common field of their educational objectives is their own estimate of strength and weakness in certain relationships. Their appraisal of their position with respect to the State's industries and occupations shows conclusively that these institutions have not developed their programs adequately to serve the general population of the State. Naturally, strength is evident with agriculture and home. economics, and in less degree with education. The institutions are still less secure with engineering, with commerce and business, and with the professions. That relations with labor have hardly been. attempted is shown by the fact that only one land-grant college considers its position strong with this group. A summary of these self estimates by the institutions is given in Table 48.

TABLE 48.-Relative rating ascribed by the institutions to their leadership with respect to extension services

A very similar picture is presented in the appraisals by the landgrant colleges of their relation to the various agencies. Here again is indicated strength with education through public schools and State departments and with departments of agriculture. Corre

Chapter XV. Problems Common to Smith-Lever

Extension and General Extension

Smith-Lever extension and general extension, in their broader mental objectives of both are vocational, humanistic, and social education. They are concerned with the education of people most neglected by other educational agencies. Facts already given in discussion of Smith-Lever extension and general extension show that they have relationships with each other and with the general problem of education. To a considerable extent they work through the same organizations. This means that from different points of view they touch different interests of the same people and even that their educational interests overlap. It is, therefore, a problem of concern to both forms of extension and to institutional administrations as well, whether they make approaches to these organizations and people independently and as separate agencies and whether their educational programs are also planned and executed without refer ence the one to the other. These problems of extension organization and program become especially significant to institutional adminis trations and also to State legislative bodies when they are called upon to provide support for a double overhead and an overlapping of educational programs. The question is very properly raised as to whether support is balanced and most effectively used. Further, the solution of the problem of relationships of a single institution's extension activities does not solve the entire problem of effective expenditure of public funds. State authority may very properly inquire into the coordination of the institution's extension work with work of a similar type carried on by other publicly supported agencies. Legitimate interest of public authority is not confined to institutional aggrandizement and growth, but is concerned with the educational welfare of the entire State and may well insist that this welfare be served through the harmonious correlation of all thean means created and supported to do this work.

The major problems common to Smith-Lever extension and general extension in the land-grant colleges are discussed in this report under the following heads-social and economic relationships, correlation of extension services within the institutions, financial support, and cooperation with other educational agencies.

Social and Economic Relationships

One measure of whether the land-grant college services of SmithLever extension and general extension are adequately covering the

common field of their educational objectives is their own estimate of strength and weakness in certain relationships. Their appraisal of their position with respect to the State's industries and occupations shows conclusively that these institutions have not developed their programs adequately to serve the general population of the State. Naturally, strength is evident with agriculture and home economics, and in less degree with education. The institutions are still less secure with engineering, with commerce and business, and with the professions. That relations with labor have hardly been attempted is shown by the fact that only one land-grant college considers its position strong with this group. A summary of these self estimates by the institutions is given in Table 48.

TABLE 48.-Relative rating ascribed by the institutions to their leadership with respect to extension services

A very similar picture is presented in the appraisals by the landgran colleges of their relation to the various agencies. Here again is indicated strength with education through public schools and Stare departments and with departments of agriculture. Corre

Of equal importance with the question of administrative organization of extension services is that of attitude of mind on the part of different members of extension-service staffs with respect to institutional coordination. Of 40 institutions reporting, only 29 say that it is the function of the different extension workers to understand the services of the different units of the institution. Even fewer than that, 23, state that it is their function to interpret these services to the people of the State. These facts indicate a degree of excessive departmentalization in a field of service that is of immediate concern to the noncollegiate citizenry of the States. They may very properly insist upon closer relationships when they realize that organizational independence affects directly and indirectly the service that they have a right to expect from the public institutions that they support.

Even granting a reasonable general interest in the possibilities of coordination, it is evident that there is lack of appreciation of the importance of ways and means suggested for bringing it about. Only in the differentiation of subject matter is there agreement that cooperative effort is generally practiced. There is reasonable teamwork claimed by the institutions in mutually understanding services, in planning State programs, and in reporting conditions and reactions in the field of service. There seems, however, to be no appreciation of the need of correlation in utilizing the services of district representatives, in standardizing report requirements, setting up cooperative budgets, or in economizing travel expenses. Only 2 institutions report that all extension education is coordinated under a committee; 36 report that it is not so coordinated.

An obviously narrow point of view is reflected in the majority of answers to questions relating to plans for coordinating extension services. This attitude on the part of many is no doubt due chiefly to the fact that administrators of the extension services and of the institutions have been so engrossed with other difficult problems that they have given little thought to the general aspect of extension service relationships. It is easier to follow the usual independent, departmental procedure than to correlate between institutional units.

Extension Finances

A picture highly indicative of the financial situation is revealed by a study of the questionnaire returns stating the amount and sources of the expenditures for the different types of the extension services of the land-grant colleges. Liberal grants of money from the Federal Government for agriculture and home economics extension and for teacher training in trades and industries have greatly stimulated all the States to develop and expand these types of

service. These grants matched with equally liberal State appropriations for the same work have resulted in a highly organized and effectively administered extension service in these Federally subsidized fields of education. No corresponding stimulus from the Federal Government has operated to promote extension education in engineering and industry, in commerce and business, in the arts and sciences, or in any of the other phases of general education. Neither have the States, with a few exceptions, adequately met their responsibility by offering educational advantages through a general extension service adapted to the needs of their entire adult citizenry. The general program of State extension services has thus been distorted with reference to the economic and social needs of the States. The different extension services are not offered to the people of the State on equal financial terms. Agriculture and home economics extension through Smith-Lever is relatively free; other extension work must be supported largely or wholly by fees paid by those desiring it. Replies to the questionnaires were practically unanimous in attributing this difference in charge to Federal grants and State appropriations. As State appropriations are influenced by Federal grants it is evident that the States have been quite generally unwilling to give full financial support to types of extension work not assisted by subsidies. Consequently there has been an uneven development of extension services. Failure to promote all forms of extension education that contribute to achievement of the same vocational, humanistic, and social objectives, indicates a lack of appreciation of the possibilities inherent in a well-balanced extension program.

Cooperation of Educational Institutions

Closely related to the problem of finance is the question of cooperative extension service relationships on a state-wide basis. It is natural that a State should wish to know whether an institution is making the most of all the resources available for a service before providing more. The extension work of a State can best be done by regarding it as a problem common to all the educational agencies that have resources available for that type of service. The landgrant colleges have not fully recognized the possibilities for cooperation in extension work with other institutions. As appreciation of the importance of such cooperation is shown in questionnaire replies by only the University of Arkansas, Colorado Agricultural College, Connecticut Agricultural College, University of Delaware, University of Florida, Purdue University, Iowa State College, Michigan State College, University of Minnesota, Mississippi Agricultural and Mechanical College, Rutgers University, Cornell University, Rhode Island State College, Clemson Agricultural College,