partment indirectly prescribes the minimum standards of curricula that are offered in the schools of education of the institutions. The State department of education is also the official accrediting agency of the high schools in the States from which students are admitted to the institutions. In some cases, the department conducts examinations and accredits the colleges of the State. There are a number of States where the State department of education has certain supervisory powers over the institutions or over some of their elements. The State board of education is the governing body of 3 land-grant colleges, and the State superintendent of education is ex officio member of the governing boards of 23. In an additional case the commissioner of education is State budget officer and makes the budget recommendations for appropriations to the institution, has supervision over its purchasing and its printing, serves as personnel officer in the classification of its employees and salaries, and has authority over appointments. The State department of education is charged with the responsibility of investigating the courses of instruction offered in the land-grant institution in one State to see that they comply with provisions of the State laws and in another State the department is authorized to make occasional surveys of the institution. Periodical reports of the executive of one land-grant institution must be sent to the department for transmission to the State legislature. The presidents of two institutions are ex officio members of the State board of education, while in one the president serves as a member of the department's examiners of public schools.

The preceding outline has presented the relationships of the landgrant institutions to the various State officials and State departments. In many instances the contacts between the officers of the State governments and the institutions are merely nominal and transitory. In others they represent the routine machinery set up by the State legislature for the expenditure of State appropriations made to the land-grant colleges. In still others, however, the State officials exercise actual control and supervision over certain affairs of the institution which transcend the authority of the institutional governing board. Separate governing bodies have not been created for the management of the land-grant institutions in 6 of the 44 States from which reports were received. In these cases regular departments of the State governments are vested by law with the administration of the institutions. The University of Idaho, Iowa State College, and Montana State College are governed by the State board of education, a regular department of the State Government. The Michigan State College, Oklahoma Agricultural College, and the Colorado Agricultural College are under the management of the State board of agriculture, also a regular part of the State governmental organiza

tion. In most of these cases the financial affairs of the institutions are handled through the regular State channels. In two States where the State board of education governs the land-grant institutions, its authority extends also to the government of all the other higher educational institutions of the State. In another State the board is charged with the government of all the eleemosynary institutions as well as the institutions of higher education.

An examination of the reports shows further that joint State boards have been established in six other States for the government of the State institutions, including the land-grant colleges.

In one State the board is known as the State board of control, in another as the State board of administration, in three as the State board of regents, and in one as the board of trustees. The University of Arizona is administered by a State board of regents which governs all the other higher educational institutions of the State. The University of Florida is under the government of a State board of control which in addition to managing the other higher educational institutions also governs the State's school for the deaf and the blind. The State boards of regents which administer the affairs of the Kansas State Agricultural College and the South Dakota State College govern the other State higher educational institutions while a similar control is exercised by the board of trustees of the Mississippi Agricultural and Mechanical College. In the case of the North Dakota Agricultural College, its governing board under the title of the State board of administration has governing powers over 15 other institutions, including the State university, State teachers colleges, schools of science and forestry, hospitals for deaf, blind, and insane, State penitentiary, training school, and tuberculosis sanitarium. As the cen tral boards of control are in reality branches of the State governments, it is evident that the administration of their affairs are largely centered at the State capitols. There is one land-grant institution, the business affairs of which are handled in their entirety by a State business manager.

State Budget

The establishment of State budget systems has completely changed the methods employed by the State governments in providing funds for the support of the land-grant institutions.

Under the former arrangement State support was supplied through the enactment of general statutes setting aside specific funds for the institutions or through regular appropriation acts passed by the State legislature. Under the budget system, the landgrant institutions are not only compelled to submit requests for the State funds necessary for their maintenance, but they must also justify them to some budget agency through detailed reports, financial statements, and oral presentation. As the agency in charge of the budget is a part of the regular State government often with authority to reduce or increase the requests or estimates, control by the regularly constituted State government has been augmented more or less. The creation of State budgets has further necessitated the revision of the accounting systems and business methods of many of the institutions in order to conform to budget requirements and has resulted in important changes in administrative policy and financial

programs. In order to present a comprehensive picture of the situation, the organization and operations of the State budgets together with their relationships to the land-grant colleges will be described in some detail.

The 44 institutions reporting upon this phase of the survey indicate that budget systems have been created by law and are operating in 38 of the States. The land-grant institutions in three of these States are not under the jurisdiction of the State budget systems. In the remainder the institutions are included in the State budget system.

The plan of organization of the State budget is by no means uniform in the different States. The budget agency consists of a single official in 19 cases and of a board or committee in 16. Of the States where a single official has charge of the budget, there are 13 in which a director or commissioner serves in that capacity, 2 where the governor, with a secretary, is responsible, and 4 where the governor himself is the budget officer. In 13 of the States having a budget director or commissioner, this official is responsible to the governor in 11 and to both the governor and legislature in 2. It is obvious that the governor is the final authority over the budget organization in practically all of these States, either serving himself as the chief budget officer or having supervision over the responsible official. In the 16 States where a board or committee handles the budget, its membership consists of the governor and other principal State officials in 3 States; the governor, State officials, and chairman of the senate and house appropriation committees in four States; the governor, secretary of State, president of the senate, speaker of the house, chairman of the senate and house finance committees, and three members appointed by the governor in one State; and the State examiner of accounts, two senators, and two representatives in one State. There are two States where the governor appoints a budget committee and serves himself as its chairman, while in four others the budget board is made up of regular State officials or departments, such as the State tax commission, department of efficiency, commission of administration and finance, and chairman of the State tax commission, and auditor of public accounts. According to the reports, the budget boards or committees are responsible to the legislature in seven States, to the governor in six, to both the governor and legislature in one, and to the people in one.

The operation of the budget systems follows largely the same procedure in most of the States. Along with the other departments of the State government, the land-grant institutions are required to submit requests for appropriations with supporting data to the budget agency three months or so prior to the meeting of the State legislature. In most of the States uniform blank forms are provided for this purpose. The budget agency holds hearings and conducts investigations of the requests and has authority to approve, disapprove, or alter them. A budget is finally prepared covering the estimates of the costs of operation of all the State departments and is submitted to the regular session of the legislature with recommendations. The procedure as it affects the land-grant institutions will be analyzed in more detail.

One important question concerns the nature of the data required by the budget agencies. A special attempt was made to secure unabridged information on this subject, but 11 of the institutions failed to furnish usable information. In the case of 10 of the institutions, detailed statements concerning both receipts and expen

ditures for the past biennium together with estimates of funds needed must be presented. The institutions of eight other States are required to submit only detailed expenditures and records-showing their needs. One institution reported that it must furnish complete data on the use of all its funds. Two others in addition to filling out blank forms provided by the budget agency submit supplementary statements giving reasons for every item involving increased funds. The budget agency in two States after receiving the requests, actually visits the institutions to ascertain whether enhanced appropriations are justified. Complete salary lists must be presented by two land-grant institutions.

Another question is whether the institutions submit records of their income from Federal funds, student fees, endowments, trust funds, and other non-State sources. In many of the institutions such funds represent approximately 50 per cent of the total revenues. The budget agencies, according to the survey reports, require the submission of information covering all the items named from 27 of the institutions. There is one university which does not present data specially prepared, but refers the budget agency to its financial reports. In the case of four other institutions the income from student fees, endowments, trust funds, and other non-State sources is not included as a part of the information asked for by the budget agency, but the figures are held in readiness by the institutions for submission in the event they are requested. The State legislatures of 27 States in their final action on budget estimates consider the revenues of the institutions from these sources. Eleven land-grant institutions report that they have developed a plan of State financial support extending over a period of years that has relieved somewhat the detailed work of securing the indorsement and approval of requests by budget agencies. In the submission of budget data it is found that the institutions in 15 States are required to incorporate Federal funds received. The funds are included as a part of the total budget and deducted as paid from other sources in 13 instances. One State legislature has until recently reappropriated the Federal funds to the institution, an action entirely unnecessary under the provisions of Federal acts. In another the Federal funds are included in the budget.

A matter of vital concern to the land-grant institutions is whether opportunities are given for their officers to appear before the budget agencies to explain or define requests for funds. It is also equally important whether they are permitted to go before the legislative committees and present similar explanations where the budget agency has altered the requests and reduced the estimates. indicate that in 31 States, the institutions have the privilege of appearing both before the budget agency and the legislative com

Reports

mittees for this purpose. In two States, however, the right to go either before the budget agency or the legislative committees is denied. Two of the institutions did not furnish information on this point.

Various representatives of the land-grant institutions are charged' with the responsibility of appearing before the State budget agency or the legislative committees for the purpose of justifying requests for funds. Two institutions report that this function is performed entirely by the members of the governing boards. There are 16 in which both the president and the governing board act, while in 17 others the president is the responsible official. Upon occasions when their aid is needed in supporting requests for funds, the president is accompanied by other institutional officials such as the chief business officer, deans, or other faculty members. A number of colleges forbid members of their staffs to have any contacts either with the State budget officials or members of the State legislature on budgetary matters. In some instances the boards of trustees have adopted definite regulations to this effect while in others the rule is in force. although no formal action has been taken by the governing authorities. The returns show that such a policy has been adopted in 16 land-grant colleges.

Frequently reductions in estimates are made by the budgetary agents or State legislatures. The problem of whether minimum requests for funds should be presented or whether the figures should be placed on a higher basis to allow margins for reductions confronts the institutions. In an inquiry into the subject it was found that 30 colleges claim that minimum requests are submitted representing only actual needs regardless of the anticipated cuts, while 5 other colleges report that allowances are made for possible decreases. An examination into the actual cuts made by the State budgetary agents and State legislatures during the last three budget periods was conducted. Five institutions reported that no cuts whatever were made in their requests, while 17 others failed to furnish information. In the remaining 13 colleges the budgetary agency or State legislature reduced requests by varying percentages.

The reductions aggregated 55 per cent in 1 case, from 30 to 35 per cent in 1, from 25 to 30 per cent in 2, from 20 to 25 per cent in 3, from 15 to 20 per cent in 2, from 10 to 15 per cent in 2, from 5 to 10 per cent in 1, and less than 5 per cent in 1.

With few exceptions the land-grant colleges present their budgetary requests as a whole. There are six institutions, however, where separate requests are presented by special activities. Both the agricultural experiment station and agricultural extension service submit their own requests in two States, the agricultural experiment station in three, and each State college of the university in one.