The Charities Aid Association is a private society of eminent and philanthropic citizens which has received from the State the right to visit, inspect and report on the conditions of penal, correctional and charitable institutions, but has no power of control whatsoever. The method pursued by such an association is to bring before the public a plain statement of what is being done and what should be done, relying on popular opinion to work out the necessary progress. In practice it has been found that many of the obstacles to progress arise from the want of knowledge of up-to-date methods on the part of local authorities rather than from any disinclination to keep up with the times. An annual State conference is therefore arranged as a general clearing house for information and exchange of views by the scattered officials all over the Commonwealth. The fundamental idea at the basis of this (New Jersey) system is, by the education of the individual wardens, superintendents and other officers to secure their voluntary adoption of better methods.

The second or "supervisory board" plan has arisen chiefly from State appropriations to private charities. There must be some authority which will watch over these institutions and keep the legislature informed of the use to which the public moneys have been put. This is one of the first duties of the board. Again when a new institution applies for State aid, its merits must be investigated. From these simple functions the scope of the board's activity has in many States been gradually enlarged. In the public institutions under its supervision the board may audit accounts and prescribe general rules governing the admission of inmates. It also acts as an advisory council recommending changes in methods of administration and in the laws. This system has been adopted in New York, Pennsylvania and a majority of other States.

The third plan is that of centralization. The board's functions are not limited to inspection, but include the actual management of the charitable institutions, insane asylums and penitentiaries of the commonwealth. It appoints and discharges superintendents and employés, makes regulations, changes methods, purchases supplies and in every practical sense administers the charitable and penal establishments of the State. It has sometimes received powers of visitation and inspection in State universities, normal schools, colleges of agriculture, etc., and represents therefore by far the most advanced type of centralization in this field. South Dakota, Wyoming, Washington, Arizona, Kansas, Rhode Island, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota and other States have adopted this general plan with individual modifications. This new system has been the subject of keen criticism for more than a decade and its inherent merits and defects still form the central problem in the field of State charity.1

1 Dr. Frederick H. Wines, former General Secretary of New Jersey State Charities Aid Association, in an annual report over a decade ago gave an admirable summary of the case against the board of control system.

The strongest argument on behalf of the central control is found in the experience of the Iowa board. At the time of its creation in 1898 the State institutions of Iowa were so disorganized that an investigating committee had been appointed and had reported, showing a condition bordering on chaos. To remedy this the board was established. The standard of efficiency has been raised in all institutions, regular visits are made at least twice each year, modern ideas have been introduced, purchases of supplies are made in quantity for all institutions and a material saving has been effected. The underlying idea of the extreme centralized system is the control of all institutions from a single center. Arbitrary as this sounds, its real character must depend on the men who compose the central board; should they be so disposed, they may administer the office in such a way as to make it a means of stimulating and developing the initiative of the various officers under their control. This seems to have been the policy of the Iowa board. Central control does not necessarily imply arbitrary action destroying the spontaneity of the individual subordinate; it may mean the highest development of the spirit of co-operation with the added advantage of a means of enforcing immediate action where this is required.

The conclusion here must be the same as that reached regarding the central school authority of the State. Each style of board has its place in a certain set of conditions. The executive board of control represents the employment of specialists in a field where public opinion is not as yet well informed or active. The board of supervision and inspection, i. e., the "publicity" plan represents a simple effort to inform the people and the higher officials as to

Two strong objections are urged, first, political influence in the appointment of members of the board, superintendents of institutions and even wardens and subordinate employés; and second, the suppression of any individual initiative or originality on the part of these superintendents and wardens.

Dr. Wines maintains that the plan has not been successfully operated in any large State long enough to justify its adoption and that such experience as has been obtained, leads to the inference that the two weaknesses just mentioned form an inseparable feature of the system. Political influence creeps into the administration because of the great power of appointment wielded by the central board of control. Wisconsin and Kansas are cited as instances where even the subordinate positions in State correctional and charitable institutions were filled by incompetents who possessed outside influence. In Iowa the results of the control system are admitted to be most successful, but Dr. Wines contends that the experience in Iowa has been too short and the character of the men in control too exceptional to warrant any general conclusions favorable to the plan.

On the score of the discouragement of individual thought and originality in the various institutions, the same author claims that the superintendents of State institutions are so subordinated to the board of control and so divested of all discretionary power that they cease to be an important factor for progress in their fields of work. They contribute little or nothing to the general discussion of social problems at the National Conferences of Charities. In view of these facts and of some expert opinion against the board of control, Dr. Wines concludes in favor of a State supervisory board without controlling power. His opinion must be given much consideration, but the steady improvement in conditions under the central boards of control makes the question a doubtful one.

actual conditions in the public institutions, relying on public opinion to compel the adoption and maintenance of an efficient standard, once the facts are made clear. This latter method presupposes a vigorous and highly intelligent public sentiment, on which the supervisory board can depend for action.

The type of board or authority now needed is much influenced by the widespread attempts to raid the State treasuries for the benefit of thousands of small ineffective and badly managed private charities. "Charity" covers a multitude of sins including both waste and graft in flagrant form. It is a well-known practice for a group of physicians who are desirous of increasing their practice to found or reorganize a hospital for this purpose. Their friends aid in the worthy enterprise, the benevolent are invited to contribute, local pride, religious zeal and genuine public spirit are all exploited to the full limit in order to put and keep the "institution" on its legs, and then as a last resort the legislature is asked to cover the deficit. With the aid of political influence the attempt usually succeeds, and once on the list of State beneficiaries the hospital never lets go its grip nor ceases its demands for a larger subsidy. Is it well managed? Do its patients receive proper care? Could they be better and more reasonably treated at other better equipped institutions already in existence? What is the cost per patient per day? In brief, how much of the time, effort and money devoted to it is wasted and how much actually reaches the community in benefits? None of these questions is ever asked by the legislature. Nor is the hospital the only charitable spendthrift; the "home," the asylum, the reformatory, the refuge, the charitable school, the college-those which perform service and are meritorious charities. and those which represent only faith and hope, and have not yet become charity,-all are included in the glad procession to the State treasury; even sectarian institutions which should not receive government support either because of their denominational control or the preference given to certain applicants for admission, are nevertheless "well heeled" politically and able to win their places on the favored list. A conservative estimate would place at 90 to 100 millions of dollars, the amount annually wasted or improperly granted by the States to charitable institutions. Prominent physicians have repeatedly urged that the inhabitants of a State would be better off if nine-tenths of the hospitals were closed and a part of their funds devoted to the few well-managed institutions. In one commonwealth the managers of certain State-aided institutions refused to make the reports required by law from all those which received public funds, yet they were able to secure a renewal of the appropriation. In this whole situation which is ripe for a constructive reorganization, we apparently need the strong arm of an administrative charities bureau which can administer the public institutions and cope with the more aggressive and wasteful privately managed concerns. Alongside this strong authority there

should also be the State Charities Association of benevolent publicspirited citizens, which should have only visitorial authority and whose chief function should be the work of informing and educating public sentiment.

The New Jersey Plan.-The New Jersey State Charities Aid Association organized in 1886 "To promote the improvement of the mental, moral and physical condition of the inmates of all charitable and penal institutions in the State of New Jersey," is a private society composed of a small number of public-spirited and progressive citizens who have been authorized under the Act of 1886, by the justices of the State Supreme Court, to visit and inspect most of the institutions in the State. The agents of the Association have no authority to order any changes in methods or to interfere in any way with the management of the institutions; yet they have brought about a complete transformation in the conditions of most of the jails, reformatories, asylums and almshouses throughout the Commonwealth, by making public reports of abuses and by pointing out the remedies needed.

The New York Board. The supervisory board plan is now in operation in most of the States. In New York a board of twelve members appointed by the Governor for eight years is authorized to visit, inspect and maintain general supervision of all institutions, societies or associations which are of a charitable, eleemosynary, correctional or reformatory character which have by law been placed under the board's supervision.

The board's powers are:

To aid in securing the just, humane and economic administration of such institutions.

To advise the officers of such institutions in performance of their official duties, etc.

To approve or disapprove organization and incorporation of new institutions which shall be subject to the supervision of the board.

To establish rules for reception and retention of immates of institutions subject to the board.

To approve building plans for institutions subject to the board. To modify treatment of inmates.

To call attention of managers to defects in management.

To license dispensaries.

A fiscal supervisor is also authorized to maintain a central supervision over the finances of the more important public institutions. A State Charities Aid Association also exists and is authorized to visit and inspect asylums, prisons, almshouses and similar public institutions. It makes recommendations concerning the methods and management of such institutions.

In Pennsylvania there is a board of five members, appointed by the Governor with the consent of the Senate for five years. Through its general agent or personally by its members, it visits all

charitable and correctional institutions in the State at least once in each year; requires reports from various institutions in the State and from those of the several counties and townships; examines the finances of such institutions, their methods of instruction and management of their inmates, the official conduct of trustees and directors and other officers and employés, the conditions of the buildings, grounds and other property and all other matters pertaining to their usefulness and good management. The above provisions apply not only to State institutions, but also to those receiving State appropriations. The board, also through its general agent, visits and examines at least once in every two years, each city and county jail and almshouse for the similar purpose of inspection. Annual reports from jailers, wardens and executive officers must be made to the general agent of the Board. Institutions desiring State aid must give notice to the agent of the amount of the aid for which they propose to apply. The agent thereupon reports as to the advisability of such an appropriation. Refusal to give free access and necessary information or reports to the board is punishable by fine which may be collected by the general agent in the name of the board. The board may administer oaths in the course of its examinations. An annual report is made for the use of the legislature. The Pennsylvania Board has never been "aggressive" in the use of these powers. A vigorous use of them is needed.

The Wisconsin Plan.-In 1890 a central board of control of three members for the management and supervision of the State charity institutions was established. The various trustees which had administered these institutions were abolished; and the central board was given full authority. The other States which have adopted this plan have already been mentioned above. The latest example is that of Minnesota where in 1901 a law was passed which is typical of the most advanced form of control.

The Minnesota Board meets the superintendents and other executive officers of each institution at regular conferences and considers the management of such institution. It may make recommendations for the improvement of management and may enforce the same. The Board fixes salaries, determines the number of employés in each institution, formulates rules and regulations for the duties of employés, keeps a complete and uniform system of accounts with each institution, makes a biennial report, institutes investigations, summons witnesses and directs the various executive officers and managers in the letting of contracts and the purchase of supplies. The more important institutions under the control of the board are the hospitals, asylums for the insane, the institute for defectives, the State training school for boys and girls, the State reformatory, the State prison and the finances of the State university, the State normal schools, the State public schools and the schools for the deaf and blind. The buildings of the last named educational institutions are in the future also to be constructed un