Agricultural College, Montana State College, Kansas State Agricu!tural College, University of New Hampshire, Cornell University, University of Wisconsin, University of Hawaii and the State College of Washington already mentioned. Colorado Agricultural College and the University of Kentucky report students accepted at hospitals in nearby cities, but that no formal affiliation exists. Of the 42 institutions reporting, 24 have no arrangement for hospital practice. Fourteen of these give the training of hospital dietitians as a secondary aim of home economics education; five as a primary aim. Though much of the fundamental theory of dietetics can be gained from textbooks and in school laboratories this theory can in no wise take the place of experience in the hospital situation. Sooner or later, all institutions expecting to train effectively professional hospital dietitians must make provision for hospital practice. Chapter V.-Financing Objectives maintained as ideals may be ever so carefully worked out and enthusiastically championed but practical realization will depend upon the adequacy of resources devoted to provision of a competent staff and suitable physical facilities. On the other hand, financial resources that should be adequate in amount may fail to serve the needs of the home economics units if poor management results in expenditures that are poorly directed to accomplishment of definite objectives. When objectives themselves are vague, confused, and contradictory no consistent basis or principle of economical financial expenditure is possible and the tendency is to confuse economy with parsimony. Financing the home economics work of an institution has, therefore, two rather distinct aspects, the phase that concerns institutional fiscal policies as they relate to home economics, and the phase that relates to the responsibility of the home economics unit itself for expenditures that are within the control of the head of this unit. Presentation of the facts about fiscal matters can not be separated upon this basis, but the interpretation of any factual situation must usually consider the implication that may be drawn both from the standpoint of institutional policy and from the standpoint of internal administration of the home economics unit. It is the purpose of this examination of home economics financing to present facts concerning budget making, the size of home economics budgets, sources of income, cost accounting, and expenditures that may be significant from the standpoints indicated. A budget plan for expenditures is used by the majority of home economics departments in land-grant colleges. Forty-two institutions give detailed information concerning budget initiation and approval, adjustments within the budget, the checking of bills, and keeping of cost records. In 40 of the 42 institutions reporting, the director of home economics is directly responsible for the initiation of the budget for home economics undergraduate instruction. Three institutions, the University of Missouri, the University of Delaware, and the University of Maryland, report budget committees, composed of members of the home economics staff, cooperating 111490°-30-59 901 with the director in budget planning. Sixteen institutions among the 40, report that the heads of various subject-matter divisions within the home economics unit assist by presenting statements of the needs of their departments to the director. In 21 of the 40, the dean of the college in which the department or division of home economics is situated cooperates in the initiation of the home economics budget. In 22 the president of the institution is also a cooperator. In 11 institutions four different administrative heads are reported to have a part in the initiation of a plan for home economics expenditures. In but two institutions are first plans for a home economics budget made without consulting the department. The home economics budget is considered by a committee in 29 institutions. In 12 home economics has representation on the committee; in 17 no member of its staff is a member of the committee. The foregoing data present a picture of complex relationships and responsibilities. The director of home economics and members of her staff serving as department heads within the home economics unit know well the needs of the department. She is or should be in close touch with the financial situation, not only in her department and college, but in the institution as a whole, and should have an important share in shaping the home economics budget with regard to the general development of education within the institution and with regard to development of a unit best qualified to accomplish accepted home economics objectives. Fifteen of the thirty-nine institutions reporting show the following progression in the approval of the home economics budget. Members of the home economics staff heading subject-matter departments, as clothing and textiles, foods and nutrition, home management, and others, present the financial needs of their several departments to the director, who in turn presents a combined budgetary plan to the dean of the college in which the department or division of home economics is situated. The dean then presents it to the president of the institution. In nine other institutions the director of home economics submits her budget directly to the president. Reports from 15 other institutions present varied steps in budget procedure. In 5 of the 15 the business manager is concerned; in 1 the director of home economics and the dean of the college where the department is situated jointly submit the home economics budget to the dean of the faculty, who then presents it to the president. One institution reports a conference of deans or directors of all the divisions, previous to the planning of the budget. This would make for understanding of the general financial situation as well as plans of development in different departments. Such a plan lends itself well to small institutions, but might be unwieldy in larger colleges. Twenty-three institutions report the home economics budget planned for one year only; 20, for two years; 2 for a longer period. A budget planned for more than one year in advance has many advantages. A budget should do more than present a picture of money needs of the immediate future. To be of larger use, it should show a clear and well-developed plan of educational service. Developed in this way, it will not only act as a guide in the wise use of money by the department, avoiding wasteful expenditures, but will show to the public supporting the institution, the purposes of the various units. In other words, a budget should be a means of avoiding a hand-to-mouth existence. The director of home economics and her staff, because of their close acquaintance with the details of home economics, should be able to interpret its needs in budgetary form more practically than any other agency in the institution. Amount of Budget The total budget for home economics work in 22 land-grant institutions in 1915-16 was $343,125. The maximum budget at that time in any one institution was $45,000; the minimum $184. This shows a very great range in amounts of money available for home economics instruction. The same sort of situation is shown in the reports for 1927-28, for which year the total home economics budget for 37 institutions is shown to be $1,625,183. The maximum budget for an institution is $324,695; the minimum, $1,249. In 1915-16, six, or more than one-fourth of the institutions reporting, were working on budgets of less than $5,000; four, or about one-fifth of those reporting, had budgets ranging from $5,000 to $10,000. But two report between $25,000 and $35,000; and but three show budgets of between $35,000 and $50,000; three institutions report between $10,000 to $15,000. Among the 35 institutions giving figures on budgets 10 years later, or in 1925-26, only one reports a budget of less than $5,000. Three, or 12 per cent of those reporting, as against 20 per cent 10 years before, show budgets of more than $5,000 but less than $10,000. However, 19 institutions, or approximately 50 per cent, show annual budgets of less than $25,000. Nine institutions report budgets ranging between $25,000 and $50,000; four between $50,000 and $75,000; one between $75,000 and $100,000; and two have budgets of more than $100,000. The maximum home economics budget among institutions in 1925-26 is reported to be $202,883. In 1927-28, two years later, the maximum home economics budget is shown to be $324,695. One institution, however, is shown still to be working on a budget of less than $5,000. Two, or 8 per cent of the 37 institutions, show for 1927-28 budgets between $5,000 and $10,000; eighteen, or about one-half, show budgets of less than $25,000. The number having larger budgets shows an increase. Eleven now report budgets of more than $50,000, while only seven were in this class for 1925-26. Six of the eleven show budgets ranging from $50,000 to $75,000; two from $75,000 to $100,000; and three, above this figure. Sources of Income Because of insufficient data, the facts concerning sources of income could not be studied for the entire group of home economics units. However, 16 institutions were able to furnish information that appears to be fairly reliable. (See Table 12.) TABLE 13.-Expenditures for undergraduate home economics in 17 land-grant institutions The 17 land-grant institutions represented in Table 13 are not the same as those shown in Table 12. Therefore, no attempt should be made to balance the figures presented by the two tables. It was not possible on account of incompleteness and inaccuracy to assemble enough of the same institutions to show trends in income and expenditures with any degree of accuracy. More than 75 per cent of the total expenditures for home economics in 17 institutions was for salaries throughout the period 1915-16 to 1927-28. This is considerably above the proportion spent for this item by land-grant institutions as a whole, but it should be remembered that the home economics budget is not charged with many elements of institutional expenditures that must be included in getting similar percentages for the entire institution. For 1927-28, home economics expenditures for materials and supplies was 9 per cent of total expenditures. The capital outlay for equipment and apparatus for home economics in 1927-28 was 7.5 per cent of all expenditures. In these cases, as in the case of salaries, no comparison can be made properly with the figures for institutional expenditures as a whole. More important than amounts and proportionate distribution of expenditures are the methods used in making allotments of available. income to the different subject-matter fields. It is at this point especially that the correlation between financing and objectives should be especially evident. Among 42 institutions reporting on the methods used for allotting funds to various home economics subject-matter departments, clothing and textiles, home management, foods and nutrition, and others, 25 indicate funds divided according to the requests of the heads of these departments. The majority of the 25 indicate that in so far as possible the allotments for the various departments are equalized. All indicate conferences in staff meetings where the needs of the |