Professional Social Workers, Adoption, and the Problem of Illegitimacy, 1915–1945

Journal of Policy History

Volumn 6, Issue 3, 1994, Pages 161-184

  Carp, E Wayne ^a  

^a PACIFIC LUTHERAN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84971946645     PISSN: 08980306     EISSN: 15284190     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0898030600003912     Document Type: Article

References (85)

1. Regina G. Kunzel, “the Professionalization of Benevolence: Evangelicals and Social Workers in the Florence Crittenton Homes, 1915 to 1945,” Journal of Social History 22 (1988): 21–43. KunzeFs interpretation of professional social workers remains unchanged in her recent book, Fallen Women, Problem Girls: Unmarried Mothers and the Professionalization of Social Work, 1890–1945 (New Haven, 1993).
2. Kunzel, “Professionalization of Benevolence,” 21; Kunzel, Fallen Women, 2.
3. All quotations are from Kunzel, “Professionalization of Benevolence,” 21.
4. Kunzel, “Professionalization of Benevolence,” 34; Kunzel, Fallen Women, 128–129.
5. Kunzel, “Professionalization of Benevolence,” 23. the literature on middle-class women's entry into the professions is enormous. On discrimination of women in the professions, see Margaret W. Rossiter, Women Scientists in America: Struggles and Strategies to 1940 (Baltimore, 1982); Mary Roth Walsh, “Doctors Wanted: No Women Need Apply”: Sexual Barriers in the Medical Profession, 1835–1975 (New Haven, 1977); Elizabeth Fee, Disease and Discovery: A History of the Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health, 1916–1939 (Baltimore, 1987); Penina G. Abir-Am and Dorinda Outram, eds., Uneasy Careers and Intimate Lives of Women in Science, 1789–1979 (New Brunswick, 1987); Patricia M. Hummer, the Decade of Elusive Promise: Professional Women in the United States, 1920–1930 (Ann Arbor, 1979); Penina Migdal Glazer and Miriam Slater, Unequal Colleagues: the Entrance of Women into the Professions, 1890–1940 (New Brunswick, 1987). On women combining female and professional values, see Regina Morantz-Sanchez, Sympathy and Science: Women Physicians in American Medicine (New York, 1985), 308-9; Barbara Melosh, the Physician's Hand: Work Culture and Conflict in American Nursing (Philadel-phia, 1982), chap. 4; Joyce Antler, the Educated Woman and Professionalization: the Struggle for a New Feminine Identity, 1890–1920 (New York, 1987); Robyn Muncy, Creating a Female Dominion in American Reform, 1890–1935 (New York, 1991) and “Gender and Professionalization in the Origins of the U.S. Welfare State: the Careers of Sophonisba Breckinridge and Edith Abbott, 1890-1935,” Journal of Policy History 2 (1990): 290-315; Marian J. Morton, And Sin No More: Social Policy and Unwed Mothers in Cleveland, 1855–1990 (Columbus, 1993), 56; Clarke A. Chambers, “Women in the Creation of the Profession of Social Work,” Social Service Review 60 (March 1986): 1-33; and Elizabeth Feder, “the Elite of the Fallen: the Origins of a Social Policy for Unwed Mothers, 1880-1930” (Ph.D. diss., Johns Hopkins University, 1991), chap. 4. See also Dee Garrison, Apostles of Culture: the Public Librarian and American Society, 1876-1920 (New York, 1979); Joan Jacobs Brumberg and Nancy Tomes, “Women in the Professions: A Research Agenda for American Historians,” Reviews in American History 10 ( June1982): 275-96; and Nancy Cott, the Grounding of Modern Feminism (New Haven, 1987), chap. 7. the complexity of social work professionalism is discussed in Daniel J. Walkowitz, “the Making of a Feminine Professional Identity: Social Workers in the 1920s,” American Historical Review 95 (October 1990): 1051–1075.
6. Kunzel, “Professionalization of Benevolence,” 23.
7. Daniel T. Rodgers, “In Search of Progressivism,” Reviews in American History 10 (December 1982): 123.
8. This paragraph and the next rely heavily on Morton White, Social Thought in America: the Revolt Against Formalism (New York, 1949), 3–93. See also Dorothy Ross,“the Development of the Social Sciences,” in Alexandra Oleson and John Voss, eds., the Organization of Knowledge in Modern America, 1860–1920 (Baltimore, 1979), 113-21; Edward A. Purcell Jr., the Crisis of Democratic theory: Scientific Naturalism and the Problem of Value (Lexington, Ky., 1974), 3-46; and Peter Kimball, the “True Professional Ideal” in America: A History (Cambridge, Mass., 1992), 198–212.
9. White, Social Thought in America, 13.
10. Mary Richmond, Social Diagnosis (New York, 1917), 25.
11. Roy Lubove, the Professional Altruist: the Emergence of Social Work as a Career, 1880–1930 (Cambridge, Mass., 1965), 7.
12. Richmond, Social Diagnosis, 25, 96–100.
13. For the extraordinary influence of Richmond's work on the social work profession, see Muriel W. Pumphrey's sketch and accompanying bibliographical references in Walter I. Trattner, ed., Biographical Dictionary of Social Welfare in America (New York, 1986), 622–625. See also Frank J. Bruno, Trends in Social Work, 1874–1956 (New York, 1957), 186-87; and Lubove, the Professional Altruist, chaps. 2, 3.
14. Proceedings of the Conference on the Care of Dependent Children, 1909, in Robert H. Bremner, ed., Children and Youth in America: A Documentary History, vol. 2 (Cambridge, Mass., 1971), 365; theda Skocpol, Protecting Soldiers and Mothers: the Political Origins of Social Policy in the United States (Cambridge, Mass., 1992), chap. 9; Joseph M. Hawes, the Children's Rights Movement: A History of Advocacy and Protection (Boston, 1991), chaps. 3– 5Walter I. Trattner, From Poor Law to Welfare State: A History of Social Welfare in America, 4th ed. (New York, 1989), chap. 10; Charles R. King, Children's Health in America: A History (New York, 1993), chap. 3; Susan Tiffin, In Whose Best Interest? Child Welfare Reform in the Progressive Era (Westport, Conn. 1982), chaps. 5, 9; and Muncy, Creating a Female Dominion in American Reform, 1890–1935, chaps. 2, 4.
15. Richard A. Meckel, Save the Babies: American Public Health Reform and the Prevention of Infant Mortality, 1850–1929 (Baltimore, 1990), chap. 4; quotation on 100 (emphasis in the original). See also Alisa Klaus, Every Child a Lion: the Origins of Maternal and Infant Health Policy in the United States and France, 1890–1920 (Ithaca, 1993), chap. 6.
16. Quoted in Meckel, Save the Babies, 121.
17. Tiffin, In Whose Best Interest?, 173–174; Klaus, Every Child a Lion, chap. 6.
18. Marian J. Morton, And Sin No More: Social Policy and Unwed Mothers in Cleveland, 1855–1990 (Columbus, 1993), chap. 2; Katherine G. Aiken, “the National Florence Crittenton Mission, 1883-1925: A Case Study in Progressive Reform” (Ph.D. diss., Washington State University, 1980), 54, 71; Nancy Fifield McConnell and Martha Morrison Dore, 1883-1983: Crittenton Services: the First Century (Washington, D.C., 1983), 9–10.
19. Kate Waller Barrett, “Informal Discussion,” Proceedings of the 46th National Confer ence of Social Work, (Chicago, 1919): 86; Tiffin, In Whose Best Interest1, 169.
20. Committee on Mother Care, “the Unwed Mother as Deserted Wife,” in the Unwed Mother and Her Child: Reports and Recommendations of the Cleveland Committee on Illegitimacy (Cleveland, 1916), 15.
21. Amey Eaton Watson, “the Illegitimate Family,” Annals 77 (May 1918): 109.
22. Albert H. Stoneman, “Adoption of Illegitimate Children: the Peril of Ignorance,” Child Welfare League of America, Bulletin 5 (15 February 1926): 8, hereafter cited as CWLA, Bull.
23. Emma O. Lundberg and Katharine F. Lenroot, Illegitimacy as a Child-Welfare Problem, pt. 2, Children's Bureau Pub. 75 (Washington, D.C., 1921), 88–93, 139–43; Emma O. Lundberg, “General Introduction,”, pt. 3, Children's Bureau Pub. 128 (Wash-ington, D.C., 1924), 3; Watson, “the Illegitimate Family,” 110; Katherine F. Lenroot, “Case Work with Unmarried Parents and their Children,” Hospital Social Service 12 (Au-gust 1925): 70-71; Donahue, “Children Born Out of Wedlock,” 163, 166.
24. the Illinois Children's Home and Aid Society, Children's Home Finder, new series, 4 (May-June 1915): 13; Paula F. Pfeffer, “Homeless Children, Childless Homes,” Chicago History 16 (Spring 1987): 58.
25. Watson, “the Illegitimate Family,” Annals 77(1918): 112.
26. “Legislation for Children Born Out of Wedlock, Survey 43 (13 March 1920): 747; Otto W. Davis, “Children of Unmarried and of Illegitimate Parents: Recent Legislation in Minnesota and Elsewhere,” Proceedings of the 45th National Conference on Social Work (Chicago, 1918), 94.
27. Katharine F. Lenroot, “Social Responsibility for the Protection of Children Handicapped by Illegitimate Birth,” Annals 98 (November 1921): 128; A. Madorah Donahue, “Children Born Out of Wedlock,” Annals 151 (1930): 165.
28. Alberta S. B. Guibord and Ida R. Parker, What Becomes of the Unmarried Mother? A Study of 82 Cases (Boston, 1922), 63.
29. Katharine P. Hewins and L. Josephine Webster, the Work of Child-Placing Agencies, Children's Bureau Pub. 171 (Washington, D.C., 1927), 1, 28.
30. “It Doesn't Pay to Give Babies Away,” California Children 29 (September 1929): 13.
31. Winifred A. Keneran, How Massachusetts Provides for Its Dependent Children, Child Welfare League of America Publication No. 67 (New York, 1928), 3.
32. Maud Bozarth, “Local Standards of Service to the Unmarried Mother and Her Child, Including the Problem of Non Residence,” CWLA, Bull. 8 (January 1929): 8.
33. For similar expressions of the value of keeping unwed mothers and their children together, see also Percy Gamble Kammerer, the Unmarried Mother: A Study of Five Hundred Cases (New York, 1918), 310–311; Constance Goodrich, “Placing Children for Adoption,” Hospital Social Service 10 (October 1923): 195-96; Committee on Mother Care, “the Unwed Mother as Deserted Wife,” 17; A. F. Acerboni, “Recent Conferences on Illegitimacy,” Catholic Charities Review 4 (March 1920): 83; “Report of the Committee on Admitting and Placing Children for the Year Closing Oct. 31, 1922,” Annual Report of the Cleveland Protestant Orphan Asylum (Cleveland, 1922), 9-10; Julia C. Lathrop, “Standards of Child Welfare,” Annals 98 (November 1921): 6; Elinor Nims, “Experiments in Adoption Legislation,” Social Service Review 1 (1927): 245; Cleveland Conference on Illegitimacy, Study of Adoption in Cuyahoga County, July 1, 1922 to June 30, 1923 (Cleveland, 1925), 2; Edmond J. Butler, “the Essentials of Placement in Free Family Homes,” in Foster Care for Dependent Children, Children's Bureau Pub. 136 (Washington, D.C., 1924), 47–48; Donahue, “Children Born Out of Wedlock,” 165, 166; Morton, And Sin No More, 62-64; and Michael W. Sedlak, “Young Women and the City: Adolescent Deviance and the Transformation of Educational Policy, 1870-1960,” History of Education Quarterly 23 (Spring 1983): 12.
34. In her article, Kunzel does not provide any evidence to support her assertion that before 1945 social workers routinely or enthusiastically advocated separation of unmarried mothers from their children for the purpose of adoption. In her book, the only social worker Kunzel cites, Leontine Young, wrote in 1947, i.e., after the period Kunzel is analyzing. See Kunzel, Fallen Women, 129. Young's advocacy of adoption reflected professional social workers' recent embrace of a Freudian psychodynamic view of illegitimacy, which in turn provided a positive rationale for separating unwed mothers from their babies. For this development, see E. Wayne Carp, “the Sealed Adoption Records Controversy in Histori-cal Perspective: the Case of the Children's Home Society of Washington, 1895-1988,” Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare 19 (June 1992); 44-46; Rickie Solinger, Wake up Little Susie: Single Pregnancy and Race Before Roe V Wade (New York, 1992), chap. 3; Morton, And Sin No More, 82–84.
35. “Inter-City Conference on Illegitimacy Bulletin,” CWLA, Bull. new ser., 5 (15 May 1926): 8; J. Prentice Murphy, “Mothers and–Mothers,” Survey 42 (3 May 1919): 171–72, and “What Can be Accomplished Through Good Social Work in the Field of Illegitimacy, Annals 98 (November 1921): 130; Amey Eaton Watson, “Philadelphia's Problem and the Developing of Standards of Care,” in Illegitimacy as a Child-Welfare Problem, pt. 3, Children's Bureau Pub. 128 (Washington, D.C., 1924), 40.
36. L. H. Putnam, “the Mother's Responsibility for the Care of the Child,” in Standards of Legal Protection for Children Born Out of Wedlock, Children's Bureau Pub. 77 (Washing-ton, D.C., 1921), 142; Catharine Mathews, “Case Work with Unmarried Mothers,” Family 13 (October 1932): 185.
37. Lenroot, “Social Responsibility for the Protection of Children Handicapped by Illegitimate Birth,” 128; “Report of the White House Conference on Child Health and Protection on Prenatal and Maternal Care,” CWLA, Bull. new ser., 10 (December 1930): 8, 7.
38. Ora Pendleton, “New Aims in Adoption,” Annals 151 (September 1930): 157. See also Rachel M. Lawton, “Compilation from the Minutes of the Boston Conference on Illegitimacy,” CWLA, Bull. 8 (March 1929): 8.
39. C. C. Carstens, “the Pitfalls of Adoption,” CWLA, Bull. 15(1936): 4. Citing psychiatric studies, social workers at the Illinois Children's Home and Aid Society argued against unmarried mothers relinquishing their children for adoption because “giving up the child could cause a mother permanent emotional damage.” See Pfeffer, “Homeless Children, Childless Homes,” 58.
40. “Help Mothers Keep their Children,” Children's Home Society of California Magazine 41(1932): 10.
41. “Preventing Separation of Mothers and Babies,” State Charities Aid Association News 12 (September 1917): 11. See also Ruth Arven Cornell, “Report of the Child Accepting Committee,” Annual Report of the Spence Alumnae Society (New York, 1930), 7.
42. Committee on Mother Care, “the Unwed Mother as Deserted Wife,” 15–17. Social workers' concern for establishing paternity and forcing fathers to contribute to the financial support of unwed mothers was common. See Lenroot, “Social Responsibility for the Protection of Children Handicapped by Illegitimate Birth,” 128; Emma O. Lundberg, “Unmarried Mothers,” Survey 43 (28 February 1920): 654; “Legislation for Children Born Out of Wedlock,” Survey (13 March 1920): 754; Mabel Mattingly, “the Unmarried Mother and Her Child,” CWLA, Bull. new ser., 7 (15 June 1928): 5; Anita Peck, “Casework Treatment of the Unmarried Father,” CWLA, Bull., new ser., 8 (February 1929): 8; William Hodson, “the Trend of Modem Legislation for the Child Born Out of Wedlock,” CWLA, Bull., new ser., 9 (September 1930), 8; Grace Redding, “the Unmar’ ried Family,” CWLA, Bull., new ser., 9 (October 1930): 8; Donahue, “Children Born Out of Wedlock,” 169–70.
43. A. Madorah Donahue, “A Case of Illegitimacy, Where Mother and Baby Have Been Dealt with Separately,” Proceedings of the 42nd National Conference of Charities and Correction (Chicago, 1915): 125; “Inter-City Conference on Illegitimacy Bulletin,” CWLA, Bull., new ser., 5 (15 May 1926): 8; Katharine F. Lenroot, “Social Responsibility for the Care of the Delinquent Girl and the Unmarried Mother,” Journal of Social Hygiene 10 (February 1924): 79-80; Committee on Mother Care, “the Unwed Mother as Deserted Wife,” 15–17.
44. W. H. Slingerland, Child-Placing in Families: A Manual for Students and Social Work ers (New York, 1919), 85.
45. Lenroot, “Social Responsibility for the Protection of Children Handicapped by Illegitimate Birth,” 127; Ida R. Parker, A Follow-Up Study of 550 Illegitimacy Applications (Boston, 1924), 54; Lundberg, “Unmarried Mothers,” 654; Rachel M. Lawton, “Compila-tion from the Minutes of the Boston Conference on Illegitimacy,” CWLA, Bull., new ser., 8 (March 1929): 8; Elvira B. Collins, “Report of the Pittsburgh Conference on Parenthood,” CWLA, Bull., new ser., 10 (June 1931): 8; Donahue, “A Case of Illegitimacy, Where Mother and Baby Have Been Dealt with Separately,” 125; Katharine P. Hewins, “Hazards in Illegitimacy: Adoptions and Mortality,” Survey 46 (14 May 1921): 206; A. Madorah Donahue, “Children Born Out of Wedlock,” Annals 151 (September 1930): 164–168;
46. Michael Grossberg, Governing the Hearth: Law and the Family in Nineteenth-Century America (Chapel Hill, 1985), 232–233; Muncy, Creating a Female Dominion in American Reform; Skocpol, Protecting Soldiers and Mothers, chap. 9; Feder, “the Elite of the Fallen,” 209. Recent historians have devalued social workers' reform efforts on behalf of unwed mothers by arguing that they favored children born out of wedlock at the expense of unmarried mothers. See, for example, Joan Jacobs Brumberg, “‘Ruined’ Girls: Changing Community Responses to Illegitimacy in Upstate New York, 1890-1920,” Journal of Social History 18 (Winter 1984): 262; Kunzel, Fallen Women, 12829.
47. Feder, “the Elite of the Fallen,” 196-97; Klaus, Every Child a Lion, 211–219.
48. Peter Romanofsky, “Professional Versus Volunteers: A Case Study of Adoption Workers in the 1920's,” Journal of Voluntary Action Research 2 (April 1973): 96; Pfeffer, “Homeless Children, Childless Homes,” 56–57.
49. See, for example, Louise Waterman Wise, in “Mothers in Name,” Survey 43 (20 March 1920): 780, and Dr. Henry Dwight Chapin, Heriditary and Child Culture (New York, 1922), 204–5. It is perhaps the writings of these pro-adoption, upper-class amateurs that Kunzel mistakes for professional social workers' beliefs, though nowhere does she cite them. Elsewhere, Kunzel mistakenly identifies a medical doctor, Henry C. Schumacher, director of the Cleveland Child Guidance Clinic, as “a social worker.” See Kunzel, “Professionaliza-tion of Benevolence,” 34. For media support of adoption, see Harold A. Jambor, “theodore Dreiser, the Delineator Magazine, and Dependent Children: A Background Note on the Calling of the 1909 White House Conference,” Social Service Review 32 (1958): 33–40.
50. Ida R. Parker, “Fit and Proper”?: A Study of Legal Adoption in Massachusetts (Boston, 1927), 30–35, 40-41; Ruth Reed, the Illegitimate Family in New York City (New York, 1934), 38, 48, 88-90; Sedlak, “Young Women and the City,” 12.
51. Parker, “Fit and Proper,” 29; Viviana A. Zelizer, Pricing the Priceless Child: the Changing Social Value of Children (New York, 1985), 198.
52. Carrington Howard, “Adoption by Advertisement,” Survey 35 (11 December 1915): 285–286; “Newspapers Cooperate in Adoptions,” CWLA, Bull., new ser., 6 (15 January 1927): 1, 5; Guibard and Parker, What Becomes of the Unmarried Mother, 59; Parker, “Fit and Proper,” 34-35; George B. Mangold, Children Born Out of Wedlock: A Sociological Study of Illegitimacy, with Particular Reference to the United States (Columbus, Mo., 1921), 82–83.
53. Pendleton, “New Aims in Adoption,” Annals 151 (1930): 155–156; Mangold, Chil-dren dren Born Out of Wedlock, 126-27; Murphy, “What Can Be Accomplished Through Good Social Work in the Field of Illegitimacy,” Anna/s 98 (November 1921): 131; Donahue, “Children Born Out of Wedlock,” Annals 151 (1930): 164; Donahue, “A Case of Illegitimacy,” 125; Zelizer, Pricing the Priceless Child, 196–98.
54. Lundberg and Lenroot, Illegitimacy as a Child-Welfare Problem, 2:88–93, 139-43; Lundberg, “General Introduction,” pt. 3, Children's Bureau Pub. 128 (Washing-ton, D.C., 1924), 3; Watson, “the Illegitimate Family,” 110; Lenroot, “Case Work with Unmarried Parents and their Children,” 70-71; Ruth W. Lawton and]. and]. Prentice Murphy, “A Study of Results of a Child-Placing Society,” Proceedings of the 42nd National Conference of Charities and Correction (Chicago, 1915), 167-68; Guibard and Parker, What Becomes of the Unmarried Mother, 59; Stoneman, “Adoption of Illegitimate Children,” 8; Zelizer, Pricing the Priceless Child, 198.
55. Slingerland, Child-Placing in Families, 85.
56. Donahue, “A Case of Illegitimacy,” 121.
57. Hastings H. Hart, “the Development of Child Placing in the United States,” in Foster-Home Care for Dependent Children, Children's Bureau Pub. 136 (Washington, D.C., 1924), 25.
58. Martha Megee, “the Problems of Children as a Child-Placing Agency Sees them,” Annals 121 (September 1925): 160; See also J. Prentice Murphy, “the Foster Care of Neglected and Dependent Children,” Annals 77 (May 1918): 120–121.
59. Principles adopted by the New York Conference on Illegitimacy reprinted in “Legis-lation for Children Born Out of Wedlock,” Survey 43 (13 March 1920): 747; Pfeffer, “Homeless Children, Childless Homes,” 56, 59.
60. A. H. Stoneman, “Social Problems Related to Illegitimacy,” Proceedings of the 51st National Conference on Social Work (Chicago, 1924), 148.
61. Hewins and Webster, the Work of Child-Placing Agencies, 80.
62. “Inter-City Conference on Illegitimacy Bulletin,” CWLA, Bull. new set. 5 (15 March 1926): 8. For similar experessions of satisfaction at the low number of adoptions, see Neva R. Deardorff, “the Welfare of the Said Child.’” Survey 53 (15 January 1925): 460; Zelizer, Pricing the Priceless Child, 198.
63. Inter-City Conference on Illegitimacy Bulletin, “Compilation from the Minutes of the Boston Conference on Illegitimacy,” CWLA, Bull. new. ser., 8 (March 1929): 8.
64. Henry H. Goddard, the Kallikak Family: A Study in the Heredity of Feeblemindedness (New York, 1912); Hamilton Cravens, the Triumph of Evolution: American Scientists and the Hereditary-Environment Controversy, J900-J941 (Philadelphia, 1978), 47-48; William Haller, Eugenics: Hereditarian Attitudes in American Thought (New Brunswick, N.J., 1968), 106-7; Daniel J. Kevles, In the Name of Eugenics: Genetics and the Uses of Human Hereditary (Berkeley and Los Angeles 1985), 77–78. For psychometric testing, see the essays in Michael Sokal, ed., Psychological Testing and American Society, 1890–1930 (New Brunswick, N.J., 1987).
65. Committee on Feeblemindedness, “the Menace of the Feeble-Minded,” in the Unwed Mother and Her Child, 8. the belief that unwed mothers were feebleminded was widespread. See, for example, Jean Weidensall, “the Mentality of the Unmarried Mother, Proceedings of the 44th National Conference on Social Work (Chicago, 1917), 294; Ada Eliot Sheffield, “the Nature of the Stigma upon the Unmarried Mother and Her Child,” Proceedings of the 47th National Conference on Social Work (Chicago, 1920): 120; Lenroot, “Social Responsibility for the Protection of Children Handicapped by Illegitimate Birth,” 124; “A Study of Unmarried Mothers,” CWLA, Bull. new ser., 5 (15 November 1926): 8; Char-
66. Lotte Lowe, “the Intelligence and Social Background of the Unmarried Mother,” Mental Hygiene 11 (October 1927): 783–784.
67. Stoneman, “Adoption of Illegitimate Children,” 8.
68. Watson, “the Illegitimate Family,” 112–113.
69. Sara Boudin Edlin, “Jewish Unmarried Mothers,” Survey 44 (19 July 1920): 408–409.
70. Illinois Children's Home & Aid Society, Children's Home Finder, new set-, 4 (May–June 1915): 13. For similar sentiments, see Edith M. H. Baylor, “the Necessary Changes to Be Effected in the Methods of Social Service Agencies with Unmarried Mothers,” Hospital Social Service 9 (1922): 155; Louise Drury, “Milestones in the Approach to Illegitimacy,” pt. 3, Family 6 (June 1925): 98; M. Ruth Colby, “the Unmarried Mother and Her Baby,” Welfare Magazine 17 (June 1926): 8; Mary Frances Smith, “the Place of the Maternity Home in a Child Care Program,” CWLA, Bull., new ser., 9 (November 1930): 8-7; Stoneman, “Social Problems Related to Illegitimacy,” Proceedings of the 51st National Conference on Social Work, 147–48.
71. Drury, “Milestones in the Approach to Illegitimacy,” 99.
72. Maud Morlock, “the Adopted Girl,” CWLA, Bull., 15 (October 1936): 7 (empha-sis in original).
73. Richmond, Social Diagnosis, 127, 136, 363.
74. Stoneman, “Adoption of Illegitimate Children,” 8; Illinois Children's Home & Aid Society, Children's Home Finder, new ser., 4 (May-June 1915): 15; Pendleton, “New Aims in Adoption,” 155. See also Murphy, “Mothers and–Mothers,” 171.
75. White House Conference 1930 (New York, 1931), 324; also quoted in Mary Francis Smith, “Changing Emphases in Case Work with Unmarried Mothers,” Family 14 (1934): 316.
76. Guibard and Parker, What Becomes of the Unmarried Mother, 14, 44; Hewins, “Haz-ards in Illegitimacy” Survey 46 (14 May 1921): 206; Charlotte Henry, “Objectives in Work with Unmarried Mothers,” Family 14 (May 1933), 75. For a concise summary of these views, see Smith, “Changing Emphases in Case Work with Unmarried Mothers,” 315.
77. Richmond, Social Diagnosis, 103.
78. Mary E. Richmond, What Is Social Case Work?: An Introductory Description (New York, 1922), 23, 108, 38, 40, 37, 24.
79. Jill Conway, “Women Reformers and American Culture, 1870-1930,” Journal of Social History 5 (Winter 1971–1972), 164-82; quotation on 167. See also Chambers, “Women in the Creation of the Profession of Social Work,” 14–16.
80. Among the roughly 112 primary sources consulted for this article, only seven professional social workers used the term “scientific.” And among these few, there was a wide variety of meanings of the term. Some social workers, undoubtedly with roots in the charity organization society movement, had no difficulty in combining values that may seem contradictory to us. Mabel Mattingly, a child-welfare instructor at Case Western Reserve University, for example, felt no incongruity in urging that “the case worker's approach and treatment should be as scientific as possible, but she must remember always that the eternal values are spiritual ones.” Mattingly, “the Unmarried Mother and Her Child,” 5. See also Murphy, “Mothers and–Mothers,” 172. Melosh, the Physician's Hand, 124–125, notes a similar tendency of public-health nurses to use both scientific and moral language. Other professional social workers who actually used the term “scientific” in connection with illegitimacy usually meant either simple Baconianism–fact collecting and description–or keeping abreast of intellectual developments in other disciplines. See Stoneman, “Adop-tion of Illegitimate Children,” 8; Watson, “the Illegitimate Family,” 103; Hewins, “A Study of Illegitimacy,” 115; Lundberg, “Unmarried Mothers,” 654; Lenroot, “Social Responsibility for the Care of the Delinquent Girl and the Unmarried Mother,” 78.
81. For similar constructions of professionalism, see the relevant references in note 6 above.
82. Watson, “the Illegitimate Family,” 115.
83. A. Madorah Donahue, “the Case of an Unmarried Mother Who Has Cared for Her Child, and Succeeded,” Proceedings of the 44th National Conference on Social Work (Chicago, 1917), 282.
84. Baylor, “the Necessary Changes to Be Effected in the Methods of Social Service Agencies with Unmarried Mothers,” 146.
85. Elizabeth H. Dexter, “the Worker's Personality in Case Work,” CWLA, Bull, new ser., 5 (15 December 1926): 2.