How the Feebleminded Live in the Community
- Author:
Clara Harrison
Towne and Grace E. Hill. Buffalo, N.Y. The Children’s Aid Society. Pp. 284. 1929.
Since the epochal work of Itard at the beginning of the nineteenth century the training of the feebleminded, apart from their mere custodial care, has been a concern of psychologist, physician, educator and sociologist alike. Numerous schools have been established by the state for such training throughout the country, but everyone at all acquainted with this problem knows that there are not nearly enough institutions to provide for the children who require such training. The British investigation of the incidence of feeblemindedness in 1929 places the number of feebleminded at 8.56 persons per thousand. This is considerably greater than most previous estimates. Any study of the incidence of feeblemindedness must first of all concern itself with the proper criterion of mental deficiency, a fact whicli the authors of this report emphasize. There are nevertheless many more persons who, on almost any criterion of mental deficiency, belong in an institution than can be cared for in the institutions now existing. Consequently the policy developed by Dr Bernstein at the Rome State School in New York becomes of particular interest and importance.
The aim of the policy developed by this school is to replace its charges in the community after a period of stabilizing training within the school. Parole by the Rome State School is always under supervision, but the staff has never been adequate in number to make such supervision very extensive. The report here reviewed is the result of the detailed investigation of the replacing in the community of one hundred and tliirty-six Erie County feebleminded persons, who had been inmates of the Rome school for periods ranging from a few weeks in some cases to thirteen years in others. The study includes all replacements during the period covered (1905 to 1924 inclusive) except twenty cases which could not be traced, and its purpose is to determine how many persons socially inadequate before placement in the Rome school were rendered adequate by their training there.
The cases were studied individually by a trained social case worker. Four groups wore differentiated: Unmarried Men, Married Men, Unmarried Women, Married Women. These groups numbered 79, 9, 20, 28 respectively. Three criteria of adaptability in the community were used. (1) Ability to support oneself. (2) Ability to regulate life without financial or supervisory assistance from family or social agency. (3) Ability to live in the community without infringing upon the law to the extent of commitment to correctional or penal institution. There were also differentiations within the criteria. Of the cases 120 were born in the United States, but only 47 had both parents born in this country. There were 88 men and 48 women. Fernald believed that the placement of women in the community was more difficult than the placement of men. Since their release from the School 58 per cent of the women and 10 per cent of the men have married. It would seem that marriage increases man’s necessity to earn and decreases woman’s, or expressed differently, to marry, a man must have earning ability while a woman must have earning ability to remain unmarried.
Of the total group only 22 persons or 16 per cent were totally self-supporting during the period after release from the School. The period varied from six months to fifteen years. Of this group 13 were unmarried men, five wero married men and four were unmarried women. In only ten cases was there independence throughout the period of release. One of these had a prison record, and another was known to be a sex pervert, leaving only eight entirely acceptable persons on all criteria. They were all men, only one married. Careful study of these cases shows no common factor which might account for success or assure it. It seemed rather to be a combination of fortuitous circumstances. Nine persons, all single men, were self-supporting with supervision. Of these three have criminal records and four have given offense by sexual practices. Eighteen, ten single men and eight married women, have been partly self-supporting. Of the ten single men six had been in prison and three were dead. Only one of the eight married women was free from a record of misconduct, mostly sexual. In all, 49 cases were either independently self-supporting, self-supporting under supervision or partly self-supporting. This makes 37 per cent of the entire group. If the flagrant behavior failures are deducted only 21 of this group remain or 15 per cent of the entire group of 136. Sixty-three per cent ure absolute failures from the economic point of view.
The results given here cover the group as a whole, these are then analyzed in the four groups mentioned before. Individual histories are given for each case, and these histories make up about two-thirds of the report. The data iire summarized in tables which show at a glance the record of each case. This report should prove of great interest and value to every one concerned about the social problem of the feebleminded. The material has been gathered painstakingly and treated with discernment and intelligence.
Is there for the higher grade of feebleminded persons any alternative to the miserable living in the community discovered by this report except permanent institutional care? This question naturally arises as a result of these findings. The authors think not. A type of supervision very different from any yet attempted will have to be developed. Most supervision of the feebleminded has been like that provided for normal individuals by social workers and for delinquents by probation officers. The feebleminded are essentially different. We must take into consideration three factors in this problem. First, the limitations of the feebleminded in mental ability must be recognized and understood, and also certain peculiar characteristics of theirs which properly treated may be assets as well as liabilities, e.g., their suggestibility, lack of initiative and resistance to monotony; second, the school and vocational training of the feebleminded in special classes and training schools; third, the adjustment of the child after his school and vocational training which might best be accomplished by some sort of industrial institution where the feebleminded person could work gainfully under supervision, live at home or in a colony, and escape much of the usual institutional atmosphere. Miles Murpiiy
Disclaimer
The historical material in this project falls into one of three categories for clearances and permissions:
Material currently under copyright, made available with a Creative Commons license chosen by the publisher.
Material that is in the public domain
Material identified by the Welcome Trust as an Orphan Work, made available with a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
While we are in the process of adding metadata to the articles, please check the article at its original source for specific copyrights.