estimate the efficiency of the personnel under his direction. The means and methods used by extension administrators to accomplish this purpose with reference both to the State and county workers was, therefore, studied in some detail.

Sixteen means of measuring efficiency were listed and rated A, B, and C in descending order of importance by 40 directors of extension. Table 19 presents the summary of these statements. The percentages of A's, B's, and C's for each factor are given for each of the three groups of workers. The means used are listed in order of ranking for county workers. The relative ranking for specialists and for State supervisors may readily be ascertained by noting the factors with higher percentages.

TABLE 19.-Summary of means used to measure efficiency of staff members ["A," those most important; "B," those next in importance; and "C," those least important]

140 institutions reported county workers; 39, specialists; and 39, State leaders.

In recent years increased emphasies has been laid upon definite tangible results from extension effort in the form of recorded numbers of farm and home practices changed. Other quantitative measurements have been the number of persons reached by the extension service and the number of service contacts made in developing project lines of work. That these indicators of "volume of business" or quantitative measures were foremost in the minds of extension administrators is shown by the relative ranking of these three means of rating efficiency. For county workers they ranked

first, second, and fourth; for specialists they were given first, third, and eleventh places, and first for State leaders. Just how efficiency of State supervisors may be directly rated by the number of changed practices is not clear. It would seem that other factors would more correctly and more definitely indicate the success with which State leaders are meeting their responsibilities.

From a long-time viewpoint there must be some measures of quality of service as well as of quantity. The degree to which farm people were taught to depend upon their own efforts may be one measurement. Another may be the rate and degree of growth of cooperative enterprises in a community or the number of young people of the county induced to continue their education by attendance at institutions of higher learning.

The attitude toward advanced study, which ranked tenth in county staff, sixth with specialists, and ninth with State leaders, contains the element of quality in self-improvement that should warrant its consideration being given more prominence. Length of service in a county or as a State leader or specialist, combined with the initiation of new ideas and evidences of growth, may be very decided indications of efficiency. Every administrator needs to study ways and means of analyzing reports of project achievement and of supervisory activities that he may know, first, that progress is being made more definitely, and, second, something about the rate of progress. Requirements for completing the State extension staffs. In the section of this report dealing with the financing of Smith-Lever extension education, estimates by the directors were presented as to the amount of money that will be required to provide the personnel expenses necessary to meet the probable additional organization requirements during the next 10-year period. Estimates in terms of personnel were returned by 46 institutions, hence the totals represent approximate requirement in staff for future building of the entire Smith-Lever extension system. The reports indicate that the present staff of State supervisors or leaders constitutes 80 per cent of the number required if the work is to be fully developed. The number of specialists employed in 1928 was about 60 per cent of the total estimates. The 1928 staff of agricultural county agents appeared to be 75 per cent completed, while home demonstration agents then employed constituted but 48 per cent of the required number. The number of county club agents was only 33 per cent completed. The estimates of the 46 institutions grouped by staff divisions are presented in Table 20.

TABLE 20.-Estimated increases in staff required during next 10 years-46 States

These estimates reveal that in the minds of those responsible for the development of this phase of adult education the size of the present extension staff should be almost doubled during the next 10 years. This is significant as an indication of the aspirations of the service; its significance as a practical program of development will depend upon the points at which it is proposed to apply additional personnel, upon effective utilization of the staff now available, and above all upon the needs that must be served in an ever-changing social and economic rural life. In this connection it is significant that the directors estimate that 59 per cent of the additional personnel required during the next 10 years will be county workers, of which 38 per cent are county agricultural workers, 46 per cent homedemonstration workers, and 16 per cent club workers. In 1928, subsequent to submission of these estimates by directors, new Federal legislation provided for annual division among the States of $1,480,000 in addition to Federal Smith-Lever money already granted on condition that of this new grant 80 per cent must be utilized for the payment of extension agents in the counties.

Chapter V.-Smith-Lever Relationships

The very essence of extension service requires that a variety of relationships be established and maintained with both official and private organizations. Attempting, as it does, to aid and influence rural people in their everyday economic and social relationships, Smith-Lever extension must function with, rather than upon, its clientele. Naturally these relationships give rise to problems and difficulties just as do all associations that involve adjustment of different interests and preoccupations.

Federal Relations

In addition to financial relations discussed briefly in the section dealing with "financial support of Smith-Lever extension" there are many service relationships with the United States Department of Agriculture of very great importance in the administration and operation of this cooperative extension work. The responsibility for the administration of Federal funds by representatives of the Federal service entails approval of plans of work, acceptance or rejection of specific projects, submission and acceptable records of performance and achievements, and even extends as far as direction concerning specific activities of State field workers.

It is important to note that the Secretary of Agriculture on August 25, 1922, prohibited certain types of activity on the part of county extension agents:

As they are public teachers it is not a part of the official duties of extension agents to perform for individual farmers or for organizations the actual operation of production, marketing, or the various activities necessary to the proper conduct of business or social organizations. They may not properly act as organizers for farmers' associations; conduct membership campaigns; solicit membership; edit organization publications; manage cooperative business enterprises; engage in commercial activities; act as financial or business agents; or take part in any of the work of farmers' organizations, or of an individual farmer, which is outside of their duties as defined by the law and by the approved projects governing their work.

The various Federal laws provide that cooperative extension work shall be conducted in such manner as shall be mutually agreed upon by the Secretary of Agriculture and the State agricultural colleges. By an agreement between these agencies an extension director located in each State is the representative of both the college and the department. He submits projects for extension work to the secretary for approval.

The relationships that arise from State laws passed as a result of the acceptance of the offset feature of the Federal Smith-Lever law are not universally regarded with entire satisfaction. Twenty-nine States report that the content of their laws is in accord with sound principles of procedure and organization, but 15 desire fundamental changes. Seven of these feel the need for raising the legal maximum of county appropriations. In six of the States, objection is raised to the naming of any one farm organization as the sole agency through which extension work may be carried on or requiring the formation of a county unit of a farm organization as a prerequisite for the establishment of the service. In three of the States the law provides for voting on the "county agent "work-both for its establishment and for its maintenance-which throws the service into local politics, jeopardizes its standing and permanency, and has proved prejudicial to sound administration of this educational movement.

In order to determine whether any elements of existing Federal relations are unsatisfactory to the States, inquiries were directed to the institutions which gave free opportunity for criticism and suggestions on the part of institutions and of the extension service. Nine States made comments relative to the use of Federal specialists in subject matter. Six frankly question their value to the development of the State program of work. Two requests were made for the use of more specialists, particularly in home economics, while one State objected but made no suggestion as to the basis of the objection.

Another relationship open to some question by four States was that of the requirements under which annual reports are made by county workers. These objections emphasized the large number of questions involved, the impossibility of making reliable answers to many of them, the extreme statistical nature of the report, and the amount of time required for its proper consideration by State administrators.

This matter of reporting has always been more or less a bone of contention over which many conferences have been held and as a result of which, many changes have been made in the form and content of the reports. It might have been helpful had these States submitted specific ways and means of improving the annual report requirements.

Relations with State Departments of Agriculture

To the question as to the status of the relations with the State departments of agriculture, 39 of the 43 States expressed complete satisfaction with the cooperation. This is conclusive evidence of the harmony with which the administrators of these two organiza