public and voluntary social welfare moving-picture show every bit it responds to electric current needs," he said. "I believe that this intention will be our biggest asset in our efforts to implement our preventive approach in dealing with the full spectrum of services not only to minority groups, but to all clients."

At that time, at that place were ii required program services to exist an FSAA member agency; family counseling and family life didactics. Soon after the biennial, family advocacy was also required for FSAA membership. Information technology was the birth of today's public policy and advancement efforts.

Maintaining Social Action and Appropriate Service

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

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

"Nosotros have a very basic conclusion to brand as to whether we are going to … but react to what's going on or whether we are going to participate in our effort to influence some of the major decisions that are being made," said Aubrey E. Robinson at the 1965 FSAA General Associates. "I happen to believe firmly that we have a role to play. If we deemphasize this part, then with complete justification we do not need to be considered while the powers that be … are determining what the private programs volition be. They can say … nosotros've decided for you how you are going to operate. Nosotros haven't considered you of import enough to involve y'all in the discussions."

Amid the turmoil of the 1960s, FSAA recognized that it must stand up up and shout. At the Nov 1969 lath coming together only before the Philadelphia biennial, the board had established the Family unit Advocacy Program as a major thrust of the association. When the black protestors took the stage at the biennial conference enervating equal rights, it was articulate to every family service leader in attendance that they could no longer focus exclusively on counseling and family unit life teaching; family advancement must be the essential third leg of the stool.

At the same time, while the tumultuous social atmospheric condition were deepening, creating ever-increasing need 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 creative and experimental approaches to run into current needs, expand outreach, and augment the product mix. Most agencies grew to multi-service operations. The toll to do business increased tremendously without corresponding growth in sources of income.

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

Equally these changes adult within the field and inside 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 fall 1966 to reassess its primary purpose and its priorities. FSAA retained direction consultants Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc. to complete a thorough study of the organization. The report involved national lath members, FSAA staff, member agency staff and board members, and regional and advisory committees. A written report commission worked with the consultants and made final recommendations to the lath. The last Booz Allen Hamilton written report was presented to the board in November 1967. The written report committee met during 1968 to formulate its recommendations. These were accepted at FSAA lath meetings in May and December 1968.

The Booz Allen Hamilton report concluded, "The Family Service Association of America has a distinctive part and purpose as a national federation of family service agencies." The study recommended growth and expansion, including accelerated inquiry, increased services to local affiliated agencies, strengthened national planning, intensive manpower evolution, and the continuation of major functions of its existing programs.

The study resulted in organizational and staffing changes. The FSAA Segmentation of Regional Services was created in 1968. In 1969, FSAA regional councils were reorganized, with 8 councils in the Central, Mid Atlantic, Midwest, New York/New Jersey, North Atlantic, Southeast, Southwest, and West regions. Each region appointed a vice president who served on the FSAA lath of directors.

Following the Booz Allen Hamilton report, the study commission gave highest priority to strengthening FSAA:

As a primary source of knowledge about families
As the national voluntary organization that undertook research to place changing needs of families, develop the best means of meeting these needs, and provide guidance and assistance to member agencies in developing relevant programs
As a leader in effectively influencing other voluntary and governmental agencies whose policies and programs affected families

Among all the pressing changes required to advance 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 communication to and from the blackness community, and to take appropriate action in developing programs, assisting member agencies, and developing social policy.

The study committee also recommended that FSAA develop a national standards evolution program, but that membership, accreditation, and reaccreditation of fellow member agencies should be transferred from the national office 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 lath specifically asked Booz Allen Hamilton not to investigate the question of merger in depth. That effect 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 300 agencies and represented about xv percent of the nation'due south 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 Commission on Common Concerns to bring the forcefulness of both national agencies to bear on improving services to families and children, and to explore additional areas of collaboration. Because many members belonged to both organizations, they created a joint ante structure in 1962. Most 60 agencies were in articulation membership the first year.

In 1960, FSAA and CWLA joined with the National Quango on Criminal offense and Delinquency and the Travelers Aid Association of America to form a National Survey Service, subsequently called the National Written report Service. Created with the assistance 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 help 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 report of family credit counseling and a demonstration project on protective services to children. These iv big national organizations also came together to share joint headquarters in New York Urban center to stimulate farther collaborative efforts.

A number of voluntary organizations had approached both FSAA and/or CWLA for guidance as to their future programs. 1 was the National Association of Services to Unmarried Parents (NASUP), which needed to be taken nether the custodianship of a well established national organization to go along functioning effectively. NASUP's membership included near 250 local children and family service agencies, state and national departments, and public health offices. The Florence Crittenton Association of America was another such grouping looking for sponsorship, and the four national organizations discussed a articulation undertaking. In 1963, FSAA and CWLA agreed to jointly sponsor NASUP and seek foundation support to carry on the arrangement'southward leadership. A $90,000 grant was secured from the Field Foundation to piece of work on the causes and bug of illegitimacy.

Although the Booz Allen Hamilton written report did not assess the feasibility of a merger with CWLA, information technology did recommend a serious exploration of mergers with other national organizations that had like interests. Both FSAA and CWLA voted for a study in December 1968 to focus on how the two organizations together could strengthen the national effort to enhance the children and family unit service fields.

Over the adjacent few years, FSAA and CWLA explored the idea of a merger. The Florence Crittenton Clan of America also joined the merger discussions. System and member bureau leaders, executives and staff were closely involved in the process.

Ultimately, it was decided in 1974 not to pursue merger. Offset-up costs of as much as $650,000 would have to be raised from exterior funds. CWLA and FSAA both were concerned about 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