INSPECTION OF JUVENILE SUMMER CAMPS.

This state has long been popular as a summer camping ground for youth. In recent years the number of camps making a business of caring for boys and girls has largely increased. Operation of the policy of this department of making inspection of these places soon disclosed that the sanitaary conditions in some instances were not all that they should be and that authority for special regulation was needed.

Accordingly, the legislature of 1925 enacted a licensing act, this, incidentally, making New Hampshire the first state to place juvenile recreational camps under a system of licensing. The essentials of the law are as follows:

"No person, corporation or association shall, for profit or for charitable purposes, operate any acmp designed or intended as a vacation or recreation resort, without holding a license issued by the State Board of Health, said license. to be conditioned upon the maintenance of clean, healthful sanitary conditions and methods, as determined and approved by said board, to be good only for the calendar year in which it is issued, and to be subject to suspension or revocation at any time for cause. The fee for such license shall be ten dollars ($10), the same to be paid into the State Treasury. The term 'camp' as used herein shall be construed to mean any place set apart for recreational purposes for boys and girls. This act shall not be construed as applying to private camps owned or leased for individual or family use, or to any camp operated for a period of less than thirty days in the year."

During the biennial period ending June 30, 1926, 169 juvenile camps were licensed and inspected. A list of these camps follows. Although the latter includes a considerable number of names not embodied in the correspond

116

ing list as published in the report for the period preceding, yet this is offset somewhat by the fact that a number of those then appearing have since been abandoned or have assumed new names under changed ownership.

ITEMS INSPECTED.

In carrying out the inspection the inspector fills out a filing card which affords a record in some detail of the following items: General topography and drainage; source, character, location and protection, etc., of the water supply; nature of any separate source for kitchen or toilet use; sewage disposal, nature of means and effectiveness; housing, with respect to comfort, shelter, ventilation, screening; kitchen, including general food-handling, milk supply, refrigeration, cleansing of dishes, screening, garbage disposal; provision for medical attendance.

Camp directors are informed by the inspector concerning any items meriting criticism, and recommendations for changes are made wherever indicated. Notification is given that any objectionable conditions must be promptly corrected, under penalty, for failure, of revocation or suspension of license. Thus far the latter action has not been taken but in a number of cases the serving of a peremptory notification accompanied by a provisional order of suspension has brought immediate and complete results.

NON-ISSUANCE OF Camp Ratings.

Thus far, notwithstanding requests which have been made, it has not been the policy of this department to assign definite ratings, or classifications of merits. So many factors enter into such a classification, or should enter, that it is rather difficult to give a fixed rating that shall be entirely fair to each individual camp. Much money expended in elaborate installation and equipment does not necessarily mean that that camp, all things considered, is entitled to the rating "excellent" or "A plus,"

and on the other hand, the humble camp with crude equipment may not, because of this fact, merit a poor rating.

In the case of one camp the management of which would undoubtedly expect a high ranking because of the general excellence of equipment, the inspector had occasion to read the director a lecture because of the negligent way in which small children were found being permitted to play, unattended, about a wharf over deep water at some distance from headquarters.

Another important factor which should be considered in the matter of rating is the milk supply. Thus far it has not been feasible to give this item sufficient attention to be assured that the milk furnished is all that the patrons are entitled to expect. Again, as will appear from data elsewhere, the water supply is too often open to criticism in some respect. As an illustration, a number of camps which would in a general way be entitled to practically perfect scores are using as their supply for drinking and culinary purposes raw water from the larger lakes, which water, although affording no evidence of contamination as gauged by a few analyses, cannot, nevertheless, be accepted as unqualifiedly safe for this purpose.

As bearing upon general sanitary conditions only, and without consideration of the important items of water and milk supply, it can be stated that inspections made during the biennial period would serve to classify 155 camps as good, 12 as fair and two as poor. Again, it is well to emphasize that the number of "good" camps would be materially reduced were all the factors properly entering the case to be given due consideration.

CAMP MILK SUPPLIES.

Practically all of the milk used by these camps is furnished by nearby farms. As the location of these is usually comparatively remote from the larger centers, such a thing as regular sanitary inspection and control, as is true of the

milk entering our cities, does not exist. In some instances the existence of decidedly insanitary conditions of production and handling has been unearthed, and in many the situation calls for material improvement as to certain essentials. Obviously, the securing of a pasteurized product from these sources is but rarely feasible. However, general improvement in methods, as well as furnishing from tuberculin-tested herds, should be practicable in practically all instances. In view of the importance of this feature, the following notification requiring the use only of tuberculin tested milk beginning with the 1927 season has been issued to all camp managements.

TO ALL CAMP DIRECTORS

June 7, 1926

The matter of a clean and safe milk supply for boys and girls who are patrons of our summer camps is of prime importance. A milk supply of bad or dubious character can go far toward counteracting the force of claims for efficient management, pure water and good sanitation. In connection with future camp inspections by this department, it will be the aim to give this feature attention.

Because of the especial menace to the young inherent in the consumption of milk from diseased animals, camp directors are hereby notified that beginning with the 1927 season, the milk supply shall be from tuberculin-tested herds. Evidence of failure to provide such milk shall be deemed ground for revocation of license. It is requested that in so far as may be possible, this ruling be anticipated by its observance during the current season.

A preliminary survey of 89 dairies, to cover general sanitary conditions of milk production and handling in connection with camp milk supplies, resulted in 36 of these being classified as good, 27 fair, and 26 poor.

CAMP WATER SUPPLIES.

While it might be expected that in a state abounding in sources of the best water in the world, there could be no ground for criticism as to this item, yet unfortunately our investigations have shown that such is not the case. This, it should be understood, is usually not because of any

fault inherent in the source itself but is due in most cases to inadequate consideration given to proper protection and care, it apparently being too frequently assumed by our urban-dwelling camp managements that once they arrive in the back country and in close contact with nature, almost anything in the way of a natural spring or rudimentary well is good enough, and that money expended for niceties by way of protection and improvements is uncalled. for.

While all supplies have been inspected, yet at the close of the period ending June 30, 1926, approximately half only of these have been subjected to recent analysis. Some of the camps have for years made a practice of voluntarily submitting, in fact demanding, not only one but a number of tests each season, and it is of some interest to note that in a large share of these the sources are quite above criticism and the quality of the highest excellence. Conversely, too many camp managements seem rather indifferent about this feature, or take good quality for granted, and these are apt to be the very ones concerning which the inspection has revealed some ground for criticism.

During the period covered by this report, the water supplies of 85 camps had been subjected to analysis, of which number but 56.4 per cent were passed as being satisfactory in every respect. Concerning the 43.6 per cent to which some criticism attached it is admitted that in a considerable proportion of these no serious defects were entailed and that the water was doubtless usable with no actual risk to health. The point is that in such cases the quality was not all that the camp patrons are entitled to expect when sending their children into a health and recreation resort, where perfectly pure, clean and safe water can properly be taken for granted.

As stated, in a majority of cases the defects were founded upon faulty construction or lax protection, the