BENEVOLENT INSTITUTIONS 31 



Of the total cost of maintenance, 18.1 per cent was ex- 

 pended for the support of orphanages. Of the milUons of 

 dollars annually expended for the cost and education of or- 

 phans and otherwise dependent children, 44.7 per cent goes to 

 the maintenance of those in institutions under ecclesiastical 

 control which, it should be observed, also obtain proportion- 

 ately a much larger share of the annual subsidies, and also a 

 relatively larger income from inmates who pay something for 

 their support. 



The third place in percentage of aggregate cost of main- 

 tenance is occupied by the permanent homes, which are sup- 

 ported at an annual cost of nearly ten million dollars, or only 

 a very little less than the cost of all orphanages and children's 

 homes. In proportion to the number of inmates cared for, 

 the permanent homes are the most expensive of all institutions, 

 a fact which is probably due partly to the character of the 

 inmates and more especially to the circumstance that such a 

 large group of these institutions is maintained at public cost. 

 Only 3.1 per cent of the total annual subsidies is given to the 

 permanent homes, and more than two thirds of the amount 

 was secured by private homes. The latter also show a larger 

 percentage of income from pay inmates than the public and 

 ecclesiastical. 



Considering the number of persons cared for in the course 

 of a year, the cost of supporting temporary homes is small, 

 being but 5.5 per cent of the aggregate for all institutions. As 

 is well known, in many temporary homes the inmates receive 

 board and lodging in return for doing various kinds of work, 

 not a little of which results in income, but not of the kind that 

 can easily be put into terms of money, and for this reason the 

 income from pay inmates appears smaller than it actually is. 

 The temporary homes receive in cash from inmates 3.5 per 

 cent of the aggregate for all institutions. The proportionately 

 very large percentage given to ecclesiastical institutions of 

 the annual subsidies received by temporary homes is perhaps 

 to be explained by the fact that the ecclesiastical homes care 

 for groups of unfortunates for whom not only 1 he most effec- 

 tive appeal can be made, but who are in need of special in- 



