Guild: State Supervision of Charities 49 



supervision. There is one argument which transcends all 

 others. If the State board is to deal with the problem of 

 charity in the State it must be able to ascertain just what 

 that problem really is. As has been said before, a great part 

 of the charity work in most States is still carried on by pri- 

 vate philanthropic institutions. These are dealing in a 

 private way with what is in reality a State problem; their 

 work ameliorates the general condition in the State if well 

 performed; it may only aggravate the problem under bad 

 management and inefficient methods. Hence if the State is 

 to know in any complete measure the real number of depend- 

 ents in the State, if the State is to know what methods are 

 being used and which methods are proving most effective 

 thruout the State, it must turn for much of its information 

 to private institutions. The great bugbear of State charity 

 work is the one word "investigation" which is used so fre- 

 quently in all statutes creating State boards. The word has 

 a sinister sound, which frightens off leaders in private philan- 

 thropy whose assistance is imperative. It seems to imply 

 that prosecution for misuse of funds, criminal mismanage- 

 ment, etc., will follow. In only a few States have private 

 agencies come to realize that reasonable investigation, or 

 rather inspection, by the State is a necessity if the State 

 board is to pretend to cope with the fundamental problem 

 before it. As many charity authorities, including directors 

 of private agencies, have urged, no institution which is prop- 

 erly conducted has anything to fear from such an "investiga- 

 tion", and those improperly or criminally conducted ought 

 to be investigated in the strictest sense of the word. How- 

 ever, the aim of investigation by a State board is not pri- 

 marily to prosecute for abuses, but to seek information of a 

 statistical nature. As in any other field of activity, a State 

 charity board must be able to gather at first hand statistics 

 concerning the actual existing conditions and their causes 

 before it can hope to apply the proper remedies. Its sec- 

 ondary aim of remedying abuses is but temporary and transi- 

 tory. Even if all institutions were properly conducted there 

 would still be need of State supervision. 



This is in the main the gist of the argument for the super- 

 vision of any institution by a State board. So far it has found 

 expression in definite legislation only regarding county and 



