impartial efforts of all. The Department agreed with the principle that research can be overorganized to the detriment of initiative and productiveness. The Department's statement then offered substitutes for the Station's recommendations, one of which proposed cooperation by written agreements setting forth the arrangements agreed upon and signed by the State station director and the bureau chief concerned.

In its report to the Section on Agriculture during the 46th convention (18), the special directors' committee said relative to the departmental statement:

. . While not meeting the views of the experiment stations in all respects, it impresses us as a sincere and constructive effort to arrive at a common ground of mutual understanding and agreement. The specific recommendations, particularly as to the conduct of Federal field stations and laboratories, and the respective responsibilities of the Federal and State agencies in various types of cooperative research, seems to us to represent a distinct advance over present procedure.

These two reports, wherein the respective points of view of the United States Department of Agriculture and the State stations are presented frankly and in a friendly spirit, are a foundation on which it should be possible to build more effective cooperation.

The mutual appraisal of research views revealed the processes involved in the constant development of realistic cooperation. In the administrative competition that was natural between two relatively independent groups of administrators, intelligent study and mutual discussion of their respective responsibilities, vigorously presented and honestly defended, became the amalgam that assured cooperation. In the pattern established a generation ago American agriculture benefited and continues to benefit. Absence of a means for settling the inherent conflicts could well have created an environment under which attainment of the goal of high scientific standards in agricultural research might have been impossible.

The Special Committee on Federal-State Relationships in Agricultural Research was the forerunner of numerous committees that in more recent times have studied similar problems of cooperation, legislation, organization, and joint research planning. Federal-States relations and problems related thereto became a continuing activity in the administration of Federal-grant funds. Exploration for more effective ways of cooperation increased in importance as both the Department and the land-grant institutions sought answers to the agricultural problems brought on by the depression and by World War II.

It would be difficult to interpret relatively recent and current developments in the same way attempted for the earlier historical period. Lengthy minutes of ESCOP meetings, held at least twice annually and sometimes more frequently, reveal a continuing active interest and initiative on the part of State station directors to encourage whatever steps are necessary to retain and improve the position of scientific leadership for their institutions. Of the many areas related to Federal-State cooperation discussed by directors since the beginning of the 1940's, as reported in the official ESCOP minutes, the following may be cited as typical examples.

PROFESSIONAL RELATIONSHIPS IMPROVED

Prior to 1950 there was considerable variation in methods and procedures concerning the employment of professional personnel under State-Federal cooperative agreements. The North Central Directors' Association delegated Associate Director N. J. Volk, subsequently named Director of the Indiana station, to consider with the Agricultural Research Service means for bringing about better understanding and greater uniformity as to precedures employed in cooperative State-Federal projects. Subsequently, Dr. Volk was asked to act in the same capacity for ESCOP. The special study made by Director Volk was the forerunner of the present standing committee on State-Federal Relationships. The study in essence established the present tightened-up system of cooperative agreements under which the Department provides reimbursement for cooperatively planned research carried on with State resources. Previously, there had been considerable complaint because some of the "cooperative agents" had been carrying on their research activities in an administrative no-man's land where neither the Department nor the cooperat ing experiment station had specific supervisory authority under the agreement.

ESCOP CREATED STANDING SUBCOMMITTEE
ON FEDERAL-STATES RELATIONS

The report made by Director Volk met with wholehearted approval by ESCOP, which decided to create a standing Subcommittee on Federal-States Relations and named Dr. Volk as the first chairman. Reorganization of the Department was in progress in 1953, leading Director Volk to postpone the subcommittee's activities until those phases of reorganization affecting USDA-Station activities had become clarified. In the spring of 1954, Director E. V. Smith of the Alabama Experiment Station succeeded Director Volk as chairman of the subcommittee. In addition to meeting with a special ESCOP subcommittee on the USDA reorganization, to be discussed later, the Federal-States Relations Subcommittee began consideration with Agricultural Research Service and Agricultural Marketing Service administrators of a list of variations in cooperative research singled out in the Volk study.

The title of the subcommittee appeared in the minutes of ESCOP as "Federal-States Relations.” 7 It was to be composed of four members of ESCOP, appointed by the chairman, one to represent each region, and was to elect its own chairman. Its functions are to review matters pertaining to Federal-States relations and make recommendations concerning these to ESCOP. Whenever the occasion requires, the subcommittee is free to consult with anyone in the Department or at the experiment stations who may be able to assist in solution of the problems presented.

5

Unpublished minutes of ESCOP, Apr. 20-21, 1950; May 22–23, 1952; and Apr. 9-10, 1953.

Unpublished minutes of ESCOP, Nov. 7-11, 1953.

7 Unpublished minutes of ESCOP, Apr. 27-28, 1955.

8

On April 24, 1956, the Federal-States Relations Subcommittee of ESCOP and USDA administrators issued a report making agreedupon recommendations relative to 16 items affecting cooperative research. These ranged from the first item dealing with the need for improved communication between Federal and State administrative agencies and cooperative employees, to remedying the variation in the appointment of cooperative agents as recommended in the Volk study, to extending faculty or staff privileges to professional employees located at each State experiment station. This standing subcommittee continues as an effective agent for fostering good relations.

JOINT COMMITTEE ON COOPERATIVE RESEARCH DESIGNATED

In a talk given before station directors, ARS Administrator B. T. Shaw (29) invited the experiment stations to join ARS in a study that was being made of the problems of agriculture and the extent to which ARS could strengthen its program to meet such problems. ESCOP accepted the invitation and joined with Dr. Shaw in designating a Joint Committee on Cooperative Research. The 11-man group included ARS administrators responsible for the respective ARS research programs and station directors named by ESCOP. ARS Deputy Administrator for Experiment Stations E. C. Elting was named Chairman. The committee was charged with reviewing the existing pattern of cooperation between the Farm Research Divisions of ARS and the several State Agricultural Experiment Stations and asked to make recommendations for strengthening cooperative research with particular reference to ways of developing stronger teamwork and of bringing greater concentration of effort to bear on many problems.

In the three meetings held by this special joint committee, discussions centered on such matters as procedures involved in cooperative research which seemed to have stood the test of time and procedures which in the judgment of the committee should be considered as principles. At its final meeting in November 1960, the committee agreed on a statement of principles, to be distributed to both Federal administrators and Station directors, that would serve as a useful guide in further development of cooperative relationships. The statement of principles follows:

9

1. That the Agricultural Research Service and the State Agricultural Experiment Stations are individually responsible for accounting for the research results from the moneys appropriated or allocated to them.

2. That the ARS is primarily responsible for research on problems of national and regional concern to agriculture and on those problems involving relationships between the United States Government and the governments of other nations.

3. That the State Agricultural Experiment Stations are primarily responsible for research on problems within the borders of their respective States, and for such regional research as is of importance to the area. Statements 2 and 3 are not intended to be mutually exclusive.

Unpublished report of the Joint ARS-AMS-ECOP Committee on FederalStates Relations, April 24, 1956.

"Unpublished mimeographed letter of Jan. 17, 1961, sent by E. C. Elting, Chairman of the Joint Committee, to Administrators and Research Personnel Concerned with Federal-State Cooperation in Agricultural Research, transmitting "Principles Involved in Federal-State Cooperation in Agricultural Research."

4. That basic research is a responsibility both of the ARS and the State Experiment Stations and should be advanced in each institution and in each area so far as feasible.

5. That ARS and the State Agricultural Experiment Stations will cooperate, on a voluntary basis, in research whenever cooperative action will be more effective than separate action (regional research will usually be cooperative). 6. That joint planning should be an essential phase of cooperation.

7. ARS and the State Agricultural Experiment Stations will continue to share facilities to the extent that their respective primary responsibilities permit, and will share the operating costs of such facilities as may be mutually agreed upon. 8. ARS and the State Experiment Stations will examine each of their locations with respect to effective concentration of Federal and State personnel. 9. That, to the fullest extent practicable, necessary adjustments in ARS Farm Research at field locations be fully explored with the Experiment Station Director concerned before such actions are taken.

10. That negotiations on cooperation be conducted between State Experiment Station Directors and Directors of ARS Research Divisions.

11. That locations for regional concentrations will, so far as possible, be mutually agreed upon by the States in the region and ARS.

12. That, so far as budgetary considerations and other limitations permit, there be a full discussion of needs and plans for additional Federal research facilities in the several States.

13. That ARS facilities be located at or adjacent to Land-Grant Colleges or established sub-units thereof unless there are appropriate and compelling reasons for other locations.

14. That the ARS Divisions continue to explore opportunities for their maximum contributions to organized cooperative Regional Research. (While this refers particularly to Regional Research as authorized by Section 3(c)3 of the Amended Hatch Act, it is applicable to all voluntary cooperative regional research.)

15. That ARS, the State Experiment Stations, and other appropriate research organizations, individually and jointly, have responsibility for the evaluation of public programs relating to agriculture with respect to their effectiveness and their consequences.

COOPERATIVE DOCUMENTS

There evolved out of the various joint efforts by the station directors and their counterpart in the Department of Agriculture a series of cooperative arrangements now accepted as standard for the administration of all cooperative research. In 1961 there were nearly 1,300 separate agreements between ARS and State experiment stations, good evidence that the Federal-States relations efforts as described above paid off in the form of productive research.

Definitions of several kinds of documents now in effect, with brief explanations of each, are as follows: 10

A. Memorandum of Understanding: A written plan to cooperate in carrying out a research activity. It is principally distinguished from a Cooperative Agreement in that each party handles and expends its own funds in accordance with its own regulations. It is not a fiscal document, that is, there is no payment of funds from one party to the other.

1. Master Memorandum of Understanding: Under the general definition given above, this is a document covering cooperative work in its broadest aspects, establishing the mutuality of interest of the parties and setting forth the general principles of the cooperation. This type of document does not carry an identifying number. At the time of the reorganization of the Department, there were a number of Master Memorandums in effect between the State Experiment Stations and the former Bureaus of the Department. It was not practicable to continue using these old Masters indefinitely. Accordingly, there was developed a Master Memorandum of Understanding

10 Mimeographed Memorandum of November 2, 1959, from S. P. Williams, Director, Administrative Services Division, ARS, to E. C. Elting, Deputy Administrator for Experiment Stations, ARS.

on the basis of cooperation between each State Experiment Station and the Agricultural Research Service as a whole. Most of these ARS Masters were signed during 1957. They did not, of themselves, replace the former Bureau Masters.

2. Supplements to Master Memorandums of Understanding: Again under the general definition given above, these are documents which outline the specific project to be conducted between the Experiment Station and the ARS Program Division in accordance with the general principles stated in the Master. Supplements bear numbers in numerical order, i.e., 1, 2, 3, etc. These numbers are assigned by ARS after the supplement has been fully executed and in the order of execution. At the time of the reorganization of the Department, there were in effect a considerable number of supplements to the Master Memorandums of Understanding with the former Bureaus of the Department. As time has permitted these old supplements are being replaced and superseded by supplements under the new ARS Master. When all of the old supplements under any particular Bureau Master have been replaced, the entire document will be cancelled. This arrangement was necessary in order that there would be no gap in the documentation of projects. All new projects will, of course, be documented by supplements under the ARS Master.

3. Work Plan: This type of documentation is used primarily by our Farm Economics Research Division. It is a detailed procedural outline, is not a fiscal document, and is in addition to a Master Memorandum of Understanding and any supplement thereunder. It is not numbered but will refer specifically to the supplement number under the ARS Master to which it pertains. For example, the heading will read, "Work Plan" (or "Renewal of Work Plan") for a Specific Project Under Supplement No. 3 to the Master Memorandum of Understanding between, etc. If no supplement under the ARS Master covering the project has as yet been executed, the Work Plan will refer to the former Bureau agreement, usually Bureau of Agricultural Economics. If for some reason neither the specific supplement under the ARS Master nor the former Bureau of Agricultural Economics is identified, it is safe to assume that the Work Plan is under the former Bureau document. 4. Individual Memorandum of Understanding: This is a type of nonfiscal document and is used where there is no Master Memorandum of Understanding or where the scope of an existing Master would not cover the situation. An example of this is a multi-party arrangement involving several States. Any supplementation to these will be clearly identified as such in order that they will not be confused with the Master.

B. Cooperative Agreement: Like the Memorandum of Understanding, this type of document is a written plan to cooperate in carrying out a research activity. However, entirely unlike the Memorandum of Understanding, it will provide for the Payment of funds from one of the parties to the other. It is, therefore, a fiscal document and must be kept separate and clearly distinguished from the Memorandum of Understanding. Identifying numbers on Cooperative Agreements and other types of fiscal documents are required by the U.S. General Accounting Office and are assigned by ARS after the document is fully executed. An example of these numbers is, 12-14-100-2326(34). The number 12 appearing at the beginning denotes the Department of Agriculture (other Departments carry other numbers here). The number 14 denotes the Agricultural Research Service (other agencies of the Department carry different numbers here). The number 100 denotes the location of the office, in this instance, Washington, D.C. The number 2326 denotes the sequence number of the agreement. The number (34) denotes the research division within ARS, in this instance, Crops Research Division. There are, of course, several different types of Cooperative Agreements, depending on how the particular research division and Experiment Station carries out its overall program and the nature of the work itself, but all have one thing in common; they are fiscal documents. We have made every effort to standardize these agreements and believe we have succeeded within the limitations inherent in program procedure and work.

FEDERAL GRANTS LINK TWO GREAT FORCES

Ever since enactment of the Hatch Act of 1887, Federal administration of the grant funds to State experiment stations has served as the medium for linking two great forces for the mutual progress of