|   Even before outcome 
              studies became an established research genre with the publication 
              of How Foster Children Turn Out, 
              some agencies involved in placing-out 
              tried to follow up on their own cases. What had become of the children 
              formerly in their care? Finding out served two important and related 
              purposes. It would improve the practices that shaped child and family 
              life by establishing the need for minimum 
              standards and it would define social 
              work as a job worthy of being designated a profession. 
             In this early study, the Boston Children’s Aid Society tracked 
              its own work. Dismayed by the haphazard techniques used to place 
              children and appalled by family-making failures, the agency added 
              a researcher, Ruth Lawton, to its staff in 1913 in hopes that empirical 
              inquiry “might be able to establish certain standards by which 
              we could measure our own work.” She found the agency’s 
              own records distressingly thin, containing too few details to be 
              of value. “Many of the children were taken on meagre information, 
              often engaging us in the task of fitting round pegs into square 
              holes, and in some cases exposing communities to great dangers from 
              the acts of exceedingly difficult children.” The first step 
              toward minimum standards 
              was invariably to standardize record-keeping. The point was to obtain 
              more information and keep it more meticulously. 
             The agency itself was not new, having been founded in the mid-nineteenth 
              century, but its dedication to placing children in families was 
              only a decade old. The agency hoped that solid research would vindicate 
              its recent commitment to family rather than orphanage care. Lawton 
              found that by October 1913, the agency had placed a total of 129 
              children in a total of 498 homes, an average of almost four placements 
              per child. A substantial number of the placements (37 percent) were 
              supposed to be temporary, but there was a high rate of replacement 
              for children in need of permanent homes. (“Disruption” 
              was not a term that denoted failed adoptions until the 1970s.) After 
              placement, supervisory visits occurred on average four or five times 
              per year, with girls visited more frequently than boys. Supervision 
              was inconsistent as well as infrequent. Staff turnover was high 
              because the work was hard and salaries were low. 
             The Boston Children’s Aid Society endorsed thorough physical 
              examinations and mental tests for every child in need of placement. 
              But in actual practice, only 37 physical and 4 mental exams had 
              been administered to all 129 children prior to placement. The agency, 
              which prided itself on being in the professional vanguard, was surprised 
              and embarrassed by this evidence of shoddy and disappointing work. 
              It never doubted, however, that more and better research was the 
              key to realizing its rhetoric about child 
              welfare in practice as well as in theory. 
             
             |