Developing Budgetary Control in Relation to the State Institutions of Pennsylvania

• Author: Clement W. Hunt
• Published date: 01 May 1924
• Date: 01 May 1924
• DOI: 10.1177/000271622411300116
• Subject Matter: Articles

120
THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of
A budget plan for Pennsylvania-Penn-
Teaching. Standard forms for financial
sylvania’s appropriation methods and
reports of colleges, universities, and tech-
budget systems in the states. To accom-
nical schools. New York City, 1910. 37
pany
Referendum Number Six, 1 9off. 22 p.
p.
(Bulletin No. 3.)
Godfrey, Hollis. The Institutional Budget.
Christensen, John C. University Business
Higher Education Circular Department
Administration. Topeka, Kansas State
of the Interior, Bureau of Education,
Agricultural College, 191Q. 23 p.
April, 1916.
Fitzpatrick, Edward A. Budget Making in a
Bulletin Number 8. The Carnegie Founda-
Democracy. A New View of the Budget.
tion for the Advancement of Teaching.
New York: The Macmillan Company,
Standard forms for financial reports of
1918.
colleges,
universities,
and
technical
Buck, Arthur Eugene. Budget Making. A
schools. June, 1910.
handbook on the forms and procedure of
McKinsey, James O. Budgetary Control.
budget making with special reference to
New York: The Ronald Press Company,
states.
New York: D. Appleton & Com-
1922.
pany, 1921.
The Fourth Biennial Report of the Joint Board
Pennsylvania State Chamber of Commerce,
of Higher Curricula to the Governor of
Harrisburg, Pa. State Budget Systems.
Washington, Part 1, 19QQ-19Q3.
Developing Budgetary Control in Relation to the State
Institutions of Pennsylvania
By CLEMENT W. HUNT
Deputy Secretary of Welfare, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
HE
last ten years have witnessed
Ttwo
eleemosynary institutions. This move-
notable developments in gov-
ment is characterized by a change from
ernment which vitally affect the man-
supervision and inspection by unpaid
agement of state institutions. One
boards to supervision and administra-
tendency has resulted in the establish-
tion by paid boards of control, and
ment of the budget system in nearly
more recently by a more highly spe-
every state.
In 1915 it was stated in
cialized type of supervision and leader-
The Annals
1 that &dquo;we stand almost
ship found in departments of public
alone among modern governments in
welfare. While Kansas City
2 was the
that neither our Federal Government,
first to establish a Board of Public
nor any state, has as yet installed the
Welfare in 1910, and while many other
most necessary device for regulating
cities were quick to give organized ex-
our public expenditures,-a modern
pression to the new conception, it was
budget system.&dquo; Beginning with the
not until 1917 that a state, North
year 1915, not only has the Federal
Carolina,2 set up a thoroughgoing or-
Government enacted laws pertaining
ganization called the Department of
to the budget system but every state
Public Welfare. There are now twelve
save one has taken similar action.
states having such departments, and
The other development has to do
Congress is being urged to establish a
with the reorganization of agencies
federal department of welfare. True,
exercising supervision over penal and
2
Vol. 105, 1923—Robert W. Kelso, "The
1
Vol. 62, 1915—S. Gale Lowrie, "The Proper
Transition from Charities and Correction to
Function of the State Budget."
Public Welfare."

---

DEVELOPING BUDGETARY CONTROL
121
indeed, the name may signify much or
INFORMATION AS TO FORMS OF CONTROL
little so far as effective organization is
The relative merits of three different
concerned; the point here emphasized is
forms of control have been remarkably
that it indicates a noteworthy trend in
well evaluated by Henry C. Wright in
state government in recent years.
his report, &dquo;Fiscal Control of State
Pennsylvania created a Department
Institutions,&dquo; published in 1911. For
of Public Welfare in 1921; it enacted a
comparative
budget law in 1923. But effective
purposes he selected In-
or-
diana, New York and Iowa. In In-
ganizations do not spring into existence
diana each institution is a
with the
separate unit
enactment of laws providing
controlled by a board of trustees or
for their creation. So it is that the
Department of Welfare
3 in
managers. This has been the situation
Pennsyl-
in Pennsylvania, as noted above. In
vania is still engaged in developing an
New York State the hospitals for the
organization which will enable it to
insane are under the supervision of a
render the service contemplated in the
small commission with limited
Act of
powers
1921 and exercise budgetary
headed by an experienced psychiatrist.
control over its state institutions in
Iowa represented the third form of
conformity with the provisions of the
organization with institutions managed
budget system.
by a Board of Control with full
The
power
state institutions of Pennsyl-
to administer the affairs of the institu-
vania are managed by boards of
tions. The substance of Mr. Wright’s
trustees appointed by the Governor.
findings are as follows:
This form of management has been in
operation since the several institutions
As to New York:
were established.
On the whole, it has
This investigation seems to point to the
proven to be a commendable plan.
advisability of a further decentralization of
Trustees are usually possessed of good
the detailed supervision of buying and a
judgment, broad experience, and are
fuller supervision of the larger problems
inclined to take
of the institutions.
a keen interest in the
Experts, rather than
activities of their institutions. It is
bookkeepers and clerks, seem to be needed.
true that there are exceptions, and the
As to Iowa:
abuses of boards of managers in Penn-
Iowa, apparently, has centralized either
sylvania and elsewhere, who put poli-
too much or too little; either the judgment
tics above the interests of their institu-
of the local superintendents and stewards
tions, have been notorious. This doubt-
should have been trusted more, or else
less accounts for the fact that in most
power to decide should have been reposed
of our states,4 institutions are managed
in a number of experts, each competent in
by central boards, commissions or de-
his own line; the judgment of the Board of
partments, rather than by local boards.
Control...