View report page

(b) Work done at the London Child Guidance Clinic, 1930-1931—The following quotation
from the report of the clinic on its activities up to 31 March, 1931, gives a picture of the
type of work carried out in the early days of the child guidance movement in London:
"The total number of children referred during the period was 582, of whom 323 were attending London
County Council schools. The remaining 259 comprised a group of pre-school children; children who
had left school; children from private schools in London; and children from areas outside London.
"The following analysis refers to the 323 children attending L.C.C. schools. 143 were referred through
the office of the School Medical Officer; 6 direct by the school doctor; 34 direct to the Clinic by teachers;
7 direct to the Clinic by Care Committee workers; and 64 were referred by parents.
"A larger proportion of the problems arose in the home life of the child, and not in the school.
"In boys the largest numbers were referred at the age of six, eight, and thirteen. In the case of girls,
there was a small group at six, a large group at ten, and a large group at thirteen.
"The problems for which cases were referred were, in order of incidence: backwardness, stealing,
lying, being unmanageable, temper, nervousness, stammering.
"Only children do not form the majority of cases, their number being greatly exceeded by those who
are one of a family of two. But from two upwards the bigger the family the less the incidence of behaviour
difficulties.
"In about one third of the cases the family was incomplete one or both parents being absent.
"Serious physical conditions were only infrequently discovered. Less than three per cent of the
children were discovered to be mentally abnormal, and to require direct treatment. About one-fourth
of the children were found to have an academic difficulty.
"It has been necessary in an extremely small proportion of cases to place the children away from
home, but this has been done only with the consent of the parents. The principle of the Clinic is so
to work that the child shall, if possible, remain at home during treatment.
"A considerable number of patients have been sent for a short period of convalescence to improve
physical health, or to tide over times of stress in the home.
"The Medical Director attends all the sessions of the Islington Juvenile Court, and examines any child
referred to him by the Bench. It has been found possible to arrange for the referral of numerous Court
cases for Clinic treatment—frequently with beneficial results ".
(c) Developments up to 1939—Gradually a number of child guidance clinics were started
both in hospitals and by voluntary organisations, but, following a directive from the
Board of Education issued in 1933, no financial grants were made by the Council as local
education authority, although payment was made to the London Clinic for the psychological
examination of children and young persons in the remand home and for the supply
of special reports required by juvenile courts. This work had previously been carried out
by the Council's own psychologist, Sir Cyril Burt, who had been appointed on a part-time
basis in 1913 and had not been replaced when he resigned in 1932.
In 1936 the Council reviewed the child guidance movement, and had regard particularly
to the work of the various clinics at which attendance was officially 'recognised' for the
purposes of school attendance.
The following quotation from the Education Committee report clearly illustrates the
view then taken:
"We have given careful consideration to the question of the value of the work done by child guidance
clinics.
"We understand that it is claimed that 45 per cent of the cases referred to the London Child Guidance
Clinic for treatment were dealt with successfully, i.e., the symptoms complained of cleared up and the
patient's mental state became as good as it was ever likely to be.
"We are of opinion that, in a limited number of cases, a great deal of good is done by the special
methods of investigation and treatment known as child guidance. Among the 45 per cent claimed as
successes we think, however, that there are undoubtedly instances where an accurate diagnosis of the
root of the trouble could have been reached without the elaborate technique of child guidance. We think,
however, that for carefully selected cases child guidance is a useful and beneficial part of a school medical
service. In certain cases, child guidance treatment given in time may often prevent the appearance of
a child in a juvenile court'.
As a result of this review a grant for one year of £400 was made to the London Clinic
in recognition of its services, and because it was proposed to terminate the arrangements
for the i emand home work upon the appointment of the Council's own medico-psychologist
for this work.
138