Table 8 lists the States and other areas obtaining these special allotments and the amount required as a supplementary appropriation in each field in order to bring up the apportionment of the States to the guaranteed minimum. The grand total required under the Smith-Hughes and George-Deen minimums, on the basis of the 1930 census, is $755,474. The George-Deen Act, as previously noted, fails by $314,497 to authorize sufficient appropriations to meet the guaranteed minimums.10

TABLE 8.-Allotments needed to provide minimum appropriations under the George-Deen and Smith-Hughes Acts on the basis of the 1930 census, by field of service and by State 1

1 Derived from data in Statement of Policies 1937, Appendix B, Table 3, p. 97; Table 4, p. 98. Notice that the figures here given do not take account of the adjustments that have been made in the allotment procedure because of the failure of the George-Deen Act to authorize the appropriation of sufficient funds to carry out its own provision with respect to minimum appropriations.

Includes Smith-Hughes funds, 20 percent of which may be expended for home economics.

A simple test of the need for these supplementary allotments may be obtained by studying the use made of the funds in the States receiving them. Under the schedule

10 Notice, however, that under the procedure now followed the allotments made on the basis of population have been slightly reduced in order to be able to comply with the minimum provisions of the Act. See Table 3, footnote 1.

provided by the Smith-Hughes and the George-Ellzey Acts the majority of the States receiving supplementary allotments were unable to use all of the funds provided. More than half of these States receiving supplementary allotments turned back to the Federal Treasury 10 percent or more of the funds provided them on the minimum basis. In the face of such circumstances, the increase made in the minimum provisions by the George-Deen Act seems entirely unjustifiable.

The provision in the George-Deen Act which increases the minimum allotments to the States was apparently based on the mistaken conception of a necessity for relating the amount of the minimum to the amount of the Federal appropriation. It should be clear, from the educational justification that has been presented for the minimum allotment, that the amounts so designated are not required to be any fixed percentage of the total Federal appropriation. Instead the amounts needed for minimum allotments are determined by the nature of the costs that do not vary with the scope of the program. For that reason it seems sound policy to make the minimum allotments a fixed amount and not to vary them according to the amount of the total Federal appropriation. The amount set up for minimum purposes in the Smith-Hughes Act, namely a total of $30,000 per State, seems to be adequate for the maintenance of a minimum program. Possibly the addition of a new field, such as the distributive occupations, might justify a small increase in this minimum appropriation.

Perhaps a better precedent with regard to minimum appropriations was set in the Smith-Lever Act providing grants for agricultural extension services than in the Smith-Hughes Act. The Smith-Hughes Act makes the regular allotment on the basis of population and then provides funds to bring up the total for each State to the specified minimum. The Smith-Lever Act, by contrast, first makes a small basic appropriation, which is the same for all States, and then adds to this amount an allotment on the basis of population. The calculation of the appropriation needed is much simpler under the Smith-Lever plan than under the Smith-Hughes Act, and the plan also seems to be logically more defensible.

Reversion of Unused Funds

Section 15 of the Smith-Hughes Act provides "that whenever any portion of the funds annually allotted to any State has not been expended for the purpose provided for in this Act a sum equal to such portion shall be deducted by the Federal Board from the next succeeding annual allotment from such fund used in such State." In the fiscal year ending in 1936, 47 of the 51 States and other areas to which allotments are allowed reported unexpended balances in one or more of the various fields of service in vocational education. In 33 States and 1 Territory the unexpended balances were 10 percent or more of the total appropriation in at least one of the fields for which allotments are made. (See Table 9.) Ten States and the 1 Territory received their allotments on the basis of minimum appropriations rather than on the basis of the population ratio.

Small unexpended balances may occasionally be expected, especially in States that plan to match the Federal funds only to the extent of the minimum State and local expenditure required by the Act. Unexpended balances of 10 percent or more, however, probably indicate either an inability or an unwillingness on the part of the State to maintain as large a program as is contemplated by the Federal allotment. When no part of the allotment is used and the unexpended balance is 100 percent, as was the case in a few instances, the indication is clear that the State does not care to avail itself of the proffered Federal aid.

TABLE 9.-Percentage of allotments unexpended in States and Alaska reporting unexpended balances of 10 percent or more, by field of service, year ended June 30, 1936 1

1 Derived from data obtained from State reports compiled in the Vocational Education Division of the U. S. Office of Education, February 1937.

Receiving special allotments to guarantee minimum in category in which an unexpended balance of 10 percent or more appears. See Digest of Annual Reports of State Boards for Vocational Education . . . 1936, Statistical and Financial Tables, sec. I, Tables 19 and 20.

The data of Table 9 relate to the fiscal year ending in 1936, and of course indicate only the use of funds appropriated under the Smith-Hughes and the George-Ellzey Acts. The appropriations authorized under the GeorgeDeen Act more than double the amounts available to the States. The need for such an increase at this time is open to serious question, when so many of the States. are not able

to use all the funds provided under the Smith-Hughes and George-Ellzey Acts.

Earmarking of Funds

As previously explained," the acts concerning vocational education have followed the practice of designating appropriations specifically for the reimbursement of salaries of educational personnel in certain limited occupational fields. Prior to the passage of the George-Deen Act only four fields were recognized as suitable for Federal support: Agriculture, trades and industries, bome economics, and the training of teachers 12 in these subjects. The George-Deen Act added a fifth field, distributive occupations. The funds provided are definitely earmarked for each field of training; not only is the use of the funds for training in other subjects forbidden, but there is no possibility of transferring funds from one section of the reimbursed program to the other.

Present distribution of funds.—Table 10 shows the total appropriations at present authorized under the Smith-Hughes and the George-Deen Acts for each of the fields of service. The table disregards the appropriations that may be necessary to bring the allotments to the States up to the required minimum, and the special appropriations for Hawaii and Puerto Rico, all of which are relatively small compared to the total and would not affect the percentage distribution materially. The table also leaves out of account the amounts authorized to be appropriated for administration in the Federal Office.

Approximately one-third of the authorized appropriations are available for vocational education in agriculture, onethird or a little less for trades and industries, about one-fifth for home economics, about one-tenth for the training of teachers of vocational subjects, and only 6 percent for distributive occupations.

11 See pp. 17-9, 24.

19 In the case of the training of vocational teachers the reimbursement is not limited to salaries.