1,000 and 1,500 acres. There are 22 land-grant colleges the farms of which are below 1,000 acres. Of the smaller ones there are three between 100 and 200 acres, and 1 less than 100 acres. The size of the farm of one institution is less than the acreage of the campus.

In addition to the campus, 34 colleges have segregated areas for athletics and recreation, a total of 975 acres being utilized for such purposes. The space assigned in the individual colleges is as high as 125 acres or an area more than half the size of the entire campus in one instance and in two others is as high as 75

acres.

Areas set aside for athletics and recreation vary from 50 to 60 acres in 5 institutions, from 40 to 50 acres in 2, from 30 to 40 acres in 3, from 20 to 30 acres in 3, from 10 to 20 acres in 14, and less than 10 in 4. Athletic fields are reckoned as a part of the regular campus in the remaining institutions. There are 15 colleges that assign special land for the use of military education, the areas varying from 44 acres to 1 acre.

While campus and farms are necessary parts of the physical plants, of far more importance are the buildings available for the conduct of educational functions and activities. The survey attempted to ascertain the exact number of buildings owned and operated by each of the land-grant institutions in 1928, their type and sources of funds for their construction. The returns, however, were considerably confused due to the fact that some colleges listed only major buildings while others included smaller structures, such as tool houses and sheds. It is found that a total of 3,419 buildings were owned by the 42 institutions reporting. The number of buildings exceeded 100 and ranged up to 367 in 10 institutions. In the case of the remaining 32, the number varied from 100 to 10.

The types of the buildings, whether frame, brick, concrete, or steel, are determining factors in their value, upkeep, deterioration, and destructibility by fire. A large majority of the buildings owned by the land-grant colleges are of frame construction, the total being 1,742. The figure is not representative as many of the smaller buildings not used for class work are included in the total. In most cases the major buildings are either of brick, concrete, and steel and in only one college were all the buildings of frame construction. There were 3 institutions listing between 133 and 294 frame structures, but an examination of the returns indicate that they consist principally of small barns, cottages, and sheds. The frame buildings of 4 other institutions vary from 60 to 100 in number and much the same situation is applicable to them.

Of the remainder 3 institutions have between 50 and 60 frame buildings, 2 between 40 and 50, 1 between 30 and 40, 6 between 20 and 30, 8 between 10 and 20, and 11 fewer than 10. Two of the colleges report that none of their buildings is of frame construction while one failed to describe the types of any of its structures.

A considerable proportion of the buildings comprising the physical plants of the land-grant institutions is fireproof, the total being 570.. The present tendency is to build only structures of this type. One institution, a large State university, has 60 fireproof buildings, a second 53, and three others between 30 and 40.

The returns show 5 additional institutions with from 25 to 30 fireproof buildings, 1 from 25 to 30, 3 from 15 to 20, 7 from 10 to 15, 8 from 5 to 10, and 8 fewer than 5. In the entire list, only 4 colleges have no fireproof structures.

The most common building is the semifireproof or slow-burning type of brick or stone construction with wooden joists and interior. There are 898 such buildings in 37 of the institutions.

The number ranges from 70 to 80 in 2 instances, from 40 to 50 in 2, from 30 to 40 in 7, from 20 to 30 in 11, from 10 to 20 in 10, and fewer than 10 in 5. Four colleges have no slow-burning buildings.

Funds for the construction of the buildings owned by the landgrant colleges were derived principally from the States. A total of 2,338 structures were erected through State appropriations, or 77 per cent of the total number. In 22 institutions 403 buildings were constructed through institutional funds, while 271 structures were built through private gifts.

Administration of Plant

The foregoing description has presented in more or less detail the size and character of the physical plants of the different landgrant institutions.

Whether the plants are inadequate to meet the needs depends in a measure upon the number and capacity of the buildings. Another question of vital importance, however, is whether the buildings are properly administered, whether records are maintained of the amount of space available in them, whether a centralized authority has been established for the assignment of building and room space, and whether the methods of assigning space are the most effective in securing continuous use of classrooms and laboratories and in their utilization of the fullest capacity. Unless an efficient machinery for the distribution of space is created, waste is certain to result and physical plants frequently described as inadequate are in reality capable of meeting all requirements.

A fundamental essential is the maintenance of records showing the amount and details of space in the various buildings and facilities of the various rooms. Without such data, only a general conception of the capacity of the physical plant is available and the difficulty of assigning space on a systematic basis is obvious. A further handicap is the lack of information necessary in securing additional appropriations from the State legislatures for new buildings and

extensions. Records, including number of rooms, areas, and seating capacity, are kept by 35 of the 44 land-grant colleges reporting in the survey on this point. The other nine colleges appear to be without such records. In addition to general information on the rooms, there are 30 institutions that keep detailed records of blackboard. space, lantern facilities, and other special features.

The next important consideration in plant administration is the identity of the authorities maintaining the records and whether they are the same as the officials actually responsible for the assignment of space. It is evident that the officers controlling the distribution of the space should have immediately available records of the space to be distributed. In 13 institutions the assignment of space is under the jurisdiction of a schedule or rooms committee composed principally of administrators and faculty members, but in only six cases does the committee maintain the space records. Similarly there are 13 colleges where the president assigns the space, although in only 1 does he keep the records of the space. The reg istrar keeps the space records in nine institutions and has control of its assignment in five, while in six cases the deans and heads of the divisions maintain the records, but assign the space in only five instances. The department of buildings and grounds is charged with keeping the records at eight institutions but the duty of assigning the space has been vested in the superintendent in only one of them. At three colleges where the chief business officer maintains the records, he has charge of space assignment in two cases. There is one institution where the supervising architect both keeps the records and assigns the space, and another where a scheduling officer has been appointed who handles both the records and makes all assignments of space.

Procedures for the assignment of space are at variance in the different colleges. A general lack of centralized authority is found in a number of instances. Of the 44 institutions reporting, there were 27 that described their practices in space assignment, 6 reported no specific methods, and 11 failed to furnish any information whatever. Two specific plans are followed, one in which the buildings and rooms are permanently assigned for the definite use of major divisions or departments. In such cases central control is released to a considerable extent, although the division heads must in some cases submit schedules showing the disposition of the space under their jurisdiction. The practice of assigning buildings and rooms to major divisions and departments permanently has been adopted in 14 of the land-grant colleges. The other plan consists in the assignment of all building and room space on the campus from a central office.

Under such arrangements deans of major divisions and department heads submit requests for space and distribution is made on this basis. Thirteen of the colleges follow this procedure. Requests for space assignment in some of the institutions must be presented in writing and originate with the department and are approved by the dean before submission to the central authority. In other cases the allotment of rooms is made after personal consultation. At one institution, rooms are assigned first to prescribed courses of study and the remaining space is distributed to elective courses. In another it is required that division heads make reports of the number of hours each day when the rooms under their control are unoccupied, the central office then assigning the space to other departments as needed. Periodical surveys of the use of the buildings and rooms are reported by five institutions, the surveys being conducted quarterly by two, semiannually by two, and every two years by one.

From an examination of the returns submitted, little doubt exists that there is lack of organization in the administration of building space in many of the colleges. Haphazard and unsystematic procedures are found. A definite policy of central control should be inaugurated, thorough and complete records of available space kept, and its assignment made on a business-like and efficient basis. A continuous check should be maintained to discover unoccupied and unused space, so that waste will be eliminated to the largest degree practicable. While the space assigned to major divisions and departments should be grouped in the same buildings, they should not be given exclusive use of buildings unless their requirements so warrant.

Where vacant rooms are found in such buildings, their assignment should be made to other departments needing space. As a general rule, the full use of space should be permanently assigned to departments only for specially equipped laboratories or for offices or seminars.

Operation and Maintenance

Operation and maintenance of the physical plants is one of the major responsibilities of the business management of the institutions. The cost represents one of the principal noneducational expenditures of the colleges and frequently runs into hundreds of thousands of dollars. In addition, operating and maintaining the plant involves the creation of an extensive organization employing a large personnel charged with the duty of caring for all the institutional properties, of their repair, upkeep, and protection, and of providing heat, light, and other services.

Expenditures for operation and maintenance have already been given under the financial compilations included in another part of

this report. The question of the final administrative responsibility over the physical plant has also been previously considered. The present discussion is limited, therefore, to the organization itself, methods of conducting the work, personnel employed, and character of the services rendered.

The work of operating and maintaining a physical plant consists of four distinct principal functions-janitor service, care of grounds and roads, upkeep of buildings, and services of utilities. Regardless of the size of the physical plant the organization should be segregated into these general divisions, each operating as a separate function under competent supervision. The division of janitor service should be responsible for the sweeping, dusting, scrubbing of floors, woodwork, washing blackboards, windows, and cleaning lavatories; the division of campus and grounds for the mowing of lawns, tree surgery, shrubbery maintenance, refuse disposal, care of walks and roads, and police and fire protection; the division of the upkeep of buildings for making repairs, including carpentry, plumbing, painting, and electrical work; and the division of services of utilities for the operation of the central light, heat, and power plants, water, sewerage disposal, and telephone systems.

For the purpose of ascertaining the nature of the organizations created by the different land-grant colleges for the operation and maintenance of their plants, requests were made for organization charts. Only 13 of the institutions responded. In all of these cases the organization is separated into distinct divisions operating along lines which conform in general to the plan just outlined. The reports of a considerable number of the other colleges indicated that the department has been organized on a functional basis, although no charts were submitted. In some colleges, however, there is much decentralization due to the creation of a large number of separate units thus leading to lack of proper supervision and to division of authority. Several institutions reported that each of their buildings has been placed under the control of a faculty member who is responsible for the care of the building under his charge and for the supervision of the janitor service. In another case the division for the care of the campus has been established as a separate unit from the remainder of the operation and maintenance organization. In two colleges, the school of engineering has supervision over the upkeep and repair of the buildings and properties, this work having been taken out of the hands of the physical plant department. A more adequate conception of the organization is obtained by a detailed study of the different divisions and the supervisory methods employed in conducting them.

111490°-30-voL 1– -18