bers during the years 1918 to 1921 gave county, State, and national organizations large financial resources.

These resources the country over were used liberally in the support of extension work. They were also used in many States to promote commercial activities on a large scale. So far as this was done through and in the name of the farm bureau, complications of greater or lesser degree have been created for extension work. Difficulties are due to the fact that extension service is largely supported by public funds, and is, therefore, open to all who care to use it. When such a public agent works in close cooperation with a private organization carrying on large commercial activities, many of which are in competition with private enterprises of a similar nature, the legitimacy of the relation is sure to be questioned. In many cases the criticism is so serious as to endanger or to bring about the withdrawal of local public funds.

Most States both from the standpoint of the colleges and farm organizations are meeting the situation successfully. One fact, however, seems to stand out with striking prominence: If cooperation of extension service with the farm bureau is to continue successfully, all commercial activities developed by the latter must be carried on through separate organizations created for the purpose. If this can not be done, the alternative for extension is to seek other channels through which to develop its educational program.

66

The 16 States reporting which do not work chiefly or in part through the farm bureau cooperate with different kinds of local county groups, such as 'county extension associations," county boards of agriculture," "county boards of commissioners," "community clubs," and "county advisory councils.” The most of these are apparent groups created solely for the purpose of developing an extension program. In four States cooperation is specified by law. In 17 of the States having farm bureaus a "member" is understood to be the family; that is, one fee makes man and wife members. In these States homedemonstration work and agricultural work are carried on through the same organization. Five States have a home bureau and one has a home department of the farm bureau. In most of the other States home-demonstration work is carried on through separate organized groups, such as "county councils of home-demonstration clubs," women's clubs," "home-makers' associations," and "home economics advisory councils."

In the matter of fees required of members in these several types of organization through which extension work is carried on, practice varies widely. In 17 States no fees are required. There may be voluntary contributions in some cases. Twenty-nine States work with organizations charging a membership fee. Seventeen of these, as stated above, have a family membership fee varying from 50 cents to $10 per year. Eleven States have a uniform fee for all counties. Twelve States have a fee for men, one as high as $15 per year, and eight have a separate fee for women which varies from 50 cents to $5 per year. In line with statements made above regarding difficulties encountered by extension workers when cooperating organizations engage in commercial activities, 25 States report that groups with which they work engage in no commercial work. Those States in which cooperating organizations do engage in other lines of work report such activities as "cooperative buying," 13 States; "cooperative sell

ing," 10; "legislation," 10; "automobile insurance," 5; "freight rate adjustment," 4; "taxation," 3.

In none of the States do extension workers take chief responsibility for membership campaigns. In 26 States for agriculture and 24 for home economics, extension agents assist local committees in campaigns. Extension workers do not, except in one case for home economics, solicit memberships.

In only two cases for home economics do county extension agents confine their services even largely to members of cooperating organizations. They are thus quite aware of their obligation to serve all the people regardless of organization affiliations. Such a stand must be vigorously defended, if necessary, when overenthusiastic organization members urge limiting extension work to members only in the hope that new members will thus be induced to join.

A study of Table 23 indicates the number of States in which very definite cooperation has been developed with a number of county organizations.

TABLE 23.-Number of States reporting cooperative relations with county organizations

In addition to cooperative relations with rural and urban organizations and groups, institutions were asked to comment on their relations with public-school officials.

Thirty-six reported that there was definite cooperation between county extension agents and county superintendents of schools (a few States have no such officials) in the field of agriculture and 34 in home economics. Only 8 reported no cooperation in agriculture, and 7 none in home economics. Twenty-five States report definite cooperation in 4-H Club work. According to their statements, county superintendents encouraged or specifically requested teachers to give some attention to club work, to permit extension workers to come before school groups to explain club work or to secure enrollments. In certain cases teachers served as leaders of clubs at the superintendent's direction. County superintendents in some States are members of county committees on club work; speak at meetings arranged by extension agents; assist in arranging for extension exhibits, fairs, etc.; permit the use of the schools for the purpose of making surveys, and carrying information concerning specific projects home to parents. There is abundant evidence of wholesome. cooperation between these officials and extension workers. This is as it should be.

Superintendents of high schools likewise are reported as cooperating in the extension program and along lines similar to those mentioned above.

An effort was made to discover if there was any conscious effort definitely to articulate the 4-H Club program with the work of the schools. Eighteen States report progress in this direction. Three States say that school credit may be given for satisfactory work done in 4-H Clubs. Two States indicated that the rating of teachers is raised if they participate in club work. Four States say that certain school periods are set aside for 4-H Club meetings, for a discussion of club work by the teacher, by members of clubs, or by the extension agents. One State says that 4-H Club exhibits are made a part of regular school exhibits.

Thirteen States report that public-school officials feel that there should be greater correlation between the school and the 4-H Club activities of the child. But few suggestions are offered as to how this may be accomplished. In the opinion of many, this is an important problem. Many agencies are working with and hence bidding for the time of the child in his out-of-school hours. With this situation school people have a right to be concerned, particularly if these outside activities are coincident with the school year. It would seem that the primary concern of all who are interested in the proper development of the child should be to see to it that all of the child's educational experiences, whether in or out of school, are reasonably well correlated both as to content and extent, to the end that all such experiences may contribute to a continuous and complete educational development.

Chapter VI.-Teaching

Previous chapters of this report on Smith-Lever extension work have described types and problems of organization, methods of administration, financing, and personnel, and State and county relationships. In what subjects and fields of instruction are these resources used? How are these fields and activities combined to make a program for the county, the basic instructing unit in the Smith-Lever extension service, and for the State? The facts about these matters and discussion of their significance will constitute the subject matter of the section next to be presented.

The basic Smith-Lever law and all supplementary legislation define in general terms the subject-matter fields with which SmithLever shall deal as those of agriculture and home economics. To determine what this means in terms of interpretation of the general requirement by the Smith-Lever service requires classification of the various projects carried on in the counties. Such a classification for agricultural subjects has been made in Table 7 in connection with distribution of expenditures. It will be recalled that the major subject-matter fields were animal husbandry, poultry, dairying, animal diseases, agronomy, horticulture, botany and plant pathology, entomology, rodent pests, forestry, agricultural engineering, farm management, rural organization, and marketing. In home economics the subjects that are usually emphasized are clothing and textiles, housing, home management, home crafts, nutrition, food preparation and preservation, and child welfare.

Of special interest in connection with the offerings of material for program building is the dissemination of economic material. During the period of economic distress for the rural districts from 1920-1927 there has been a remarkable development of the demand for information of this character.

This type of information embraces not only current prices of farm commodities, prices of industrial products, and relative purchasing power of specific commodities, but the history of prices and their trends as well. Market practice may be incorporated under this heading, but ordinarily this is a separate division of information, dealing with principles and methods rather than economic facts as to production and consumption. It does include cost-of-production data, wages of hired labor, equipment costs, transportation expenses,

and choices of enterprises based on the factors that determine their relative chances for profitable returns. The emphasis on this lastnamed type of information is more popularly known as "outlook" or "forecast" material.

Thirty-seven institutions of the 43 replying indicated that use was made of "outlook" information in connection with the development of county and district programs of work. The principal sources of data from which the State outlook reports were developed are: Bureau of Agricultural Economics, United States Department of Agriculture; State crop and livestock estimates; census reports; the current market quotations.

It was the consensus of opinion of 38 out of 40 directors that the outlook material, as prepared and published by the United States Department of Agriculture and various State institutions, needs to be made more accurate and more adaptable to wider utilization by commodity specialists. It should be pointed out in this connection that the State specialists and county agents who use this type of prepared material have a very important responsibility in developing a background of economic training so that they may be better able to interpret and apply the information to the best advantage. That dissemination of economic facts and principles is of growing importance and popularity is illustrated by the increasing number of "outlook" meetings, of economic conferences, and the basing of county and community programs upon local basic facts, supplemented by those economic forces applicable to local conditions. Forty-four of the forty-five replies indicated a belief that this type of information could well be more widely used in building local programs of work.

One of the national slogans of the postwar period was, "Adjust farm production to market demands," implying thereby that this would serve as a remedy for the agricultural depression and that this "idea" was new and had never been applied to agricultural production. As a matter of fact, these adjustments are constantly taking place. Changes in production plans, to be effective and profitable, must be made slowly. The very nature of farming as a business makes this imperative. Sudden changes result in highly speculative adjustments, with many complicating factors that endanger the outcome more than they insure profitable results. The question has long been in the minds of trained farm economists as to how safely fundamental changes of widespread application may be advocated and promoted as a part of a farm management program. Sixteen of the forty-three directors expressed a very positive opinion on this point. They emphasized the function of extension service in presenting the economic facts and in teaching principles involved in making essential adjustments. This is entirely