그

The Illinois law of 1917 known as the civil administration code carried out the programs of its commission in creating nine departments, the heads to be called directors, appointed by the governor and holding office at his pleasure. Two of these departments are the department of public welfare and of public health. Since then the federal or centralized form of administration of some kind has been adopted by Idaho, Nebraska, Ohio, Michigan, and Massachusetts. In all of them the governor appoints the head of the public welfare department who is responsible to the governor and holds office at his pleasure.

In recommending a state board of charities for Ohio the report says:

To take the place of the present board of State Charities a state board of welfare consisting of five members appointed by the governor for overlapping terms of five years each, is recommended as a propaganda, educational and inspectional agency. This board would have no administrative duties to perform, but its duty would be to visit and investigate State institutions for the purpose of checking up on the work which is being done by the department of welfare administration, and report the facts to the director, the legislature, and the public. It will have no connection whatever with the management of institutions, its chief function being analysis and criticism of programs and results and constructive recommendations as to new policies and programs which should be undertaken.

With this recommendation of a state board of charities I am in complete accord. I have believed for some time that the administrative and executive functions of a state board of charities interfered with its performance of those functions which the boards of state charities were originally organized to perform. In both Ohio and Michigan a department of public welfare as a department of the state government with a director of public welfare was created and in both instances the board of state charities was abolished. Usually if a political administration creates a department of public welfare headed by a director appointed by the governor and responsible to him, it does not want another department representing more nearly the public point of view to check up on its work, criticize it, and report its findings to the public. It is not in the nature of political parties to favor this sort of thing.

The following are some of the objections to the law: first, in Ohio the governor holds office for two years. The director of public welfare may not hold office longer than two years. A reasonable continuity of policy so essential to the development of welfare work cannot be guaranteed where the head of the Public Welfare Department is likely to be changed with changes in administration. This same argument will apply to the director of public health; second, a brief and uncertain tenure of office will not attract men of great ability and men of experience and of technical training to enter this form of state service; third, if appointments are made by governors only men from the state are likely to be appointed. The position of director of public welfare or director of health should go to the most competent men to be found in the country or in the world; fourth, where high salaried men are appointed by the governors political pressure will be applied to secure appointments of favorites, not only as directors of departments, but also as subordinates in the departments.

I have stated that the efficiency committees of the different states employed to investigate state government methods and operations have almost invariably recommended the centralization of authority and responsibility in the governor and have consequently recommended the consolidation of the work of the state in a few departments whose heads the governors appoint. In arriving at this conclusion they have followed the theory that where responsibility is concentrated it is possible for the people to hold

someone accountable in his conduct and attach praise and bisame where it belongs. With this theory in general. I am in sempathy. In most lines of governmental accretis douttiess much good has been accomplished in gathering together widely scattered Sunctions and pincing them where they belong in MALIVEY NEV İQartments and grong someone the definite responsibility of accomplishing results.

This theory breaks down, however, when we assume that the people in geners. have the capacity to distinguish between superior, less efficent, and even very Mitridt results in the management of pubäc velike instäätiöts di sugetier less choett, and injecior results in such matters as probation, parole, or chile-pincing especially when political parties are actively engaged in misrepresenting the facts and couding the issues. Is there any better reason for the appointment of the director of public weliace and the director of public health by the governor than there is that he should appoint the president of the state university and the president of the state agricultural college on the theory that you should hold someone definitely sccountable jar these appointments. Judging from speeches one hears at a conference like this we are inclined to believe that most social workers consider political parties public political enemas political scientist and the efficiency experts have not shown us how we can destroy them, or at least how we can destroy the insane attachment of otherwise sane, normal, and responsible human beings to his political party. And until they de se I for one wil not admit the necessity or even desirability of concentrating authority and responsibility in all matters pertaining to human welfare in a single executive who in the nature of things is the leader of the dominant political party in the state.

Some time ago we thought that civil service was the appropriate instrumentality in the hands of the public to curb the nefarious influences of political parties. While I am not willing to give up civil service most of us have come to the conclusion that civil service interferes with the efficiency of the able and competent executive who is disposed to do his very best while political parties have discovered how to evade or to destroy the wholesome influences of the best civil service laws.

Those interested in public welfare have labored hard for many years to remove the administration and control of public welfare institutions as far as possible from political control. This new development in state administration must be viewed with alarım. Will the good work of years be lost?

After all the most efficient system for the management of state public welfare institutions and welfare work is the one which will select the most capable men and women to manage and control these institutions and to do the welfare work and to give them the freedom and the support to do their work in accordance with their ideals. All other features of a superior system sink into insignificance in comparison with this one.

I think that there is merit in having a single executive head in charge of the public welfare institutions of a state if a man with technical knowledge and commanding ability can be found, and if he can be appointed without any references to his politics and is given indefinite tenure in office so long as he is successful. If we are to have a single executive then the public welfare institutions and public welfare work should be placed under the control of a bi-partisan board of six persons appointed by the governor for a period of six years, this board to appoint the director of public welfare who should be appointed for an indefinite period and who should not be required to be a citizen of the state where he is appointed. The long term of office of board members will make it

>ssible for any governor to organize the board for any partisan purposes. A state d of charities should be retained and made a vital part of this plan.

Unless a plan of this sort can be worked out it will be better to have the decentralplan of individual boards for each institution than to have a centralized board of ainistration or a director of welfare appointed by the governor and responsible im.

FUNDAMENTALS FOR EFFECTIVE INSPECTION OF INSTITUTIONS Amos W. Butler, Secretary, Board of State Charities, Indianapolis

In our form of government it is possible for the several states to try different sysms of institutional management. As a result of this experimentation one state may nd frequently does profit by the successes or mistakes of another. Some states prefer single administrative board for all its institutions. Some a single administrative fficer. Some prefer a board for each institution and some a board for each group of nstitutions. These are all administrative agencies. There is needed an inspecting and supervising agency in each state to properly complete its system. It is as important to have such an agency in governmental institutions as it is in business.

In banking it is necessary to have state and national bank examiners. How much more important to have a proper system of inspection and supervision of the institutions which exist for the care of human beings. An administrative agency can no more supervise its work than a bank can examine itself.

We deal here with the inspection part of the work of supervision. It is necessary to declare, first, one's conception of an institution. Is it intended for custody only? Or should it require a good standard of professional work? Is it to furnish jobs to politicians or to emphasize the proper treatment of its wards? The higher the standard of the institution the higher should be the qualifications of the inspector.

In the former class fall many local almshouses, and some state institutions. The farther the state institutions get away from mere political control, the better the standard. Where an institution exists chiefly to furnish a politician a job, the situation is far removed from that where its purpose and spirit is to serve its charges.

The higher the standard of the institution, the higher the qualifications needed in the inspector. Some persons of intelligence and tact, by training, make satisfactory inspectors of some local institutions. They could not fill the bill in the inspection of a hospital for the insane or a school for the deaf. We shall be told what the qualifications of an inspector are. How much difference there is in the ideas in the main offices as to what the term qualification means. Perhaps one agency would not care for an inspector who is well regarded by another agency. Some officials prefer to train their own inspectors, of course choosing good material.

A difference is to be expected between the results of inspection by board members and by trained inspectors. Nevertheless board members should make inspections so far as time will permit. Local boards usually have no inspectors. Upon the members devolve the inspections. They need to know all they can about proper methods. In Indiana we have found it helpful, in addition to giving general instruction, to have printed for their use a memorandum blank which they can readily use and from which they can compile their reports. Valuable suggestions are found in the little book,

Suggestions to Hospital and Asylum Visitors by John S. Billings, M.D., and Henry M.
Hurd, M.D.

No two states have the same provision for inspection. Some have state authority, some have both state and local, some have none at all. In some, inspection is confined to state institutions, and this again is of two kinds-the kind that relates principally to fiscal affairs and institutional routine, and the kind that emphasizes the proper work of the institution; the care of its wards. Again, the scope of an inspection may depend in one state upon the laws, and in another upon the ideals of a board. A state board member said their board did not inspect local institutions, although the law made it their duty to do so. Do we not all believe that supervising and inspecting departments of a state government are as essential as administrative departments? If the army and navy, the great railroad systems, and manufactories find it necessary to have such departments, is it not more important in the institutional system of a state which deals primarily with persons? Does not the best system include inspection by both state and local agencies?

Of course faithfulness and thoroughness should be required whatever the aim is. More and more people are coming to recognize the real purpose of our public charitable and correctional institutions. Public opinion not only permits but demands increasingly higher standards. These facts should be borne in mind and emphasized by the inspector.

What kind of reports are to be made of investigations? In some cases it is found wise to make none, except to the head of the institution. A superintendent naturally wants to have things right, and if the subject is taken up with him and recommendations made, usually the desired results can be obtained. If not, they could go to the board in charge of the institution, or to the governor, or to the public press, if necessary. Different methods have been tried in an effort to bring undesirable conditions to the attention of the public and secure reform. The same practice cannot be pursued in all cases. The report should be made in an understanding manner. If a case has become chronic, the public is entitled to know about it, and the board which is charged with being the public's representative in making inquiries is also under obligations to make a report of its findings.

A supervisory and inspecting board represents the people. It does its work in the name of the people. Is it not of prime importance that it make best practice? May we not have your experience? When one going for the first time, visits an institution, how is he goi and spirit? Of course he will get much from conversation. will tell him much or little as the case may be. Is he not goin daily and other records? What about the food served? The te The officers? The beds and bedding? The patients' clothing physicians? The employment of patients? The issuing of supplies tion of articles?

Do you always find a good system of daily regarding statistics, financial transactions and medical records?

There should be qualified inspectors. The pose of inspection. It should be thorough to rea should be made to the proper authority.

These and other points connected with this important branch of government will › considered by this division this morning. Each topic will be presented by one who experienced in the subject of which he speaks.

INSPECTION BY STATE AND LOCAL AUTHORITIES

Francis Bardwell, Inspector of Almshouses, State Department of Public Welfare, Boston, Massachusetts

The best definition of inspection is: an official survey. Like the word investigation, in matters pertaining to welfare work, however, it goes much farther than a mere record of the facts as found. Investigation has come to mean a careful study of all facts and their relation to the case in question and then action based on these facts; the formulation of a plan and the carrying out of all details for the benefit of the case involved. With inspection, the same is true; we make an official survey to determine the true conditions and having secured this information, formulate a plan to better conditions.

If we are to do our best for wholly supported dependent people, we must have a standard up to which we should work. This standard will, of course, vary with different institutions, depending upon the size of the plant, the types of individuals cared for, finances at the disposal of the authorities and other minor factors.

One thing is certain, a standard is most desirable and can be set up only when many institutions are covered and where just comparisons can be made. It would seem then that the proper agency to determine a right standard is the state board, whether it is a board of control, or holding only supervisory powers. There is always, however, the authority of the local body controlling the institution. This may be county commissioners, a board of trustees or local directors as in the Massachusetts almshouses either chosen by the people as in towns or appointed by the mayor as in some cities. These local boards are directly responsible for the management of the institutions under their charge and are held down in their desires only by public opinion and the financial condition of the county or municipality they serve.

Unless, however, there is some other institution caring for the same types of people it will be seen there is no means of comparison, unless the board of authority from time to time journeys to other locations for the purpose of securing better methods.

In order to maintain institutions economically and to secure to the inmates the best, it appears that proper inspection on the part of the state is necessary in preserving or improving standards.

If the state board has powers of control, the visit of its inspector and his consequent report is a matter of final determination. That is, the board through its powers, orders this or that to be done and sees that its orders are carried out. This is true of all statecontrolled institutions, but, even with a board of control, does not many times affect institutions under local control.

If the state agency is vested with powers of supervision and can recommend and suggest, only, the work becomes educational and the state must show why its suggestions will be of benefit, why they are not unreasonable, and why in making these recommendations, the better care of the inmates may be secured. The action under a state board of supervision is, many times, longer deferred, but if the proper spirit-the wel