Guild: State Sitpervision of Charities 



25 



the other.-'^ In actual practice the administrative board would 

 seem at first glance to predominate. There are sixteen States 

 with a board of control and thirteen with the dual system, or a 

 total of twenty-nine States with an administrative board. Only 

 fifteen have the Indiana system. However, it should be no- 

 ticed that in only fifteen^^ of the former States do the State 

 boards cover the whole charity field. Hence in several States 

 the administrative board is found in one field, but in the other 

 fields the old decentralized system of separate boards of trus- 

 tees with no State supervisory board still exists.^^ However, 

 twenty-eight States now have central supervision. 



The Supervisory System. The first attempt at uniformity 

 in the functions and powers of State boards began when the 

 National Conference of Charities and Corrections was organ- 

 ized in 1874. Then for the first time representatives of State 

 boards and charity workers in States from all over the United 

 States came together to compare notes, to defend the type of 

 board existing in their State, and to attempt to lay down 

 fundamental principles which should govern the creation of 

 new charity boards. At that time there were in existence 

 eleven State boards for the supervision of charities, only two 

 of which, Rhode Island and Kansas, had primarily adminis- 

 trative functions. The advocates of the supervisory board 

 were consequently in a majority and for a long time there- 

 after, till about 1900, when the administrative board became 

 more prominent, the supervisory board was the one generally 

 favored.^^ 



The supporters of the supervisory board claimed that what 

 the State needed was a board so constituted that it would 



2^ "Is a State Board of Control with Full Executive Power Preferable to a State Su- 

 pervisory Board with no Executive Power ?" National Conference of Charities and Cor- 

 rections Proceedings, 1895, pp. 37-43. See also National Conference of Charities and Cor- 

 rections Proceedings, 1882, pp. 19-36 ; 1895, pp. 442-452 ; 1905, pp. 599-602. Also an article 

 on "State Control and Supervision" by F. H. Wines, National Conference of Charities and 

 Corrections Proceedings, 1902, pp. 147-151. 



28 Arizona, Florida, Iowa, Kentucky, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Ore- 

 gon, South Dakota, Tennessee, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. 



2^ In particular, note the situation in California and New York, where, altho there are 

 many State boards, the separate boards of trustees still exist. Also, in Illinois the group of 

 penal institutions are still under separate heads. 



^ See report of committee. National Conference of Charities and Corrections Pro- 

 ^ceedings, 1893, p. 33, on history of State boards. 



^ See report of committee. National Conference of Charities and Corrections Pro- 

 ceedings, 1902, pp. 127-129 ; also 1902, pp. 144-154, 372, 373 ; 1891, pp. 154, 162, 369 ; 1893, 

 pp. 42-48. 



