TABLE 10.-Percentage of funds for cooperative extension work allotted to counties and to colleges, by purpose of expenditure and by State, fiscal year ended June 30, 1937 1

1 Data obtained from Extension Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture.

There appears to be a wide disparity between the expenditures for agricultural agents (45 percent) and home demonstration agents (17 percent). Although the average salary of home demonstration agents is only 78 percent of the average salary of agricultural agents, there are only 47 percent as many home demonstration as agricultural agents. The neglect of club work is less than might be assumed from the proportion of funds spent for it, because many agents classified as county or assistant county agents actually devote a considerable part of their time to club work.47

46

The plan of distribution of Federal funds to the States differs under the various acts; it also differs within the acts providing appropriations for extension work. Under the Smith-Lever, Capper-Ketcham, and Bankhead-Jones Acts a total uniform allotment of $50,000 annually is made to each State, without regard to population, number of farms, or any other criterion of need. In 4 States (Delaware, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Nevada) more than 50 percent of the Federal contribution comes from the uniform allotment, whereas in 1 State (Texas) only about 5 percent comes from this source. The former States are enabled to spend an average of $5.54 per farm from the uniform allotment alone, whereas the average from the uniform allotment for the 48 States is only $0.35 per farm.48 In the Smith-Lever and Capper-Ketcham Acts, funds other than the equal appropriation of $10,000 and $20,000, respectively, are distributed on a basis of rural population. In the Bankhead-Jones Act the basis for apportionment is the farm population. According to the first two acts, mining camps in Nevada or Pennsylvania, for example, would be classed as rural, whereas in New England where the towns embrace the whole township many towns aggregate a population in excess of the census maximum of 2,500 for inclusion

46 See Table 12 below for average salary data. See U. S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Statistics, 1937 (Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1937), p. 470, for number of agricultural agents and number of home demonstration agents.

47 See Table 16 below for proportion of county extension workers' and leaders' time spent on 4-H club work.

48 See Table 9 for total Federal funds allotted to States for the year 1937. Data on number of farms for 1935 obtained from Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1937, p. 576.

in the rural group."9 Furthermore, a comparison of the rural with the farm population shows a rather wide disparity in different parts of the country. The percentage ratios of farm population to rural population in the various geographic divisions of the United States are as follows: 50

As long as extension services are concerned chiefly with the farm population as contrasted with the village population, the apportionment plan of the Bankhead-Jones Act would seem to be more appropriate than that of two earlier acts. There is reason, however, to recognize that certain phases of extension work are equally applicable to village (rural-nonfarm) and even to urban groups. This is particularly true of home economics work with adult women, and may also be true of club work with boys and girls and certain phases of agricultural extension, such as landscape development, gardening, etc.

The matching principle involved in the Smith-Lever and Capper-Ketcham Acts requires that State and local funds be contributed dollar for dollar of Federal money allocated above the uniform $10,000 and $20,000 appropriations to each State. The matching principle makes it easier for the States and counties of greatest ability to take advantage of the Federal funds. These areas, however, are not necessarily the ones of greatest need, and as a result there may be a conflict between the equalization and the matching principles.

49 MacDonald, op. cit., p. 55.

50 Fifteenth Census of the United States: 1930, Population, vol. III, pt. 1, pp. 29, 30.

51 Note that the total farm population includes a small number, less than 1 percent, classified as urban-farm.

52

There is some evidence that the matching principle on the whole operates to exclude the extension program from the areas of greatest need. When the Agricultural Adjustment Act was passed in April 1933 there were 729 counties in the 48 States without agricultural extension agents. To carry out the provisions of the Act agents for these counties were appointed on Federal funds. Under date of April 20, 1938, C. W. Warburton, Director of the Federal Extension Service, provided the names of 725 of those counties. An analysis of them was made on the basis of their standard of living as contrasted with the standard of those that had employed county agents prior to April 1933.53 This analysis showed that approximately 60 percent of the 725 counties were below the median level of those that had employed county agents before the passage of the Agricultural Adjustment Act. This is not a marked difference, but its significance is increased by the fact that in the counties that were above the median many had a relatively large urban and rural nonfarm population. Before any definite statement can be made, however, as to the influence of the matching requirement in relation to the level of living of a county, more definite and complete studies are necessary.

Some minor confusions arise as a result of specific instructions regarding certain extension funds, which do not apply to others. For example, the Smith-Lever Act definitely forbids the use of funds appropriated under the Act for promotion of agricultural trains; 54 the Capper-Ketcham Act specifically states that the restriction on use of funds for promotion of agricultural trains does not apply to the additional sums appropriated under its provisions.55 At least 80 percent of appropriations under the Capper-Ketcham Act must be used for salaries of county extension agents, and the act stipulates that these agents "shall be men and

52 48 Stat. L. 31-54 (1933).

53 The index of plane of living used for this purpose is described in Carter Goodrich and others, Migration and Economic Opportunity: The Report of the Study of Population Redistribution, Industrial Research Department, Wharton School of Finance (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1936), pp. 18-21.

54 Sec. 5.

55 Sec. 1.

women in fair and just proportions." 56 Certain extension funds are appropriated permanently; others are authorized for appropriation in the United States Department of Agriculture budget. Certain funds of the various Acts are granted outright; others must be offset. Some funds are apportioned on the basis of rural population; others on the basis of farm population. Naturally State accounting regulations must be observed in the case of State funds. One writer, after describing the complexities of the situation, comments as follows: "This state of affairs is conducive to administrative confusion and necessitates no small amount of unproductive bookkeeping. The situation is, of course, not a grave one, but it is unnecessary."

99 57

The proportion of the funds for cooperative extension work provided by State and college contributions varies from 1 percent in North Dakota and 3 percent in Washington to 37 percent in Connecticut and 38 percent in California. Five States bear less than 10 percent, 30 States from 10 to 25 percent, and 13 States 25 percent or more of the cost of the extension service in their States. (See Table 11.)

Within the county contributions toward support of extension work come from two sources: (1) Tax-raised funds from the county treasury, and (2) contributions from farmers' organizations. States have set up fiscal systems, some of which involve little use of county funds and some considerable amounts. In Illinois only 0.3 percent of the extension funds come from county sources. Four other States-Delaware, South Carolina, South Dakota, and West Virginia-receive 1, 4, 5, and 6 percent, respectively, of their extension funds from county tax sources. The majority of States (31) secure from 10 to 25 percent of the extension funds from county taxes, and in 11 States 25 percent or more of the extension funds are raised through taxes collected by the counties. In one State, Alabama, none of the extension funds are from county sources.

56 Sec. 1.

57 V. O. Key, Jr., The Administration of Federal Grants to States, p. 144.