Suchergebnisse

This is an historical study of an early twentieth century political struggle regarding hospital reimbursement in New York City. During a period called the "Progressive Era" (1895--1915), administrators in the City's Comptroller's office sought to gain control over small, locally run community hospitals by dismantling the long-standing practice of flat-grant payments to institutions. Central office planners felt that these payments gave too much control to trustees. In its place, the Comptroller initiated a system of per-capita, per-diem reimbursement. Inspectors now judged for the institutions which services and which clients were appropriate for municipal reimbursement. From the perspective of the Comptroller's office, this change was an attempt to put rationality into the system of municipal support for charitable institutions. From the perspective of trustees and community representatives, however, this change was a political attack on the rights of institutions and local communities to control their own fate. Within the context of the larger Progressive Era "good government" movement to centralize decision-making in the hands of experts who believed strongly in the efficiency of larger institutions, it was generally the smallest, most financially troubled community institutions which felt the brunt of these changes.

Following the end of the Great Depression of the 1930s, the sectarian system of foster care services in New York City practiced open discrimination. African-American children were generally segregated in a small number of overcrowded and understaffed all-Black institutions. As the African-American migration to the city accelerated in the years following the outbreak of World War II, a small group of psychologists, jurists, philanthropists, and social workers began a systematic challenge to this system. This paper explores the role of racism in shaping New York's foster care system and the experience of African-American children who were forced to depend on services originally organized to serve Whites. It also looks at the ways race affected the way children were typed--as mentally ill, delinquent, or even criminal--in response to the structural realities of a system that sorted children into separate types of institutions according to race. The paper also provides the background for understanding the landmark challenge to segregation of children in sectarian and public institutions represented by Wilder v Sugarman.

Since the 1930s threshold limit values have been presented as an objectively established measure of US industrial safety. However, there have been important questions raised regarding the adequacy of these thresholds for protecting workers from silicosis. This paper explores the historical debates over silica threshold limit values and the intense political negotiation that accompanied their establishment. In the 1930s and early 1940s, a coalition of business, public health, insurance, and political interests formed in response to a widely perceived "silicosis crisis." Part of the resulting program aimed at containing the crisis was the establishment of threshold limit values. Yet silicosis cases continued to be documented. By the 1960s these cases had become the basis for a number of revisions to the thresholds. In the 1970s, following a National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health recommendation to lower the threshold limit value for silica and to eliminate sand as an abrasive in blasting, industry fought attempts to make the existing values more stringent. This paper traces the process by which threshold limit values became part of a compromise between the health of workers and the economic interests of industry.