form that the appropriation bill reached Congress, where it developed that such a change would reduce the total allotments to certain States. Authorization was therefore given the Secretary of Agriculture to allot funds so that no State would suffer a reduction.45 Though this was done for 1937 and 1938, it appeared that reductions must ensue in 1939 to some States when these supplemental funds were reduced to 25 percent of the original amounts. Accordingly, in the Appropriation Act for 1939 the additional cooperative item was increased from $250,000 to $275,000, an amount sufficient to prevent losses in total Federal grants for extension to all the States.

Federal appropriations for cooperative extension work in agriculture and home economics for the fiscal year 1937 are summarized in Table 7.

TABLE 7.-Summary of allotments of Federal funds for extension work in agriculture and home economics, fiscal year ended June 30, 1937 1

1 See U. S. Department of Agriculture, Miscellaneous Publication No. 285, Federal Legislation, Regulations, and Rulings Affecting Cooperative Extension Work in Agriculture and Home Economics, September 1937 (Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1937), pp. 6-16.

The Act applies to the 48 States, Alaska, Hawaii and Puerto Rico. The appropriations for Alaska are authorized to be made annually, the appropriations for the other areas are permanent.

3 Applies to the 48 States and Hawaii; appropriations made annually.

Applies to the 48 States and Hawaii. The appropriation is authorized to be made annually and is to increase by $1,000,000 a year until a total of $12,000,000 is reached. The Act requires that the States and Hawaii must have complied with the offset provisions of the other acts for cooperative extension work.

The appropriation authorized to be made annually is only as much as the Secretary of Agriculture estimates each year, up to a maximum of $100,000. For 1936-37, $56,838 was appropriated. Allotments to 33 States and Puerto Rico totaled $50,540.

Appropriation made annually. $554,670 was appropriated for the year 1936–37, of which $100,000 was allotted to 28 States, Alaska, and Puerto Rico.

7 $750,000 was appropriated, of which $730,650 was allotted to 46 States. The Act provides for allotment to the 48 States and Hawaii at the discretion of the Secretary, of Agriculture, provided that the total funds allotted to these areas for cooperative extension work should not be less than the total allotment in 1936. The appropriation is made annually.

48 Appropriation Act for 1937.

Financing the Extension System

The financing of the Extension Service is a cooperative enterprise. Table 8 shows Federal appropriations and total expenditures by source of funds for the years 1915 to 1936. For the fiscal year ending June 30, 1937, a total of $29,763,662 was allotted for extension work. (See Table 9.) The Federal Government contributed 58 percent; States and colleges, 19 percent; counties, 20 percent; and farmers' organizations, 3 percent. (See Table 11.)

The apportionment of extension funds within the States for various purposes for the year 1937 is shown in Table 10. About 65 percent of the funds are allotted to counties and 35 percent to colleges. The county funds are used for agricultural agents, home demonstration agents, and boys' and girls' 4-H club agents. The college funds are used for extension specialists, administration, leadership of county workers, printing, and reserve.

TABLE 8.-Federal appropriations and expenditures from Federal funds and from State, county, and local funds for cooperative extension work in all States, Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico, by fiscal year, 1915 to 1936 1 [All figures in thousands of dollars]

1 Data obtained from Extension Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture.

Totals have not been adjusted for discrepancies resulting from rounding to thousands of dollars.

TABLE 9. Total funds allotted for cooperative extension work and amounts derived from Federal funds and from sources within the States, by State, fiscal year ended June 30, 19371

1 Data obtained from U. S. Department of Agriculture, Extension Service, Sources of Funds Allotted for Cooperative Extension Work in States, Alaska, Hawaii and Puerto Rico for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1937 (multilithed).

The totals have not been adjusted for differences resulting from rounding to dollars.

TABLE 10.-Percentage of funds for cooperative extension work allotted to counties and to colleges, by purpose of expenditure and by State, fiscal year ended June 30, 1937 1

1 Data obtained from Extension Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture.

There appears to be a wide disparity between the expenditures for agricultural agents (45 percent) and home demonstration agents (17 percent). Although the average salary of home demonstration agents is only 78 percent of the average salary of agricultural agents, there are only 47 percent as many home demonstration as agricultural agents. The neglect of club work is less than might be assumed from the proportion of funds spent for it, because many agents classified as county or assistant county agents actually devote a considerable part of their time to club work.47

The plan of distribution of Federal funds to the States differs under the various acts; it also differs within the acts providing appropriations for extension work. Under the Smith-Lever, Capper-Ketcham, and Bankhead-Jones Acts a total uniform allotment of $50,000 annually is made to each State, without regard to population, number of farms, or any other criterion of need. In 4 States (Delaware, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Nevada) more than 50 percent of the Federal contribution comes from the uniform allotment, whereas in 1 State (Texas) only about 5 percent comes from this source. The former States are enabled to spend an average of $5.54 per farm from the uniform allotment alone, whereas the average from the uniform allotment for the 48 States is only $0.35 per farm.48

In the Smith-Lever and Capper-Ketcham Acts, funds other than the equal appropriation of $10,000 and $20,000, respectively, are distributed on a basis of rural population. In the Bankhead-Jones Act the basis for apportionment is the farm population. According to the first two acts, mining camps in Nevada or Pennsylvania, for example, would be classed as rural, whereas in New England where the towns embrace the whole township many towns aggregate a population in excess of the census maximum of 2,500 for inclusion

46 See Table 12 below for average salary data. See U. S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Statistics, 1937 (Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1937), p. 470, for number of agricultural agents and number of home demonstration agents.

47 See Table 16 below for proportion of county extension workers' and leaders' time spent on 4-H club work.

Data on number

48 See Table 9 for total Federal funds allotted to States for the year 1937. of farms for 1935 obtained from Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1937, p. 576.