Guild: State Supervision of Charities 51 



IX. Conclusion 



It must be quite evident, from what has already been said, 

 that it would not be the part of wisdom to attempt to be 

 dogmatic in one's conclusions concerning the relative merits 

 of the three types of systems. Since each system is working 

 successfully in one or more States, and since the success of 

 each system and the character of the work done by each 

 board depend so much upon the particular conditions in each 

 State and upon the character of the members of the various 

 boards, it is well-nigh impossible to point to any one system 

 now in operation and declare that it is the best. However, 

 it has been possible to set forth certain facts and tendencies 

 in the past and in the present State supervision and admin- 

 istration of charities, and these facts and tendencies seem to 

 point inevitably towards the dual system as the final solu- 

 tion of the problem, at least so far as the problem may be 

 solved by any existing scheme of supervision or administra- 

 tion by boards or commissions. 



The first fact that seems to be self-evident is that the 

 idea of centralizing or consolidating the administrative side 

 of State institutions is now in great favor and is increasing 

 in popularity. Since 1900, out of thirty boards created, 

 nineteen were administrative, only eleven supervisory 

 boards being established in that time. The figures are much 

 more striking if we consider the period within the past five 

 or six years. Since 1908 only five supervisory boards have 

 been established in what is strictly the field of charitable 

 institutions. During the same period fifteen administrative 

 boards have been created in that field.^^ (Some of these ad- 

 ministrative boards created a dual system, of course.) Again 

 in the governors' messages for 1915 the governors of four 

 States^^ definitely urged the creation of an administrative 

 board to have full control over State institutions. In only one 



Since 1900 boards were created as follows: supervisory boards in Maryland (1901), 

 Nebraska (1901), California (1903), Louisiana (1904), Minnesota (1907), Oklahoma 

 (1907), Virginia (1908), Delaware (1909), Maine(1913), South Carolina (1915), Massa- 

 chusetts (1916) ; administrative boards in Minnesota (1901), New York (1901), Washing- 

 ton (1901), Arizona (1901), Kentucky (1908), West Virginia (1909), Illinois (1909), 

 Oklahoma (1909), North Dakota (1911), California (1911), Ohio (1911), Rhode Island 

 (1912), New Hampshire (1913), Vermont (1914), Arkansas (1915), Colorado (1915), 

 New Hampshire (1915), Oregon (1915), Tennessee (1915). 

 Arkansas, New Hampshire, New Mexico, and Tennessee. 



