HUMANE TREATMENT OF ANIMALS USED IN RESEARCH ^47 
Actually, the latter figure is probably far smaller than indicated 
simply because institutions rated as "poor" rarely provided suffi- 
cient data on research budgets and animal service costs to allow 
an accurate determination of the proportion of research monies ex- 
pended on animal facilities and service. The cost information 
provided suggested that less money was provided animal care 
activities in "poor" laboratories than in "fair" or "good" ones. 
The question was asked concerning the percentages of the 
animal care budget which were derived from Federal, institutional, 
and nongovernmental sources. Thirty-four institutions replied to 
this inquiry. Taking these establishments as a whole, 40.4% of the 
monetary resources for animal care were obtained from Federal sour- 
ces, 44.l7o from institutional funds and 15.5% from nongovernmental 
sources. The percentage of the animal facilities budget obtained 
from these three funding categories varies markedly with the type 
of institution. Table 13 shows the different kinds of institutions 
and the origins of the percentages of their animal care budgets. 
Some institutional budget administrators found it impos- 
sible to estimate expenditures for animal care. This was particu- 
larly apparent at institutions with decentralized animal care pro- 
grams. Animal care was supported largely by contracts and research 
grant awards which provided for the purchase of animals, feed, and 
labor; but covered major overhead expenses such as purchase of 
equipment, depreciation, and repairs only incompletely. Few of 
these institutions were able to report their animal care costs 
accurately. At institutions with a central animal care program, 
cost records were readily available. The central animal facili - 
ties provided the surveyors with the cost figures for animal care, 
- 20 - 
