The third consideration is the desire on the part of the average citizen and taxpayer to economize in the expen diture of public funds, and to be assured of a maximum return for expenditures that are made. It is observed that under a lax administration there is a temptation to parents to give up their children for a few years during which they are a financial burden, and on the part of col lateral relatives to shift readily to the state the task which, if no provision were made or if it were strictly ad ministered, would be undertaken by themselves. Either institutions or placing-out agencies when paid upon a per capita basis for their services are likely to regard an in crease in their numbers as neither objectionable nor alarm ing, contrasting the condition of those for whom they care with the more obvious instances of neglect and hardship in the period before the children reach them. It is natural to regard easy admissions as charitable and humane. Private citizens or state officials intrusted with financial responsibility are generally the first to discover that there is another side, that a policy of indifference on the part of the state may readily result in the acceptance of many who would better be with their own parents, or for whom provision can he made by friends or relatives, or who, if admitted at all, need remain only for very brief periods.
These three considerations, therefore, —the financial, the desire to discover new, and possibly better, methods, and the natural preference for normal family life,—may be counted upon to counteract the development of great institutions. Aside from the inertia which causes a com munity to remain satisfied with an institutional system when it once exists, and the opportunity which arises to create a monument by endowments or other benefactions which may take the form of a building and facilities for caring for children, the most important factor in the growth of institutions has been the religious element. It is easy in the institution to organize definite religious instruction, and to make upon the minds of the children in the forma tive period definite religious impressions. In the absence of a state religion and of any power on the part of the state to dictate a religious profession, there has, neverthe less, been a general recognition that religious instruction cannot be ignored, and that the state is justified in going so far as to provide that an orphan child may be placed by the state in a religious institution managed by those who are of the same general faith as the child's parents. When this principle has once been recognized, it inevitably leads to a rapid development of institutions of markedly religious character, and to a demand on the part of the churches that neglected and orphaned children shall be gathered into them, partly in order that their physical welfare may be the better cared for, but chiefly that their spiritual salvation shall be as far as possible assured.
To counteract the tendency toward an increase of insti tutional population arising from this motive, the obvious policy on the part of those who prefer placing out in fam ilies would be to recognize the same principle in the plac ing out of children. If children were placed in families of their own religious faith or that of their parents, and if after being placed there were proper supervision both of secular and of religious education, the religious motive would cease to operate in favor of institutions. Placing out agencies have been curiously reluctant to recognize this, or to place due emphasis upon it. The argument in favor of the requirement which is now frequently em bodied in statute that children who are to be placed in foster-homes shall, if practicable, be placed in homes of their own religious faith or that of their parents is based, of course, not upon the interests of the churches but upon the welfare of the child. It is not that the state is power less to choose and therefore resorts to this expedient in des peration. It is accepted for the reason that it is found in experience not advisable that a radical change should be made in the religious environment of the growing child. Children who are old enough to have received definite religious impressions, when suddenly placed under condi tions in which the ideas and forms to which they have been accustomed are looked upon with indifference or with contempt, do not as a rule discard them and adopt new ones, although they would readily have adopted the latter had they known no others. They are likely on the contrary only to lose their own faint but tender impres sions, and to attain no effective substitute for them. This applies less, it is true, or not at all, to very young children, but it is applicable to so large a proportion of the total number who are placed out that it may wisely be accepted as a general rule of action. Respect for parental rights may also have weight, although more emphasis has been placed upon this than it deserves. Parents have the right to bring up their own children in accordance with their own ideas, and are guaranteed freedom of worship for themselves and their children, but there is no inalienable post-mortem right to have one's religious faith perpet uated in his children at the expense of others; and in the case of neglected or orphaned children for whom responsi bility must be assumed by the state, the latter must be considered free to adopt whatever policies are approved by experience.