programs. In order to present a comprehensive picture of the situation, the organization and operations of the State budgets together with their relationships to the land-grant colleges will be described in some detail.

The 44 institutions reporting upon this phase of the survey indicate that budget systems have been created by law and are operating in 38 of the States. The land-grant institutions in three of these States are not under the jurisdiction of the State budget systems. In the remainder the institutions are included in the State budget system.

The plan of organization of the State budget is by no means uniform in the different States. The budget agency consists of a single official in 19 cases and of a board or committee in 16. Of the States where a single official has charge of the budget, there are 13 in which a director or commissioner serves in that capacity, 2 where the governor, with a secretary, is responsible, and4 where the governor himself is the budget officer. In 13 of the States having a budget director or commissioner, this official is responsible to the governor in 11 and to both the governor and legislature in 2. It is obvious that the governor is the final authority over the budget organization in practically all of these States, either serving himself as the chief budget officer or having supervision over the responsible official. In the 16 States where a board or committee handles the budget, its membership consists of the governor and other principal State officials in 3 States; the governor, State officials, and chairman of the senate and house appropriation committees in four States; the governor, secretary of State, president of the senate, speaker of the house, chairman of the senate and house finance committees, and three members appointed by the governor in one State; and the State examiner of accounts, two senators, and two representatives in one State. There are two States where the governor appoints a budget committee and serves himself as its chairman, while in four others the budget board is made up of regular State officials or departments, such as the State tax commission, department of efficiency, commission of administration and finance, and chairman of the State tax commission, and auditor of public accounts. According to the reports, the budget boards or committees are responsible to the legislature in seven States, to the governor in six, to both the governor and legislature in one, and to the people in one.

The operation of the budget systems follows largely the same procedure in most of the States. Along with the other departments of the State government, the land-grant institutions are required to submit requests for appropriations with supporting data to the budget agency three months or so prior to the meeting of the State legislature. In most of the States uniform blank forms are provided for this purpose. The budget agency holds hearings and conducts investigations of the requests and has authority to approve, disapprove, or alter them. A budget is finally prepared covering the estimates of the costs of operation of all the State departments and is submitted to the regular session of the legislature with recommendations. The procedure as it affects the land-grant institutions will be analyzed in more detail.

One important question concerns the nature of the data required by the budget agencies. A special attempt was made to secure unabridged information on this subject, but 11 of the institutions. failed to furnish usable information. In the case of 10 of the institutions, detailed statements concerning both receipts and expen

ditures for the past biennium together with estimates of funds needed must be presented. The institutions of eight other States are required to submit only detailed expenditures and records showing their needs. One institution reported that it must furnish complete data on the use of all its funds. Two others in addition to filling out blank forms provided by the budget agency submit supplementary statements giving reasons for every item involving increased funds. The budget agency in two States after receiving the requests, actually visits the institutions to ascertain whether enhanced appropriations are justified. Complete salary lists must be presented by two land-grant institutions.

Another question is whether the institutions submit records of their income from Federal funds, student fees, endowments, trust funds, and other non-State sources. In many of the institutions such funds represent approximately 50 per cent of the total revenues. The budget agencies, according to the survey reports, require the submission of information covering all the items named from 27 of the institutions. There is one university which does not present data specially prepared, but refers the budget agency to its financial reports. In the case of four other institutions the income from student fees, endowments, trust funds, and other non-State sources is not included as a part of the information asked for by the budget agency, but the figures are held in readiness by the institutions for submission in the event they are requested. The State legislatures of 27 States in their final action on budget estimates consider the revenues of the institutions from these sources. Eleven land-grant institutions report that they have developed a plan of State financial support extending over a period of years that has relieved somewhat the detailed work of securing the indorsement and approval of requests by budget agencies. In the submission of budget data it is found that the institutions in 15 States are required to incorporate Federal funds received. The funds are included as a part of the total budget and deducted as paid from other sources in 13 instances. One State legislature has until recently reappropriated the Federal funds to the institution, an action entirely unnecessary under the provisions of Federal acts. In another the Federal funds are included in the budget.

A matter of vital concern to the land-grant institutions is whether opportunities are given for their officers to appear before the budget agencies to explain or define requests for funds. It is also equally important whether they are permitted to go before the legislative committees and present similar explanations where the budget agency has altered the requests and reduced the estimates. Reports indicate that in 31 States, the institutions have the privilege of appearing both before the budget agency and the legislative com

mittees for this purpose. In two States, however, the right to go either before the budget agency or the legislative committees is denied. Two of the institutions did not furnish information on this point.

Various representatives of the land-grant institutions are charged with the responsibility of appearing before the State budget agency or the legislative committees for the purpose of justifying requests for funds. Two institutions report that this function is performed entirely by the members of the governing boards. There are 16 in which both the president and the governing board act, while in 17 others the president is the responsible official. Upon occasions when their aid is needed in supporting requests for funds, the president is accompanied by other institutional officials such as the chief business officer, deans, or other faculty members. A number of colleges forbid members of their staffs to have any contacts either with the State budget officials or members of the State legislature on budgetary matters. In some instances the boards of trustees have adopted definite regulations to this effect while in others the rule is in force although no formal action has been taken by the governing authorities. The returns show that such a policy has been adopted in 16 land-grant colleges.

Frequently reductions in estimates are made by the budgetary agents or State legislatures. The problem of whether minimum requests for funds should be presented or whether the figures should be placed on a higher basis to allow margins for reductions confronts the institutions. In an inquiry into the subject it was found that 30 colleges claim that minimum requests are submitted representing only actual needs regardless of the anticipated cuts, while 5 other colleges report that allowances are made for possible decreases. An examination into the actual cuts made by the State budgetary agents and State legislatures during the last three budget periods was conducted. Five institutions reported that no cuts whatever were made in their requests, while 17 others failed to furnish information. In the remaining 13 colleges the budgetary agency or State legislature reduced requests by varying percentages.

The reductions aggregated 55 per cent in 1 case, from 30 to 35 per cent in 1, from 25 to 30 per cent in 2, from 20 to 25 per cent in 3, from 15 to 20 per cent in 2, from 10 to 15 per cent in 2, from 5 to 10 per cent in 1, and less than 5 per cent in 1.

With few exceptions the land-grant colleges present their budgetary requests as a whole. There are six institutions, however, where separate requests are presented by special activities. Both the agricultural experiment station and agricultural extension service submit their own requests in two States, the agricultural experiment station in three, and each State college of the university in one.

The president of the land-grant institution appears before the budget agency and the legislative committees on behalf of the experiment station in one instance, while the heads of the divisions personally present their requests in the remainder.

One of the most significant effects of the establishment of budget systems upon the financial programs of the land-grant colleges has been the changes made in the methods of providing funds for their support by the States. Where the institutions formerly received their State funds in lump sums, which permitted expenditure at the discretion of the governing boards, the new arrangement in some instances provides for segregation into detailed items as submitted in the budget estimate. In such cases the colleges are handicapped by the inflexibility of the State funds and their limitation to specific purposes. According to the reports received, State appropriations are made in accordance with budget detail to 8 of the land-grant institutions and according to major classifications of the budget estimates in 13 others. The major classifications vary as to their extent. In the case of some of the colleges they include salary and wages, office expense, travel, operation, repairs, library, equipment, improvements, buildings, experiment station, and extension service, while in others the items are combined into a smaller number. Where such detailed appropriations are made, however, funds may sometimes be transferred from one item to. another in emergencies, providing authority is obtained from State agencies. This situation is applicable to 11 institutions.

The power to authorize transfer of appropriations is vested with the governor in three States, with the State budget officer or committee in three, with the State board of examiners in one, with the State finance board in one, with the State emergency board in one, with the State controlling board in one, and with the State finance commission in one.

As the transfer of funds was formerly under the jurisdiction of the boards of trustees, it is evident that the authority of the State agencies tends to increase in this respect. The most advantageous method of providing State funds is through lump sums covering the items of operation and maintenance and of capital improvements. Another question of importance is whether under the State budget systems, the unencumbered balances of State funds remaining at the end of the regular appropriation periods are carried forward and are available to the institutions for expenditure during the next fiscal year. In 25 of the States these balances are canceled. The policy in six States is to carry forward the unemcumbered balances and permit their use by the institutions. In one State the balance may be carried forward if specially requested by the institution, while in another the State legislature must reappropriate the funds. The State budget agency of four States has adopted the practice of reducing the next budget of the institutions in the event they have unen

cumbered balances. While all the States filing returns have provided for the disposition of unexpended funds of the land-grant colleges, only 10 States have made provision for the institutions to secure additional funds in case of emergency when the legislature is not in session. In all these cases the final authority is vested in the regularly constituted officials of the State government. The governor has the power to authorize the institutions to make loans in three States and to issue deficiency certificates in one. Two States have created special emergency boards for this purpose, while the governor and his council has authority to provide emergency funds in two other States. The budget officer is the responsible agency in one State and the State board of control and finance in one.

Moneys appropriated by the States for the support of the land-grant colleges are received by them either through vouchers drawn against the funds or through the payment of lump sums at stated intervals to the institutional treasurers. Twenty-six colleges report that vouchers are drawn against State funds. In eight cases the State funds are paid to the local treasurer, the payments being made annually to two colleges, with additional amounts when needed, quarterly to one, monthly to four, and semimonthly to one. The State auditor approves vouchers for claims against State funds and issues warrants for their payment in the case of 17 colleges, the State controller of 5, the State business manager of 1, the State board of examiners of 1, and the director of finance of 1. Where the local institutional authorities handle the State funds, periodical audits are conducted in six States, constant reports on expenditures and allotments are required in one, and all duplicate bills and pay rolls must be submitted to the State auditor-general in one.

The survey attempted to ascertain what steps were taken by the different land-grant institutions in case of cuts by the State budget agencies in their requests and of insufficient legislative appropriations for their support. More economic administration of the institution and increases in the teaching loads of the members of the faculty are the adjustments most commonly made according to reports received. It was found, however, that five institutions definitely reduce enrollments when State funds are lacking. The practice of dropping courses of study has also been adopted by 16 colleges while the amount of research is curtailed in 7. Four institutions reported that when legislative appropriations are insufficient all expansive projects are arrested. Another resorts to increase in student fees, a second to reduction in the size of its staff, a third to elimination of one or two departments of instruction, a fourth to curtailing repairs and improvements in the physical plant, a fifth to discontinuance of salary increases, and a sixth to obtaining money from outside sources.

In the foregoing has been outlined the State relationships of the land-grant colleges, the authority exercised over their finances, and other contacts between the State governments and the institutions. State agencies, however, have direct supervision and control over other functions of many of the colleges, such as accounting, new construction, purchasing, printing, binding, trust funds, student fees,