GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PRESENT PENAL SYSTEM. As the foregoing outline indicates, the several State institutions of a penal, correctional and reformatory character, with the two Glen Mills Schools (which, though largely under private management, are essentially public institutions) have been developed at different times, under the influence of changing conceptions of social responsibility for different types of offenders. As a result of this circumstance each is separately managed by a board of inspectors or managers, which exercises complete control over the policy of the institution to which its authority extends. This Board appoints the Warden or Superintendent, fixes his or her compensation, determines the industrial and educational policy of the institution and, under the authority of the Legislature, disburses the funds appropriated for its maintenance. The disciplinary policy of the institution is almost invariably entrusted to the Warden or Superintendent and, as is natural, if that official happens to be a person of strong individuality and initiative, his policy in practice, if not in theory, governs the entire administration. Nowhere is there a centralized authority exercising a general control or an effective influence. The only approach to such a general agency is the State Board of Public Charities, which may investigate and require the submission of an annual report, and the Prison Labor Commission, which exercises a general supervision over the industries of the two penitentiaries and the Huntingdon Reformatory, but which has no effective power to carry its plans into execution. There is, accordingly, no uniform policy, even in the case of institutions like the two Glen Mills schools, which have a similar type of inmates and an identical aim, nor in the case of all the institutions under consideration in matters where their problems and needs are the same. That there are advantages in this policy of separate control cannot be denied. It gives to an energetic and progressive superintendent or board of managers a degree of initiative in reform and experimentation which, under a highly centralized control of all the institutions, it would be difficult to secure. On the other hand it may have the effect of depriving the individual institution, because of its poverty or because of the reactionary character of its administration, of the benefits of an advance which may have been made elsewhere. There could not be a better illustration of the unevenness of development resulting from this lack of co-ordination in the Pennsylvania prison system than the fact that the Eastern Penitentiary was compelled to wait for the initiative of its present Warden for the partial adoption of the congregate system, which had for forty years existed in the Western Penitentiary, and which had everywhere demonstrated its superiority over the system of solitary confinement.