There is another difficulty involved here. In many States county funds go toward the salaries of agents. These salaries are frequently higher than those of most county officials and this creates an embarrassing situation for appropriating bodies. Then, too, a salary of say $2,500 for a county agent seems quite large to many farmers who are unfamiliar with all of the factors that determine the salaries of this group of workers. It therefore becomes difficult, if not impossible, to hold good men in the service when salary increases must come from county funds. The uncertainty of funds, especially county funds, which arises from the method of financing extension work in State and counties calls for serious consideration in connection with the problem of staff turnover. In 1927, nine States had a turnover of 20 per cent.

A few States now pay the entire salary of county workers. In such instances local expense such as travel in the county and office assistance and supplies are paid from county funds. Several other States have taken definite steps to secure sufficient increases in State funds to put such a plan into effect. In reply to the question of the desirability of paying all salaries of county workers from State and Federal funds and all expenses from public county sources, 36 States favored the proposal, while 10 did not favor the plan.

This method of financing county work possesses several advantages over the present method. First, the determination of salaries rests with administrative officials at the college of agriculture. They know what salaries are necessary to hold good men. Second, counties are much more free to appropriate for local expenses than for salaries. Third, under the present system, if a county appropriation is cut off the agent is left without a job. The college has no budget to support him unless and until a vacancy occurs. If his salary were paid from State and Federal funds he could be temporarily transferred to another position until a vacancy occurred. This would relieve the agent of the constant fear of having his local support cut off and would leave him free to develop a program more completely removed from any chance of political influence than is now possible. Fourth, it would make it possible to place and keep good men in counties having low tax duplicates and hence relatively small possibility of making large appropriations.

Operating expenses.-The sources of operating expenses of county workers also vary widely, but a common method of financing this cost is a rather definite dependence upon county funds. Thirty-eight institutions indicated a decided preference for the plan of paying operating expenses from local funds while five expressed disapproval of the proposal. It is significant, however, that no State reported in favor of the use of private funds in planning the budgets and in direct

support of the project work. In one-fourth of the States the county pays the entire expense, in four others the county farm bureau meets this charge, while in more than half of the reports State and county funds combined in the ratio of 1 to 2 took care of operating the service. Fifteen States report using county farm bureau funds and four others indicate other private sources of finance. While the total contribution of private funds is 5 per cent of the total extension budget, three-fourths of this is expended in two States, leaving a relatively small amount to be distributed over the other States. It is quite apparent from the replies on this point that a portion of the county farm bureau contributions are not regularly reported in a number of the States, and, therefore, the amount actually being used in extension work is somewhat larger than indicated.

The method of disbursing and accounting for county and private funds is important. In seven of the States the county funds are sent directly to the institutions to be disbursed in the same way that State and Federal funds are handled. In 22 of the States, local county authorities disburse these funds by order of the director of extension or of the dean of the institution concerned. In 16 instances, however, the payments are made directly to the agents by county authorities. In these cases the State extension administration may or may not approve and may or may not audit such payments.

Some variation exists in the handling of farm bureau and other private contributions. In nine of the States these funds are paid directly to the county workers by the organization. In four others they are paid by order of the directors of extension, and in six States by order of local-county public authorities. The payment of such funds directly to public educational agents by private agencies tends to develop opportunities for embarrassing administrative relations. Such practice is not good procedure.

The methods of providing transportation expenses within counties vary somewhat in the different organizations. In 21 States the extension agents own and operate their own cars on a mileage-rate basis. The most common rate quoted was 10 cents per mile with a range from 7 to 15 cents. Thirteen States report that the automobile rate on a flat monthly-allowance basis ranges from $30 to $50 per month. In 14 States the most common method is county ownership of the cars used by the agents with operating expenses paid by county funds. In some States all three methods are used.

In reply to the question as to what are the most important next steps looking to the improvement of extension work, one-fourth indicated that in their opinion the most important improvement that can be accomplished is the establishment of a better financial system. The great majority stated specifically that the change they believed to be desirable is the payment of all salaries from State and Federal funds, with operating expenses from county funds, or, more desirable than that, the maintenance of the entire system by State and Federal funds. This desire for adequate, sound financing involves more than the obtaining of increased funds for growth and

further development of the extension system. A very important principle is involved.

The county agent is a publicly supported teacher and leader of thought and action in rural communities for the purpose of assisting in the development of people through the teaching of methods and principles that result in improved farm and home practices. Therefore, the place and work of a county agent is that of a public leadera teaching and demonstrating leader. In his leadership he is working with all members of the public and he should be working on a well-planned, long-time program, arising from definite local needs and built with the aid of local community representatives. It follows that he should assume the rôle of director and teacher by stimulating constructive thought and action by those with whom he is working. The present method of financing county agent work in some States entails using Federal, State, and county funds from public sources, together with funds privately subscribed by members of farm organizations.

Reports from the institutions indicate the following objections to this situation or to conditions that are likely to arise from it:

(1) The agricultural extension work is of such a public nature and has such a public function as to demand that all members of the public receive equal service; that is, nonmembers of a farm organization are entitled to the same service as those who are members of the organization and who pay their dues and thus support the extension work directly.

(2) The haphazard manner in which local money is obtained in many counties makes it difficult to establish a permanent type of extension program with an agent located more or less permanently in the county and thus able to project a long-time piece of work of an extension nature. This means that the county agent often must play politics and place himself under obligation to certain groups or individuals. Under such conditions he is not always an independent educational agent.

(3) The county farm organizations in the main are not strong financial organizations. They have a difficult time maintaining their memberships and the contributions they make to the extension service leave them without sufficient funds to carry on certain types of organization work and to maintain and institute commercial activities in which the members are interested. Thus, extension work tends to rob the organization of funds necessary for its own activities.

(4) Local organizations develop plans for commercial activities of various kinds, both in buying and selling, in which the county agent becomes involved because of his dependence upon the organization for a part of the funds required to maintain the work. In

many instances the clerk of the county agent's office may be requested to serve as an employee of a commercial enterprise of the farm organization which is in competition with other business interests. This, therefore, tends to develop factions and ill feeling, and may lead to complaints against such activities.

(5) Too large a part of the time of supervisors in the State offices is spent in maintaining "fences" and insuring continued private support and county appropriations. While the work of these supervisors should be on extension methods, programs, and projects from the standpoint of getting more and better work done, their time is spent in circulating petitions, meeting local committees for financing purposes, and developing ways and means of bringing about the kind of sentiment that will permit the continuation of private funds as well as public county funds.

On the other hand, it is apparent from the replies that continued interest of local people is often enhanced by the payment of fees or contributions to the extension fund. It is believed by many that this tends to increase local responsibility and that people tend to value the service more highly because of such contributions. This is a strong argument for local financial cooperation.

Another phase in the further development of extension work emphasized by a fourth of the institutions was the need for the employment of more home demonstration agents in order to develop the home project work on a more equitable basis with the agricultural projects. This need has a direct relation to financing, for the present plan of obtaining county funds in many of the States has developed very difficult problems for those who are interested in increasing the number of county home demonstration agents. Too often the county budget is prepared on the "agricultural" basis first, then home needs are considered, and if sufficient organization work has been done and sufficiently strong influences are brought to bear upon appropriating "boards" an additional sum may be added for this phase of the program of work. If the total budget for the two agents is barely enough on which to exist and emergency situations arise which threaten to affect the prosecution of the program, the county agricultural agent usually in charge of the county program quite naturally protects his own interests first. This tends to create administrative and financial problems which affect the permanency and effectiveness of the entire program of work.

With 60 per cent of the agricultural counties of the United States without county home agents, and with an ever-growing demand for a strong educational program with farm women, and with the present interest in the development of the farm home, coordinate with and superior to the agricultural program in its effect on "a desir

able rural life," it is to be expected that the need of sufficient money for developing this phase of the extension system will receive more adequate recognition in the near future.

One-fourth of the institutions indicated as one of the advisable next steps the expansion and improvement of the quality of the junior club program. While only five gave this as the first important need, it has the same important relation to a change in the method of financing as has the development of the home program, and therefore, directly or indirectly, it was listed by the majority of replies as one of the important phases of extension services in need of further development.

From the county club leader standpoint there is vast room for expansion. Fully 90 per cent of the agricultural counties are without paid club leaders. Only 1 out of 20 rural boys and girls of club age (10 to 20 years) is being reached with this organized program of work designed to teach the skills of agriculture and home making and the ideals of leadership and citizenship.

Future financing requirements.--In the year ending June 30, 1928, the expenditures for agricultural extension work in the United States totaled almost $21,000,000. The administrators of the State organizations were requested to estimate the amount of money that would be required to employ sufficient personnel to complete the organization set-up in each State within a 10-year period. Due to the widely varying differences in the extent to which the organizations have been developed, the estimates vary widely. One State reported needing but $7,260 to complete its organization. At the other extreme was $760,000. The average of 35 estimates was $207,500, which on the basis of a similar average for 48 States would amount to approximately $10,000,000. This would bring the annual total extension budget to about $32,000,000 if present plans and methods are continued and completed without essential modification.