far as the Department could be expected to go in encouraging the development of training facilities within the States.

In recognition of this problem of needed graduate training, the National Association of County Agricultural Agents at their 1935 convention recommended a plan whereby county agents may pursue graduate study as a systematic part of their activities.68

Extension Work among Negroes

In the 17 States maintaining separate schools for the races, a special problem arises regarding the allocation of funds for extension work. The existence of inequalities is evident on two different bases.69

1. In 1935 in 16 Southern States there were 2,606,099 white and 815,735 Negro farm operators. In June 1937 these States employed 1,344 white and 236 Negro county agricultural agents. (See Table 13.) Hence, for each TABLE 13-Number of farm operators, 1935, number of county agents, June 30, 1937, and number of operators per agent, in 16 Southern States, by race

1 Data from Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1936, pp. 585-6.

2 Data from U. S. Department of Agriculture, Extension Service, Office of Cooperative Extension Work, Number of Extension Workers, June 30, 1937 (multilithed). Notice that State leaders, assistant State leaders, district agents and assistant county agents are not included in the table above.

68 "National Association Recommends Professional Training for County Agents," Extension Service Review, VII (1936), pp. 162, 172.

69 For further discussion see Wilkerson, Special Problems of Negro Education, ch. V. See especially fn. 40, p. 113.

white agent there was an average of 1,939 white operators, as contrasted with 3,457 for each Negro agent.

2. The discussion in the preceding paragraph has to do only with the relative extent to which the white persons and the Negroes have participated "directly" in the cooperative extension work. It should be borne in mind that the funds that go to the Southern States for extension work in agriculture and home economics are administered almost completely by the land-grant colleges for white persons, although the Negroes are undoubtedly profiting in a measure by work so administered. Through the Extension Service of the United States Department of Agriculture an official but unpublished estimate of the total amount from all sources expended annually on Negroes was obtained. The total Federal funds for 16 Southern States was approximately $8,538,700 in 1936-37.70 The total amount, about $804,700, expended on Negroes in 1936-37 (see Table 14), was about 9 percent of this amount. In 1924-25 the total Federal funds for these States were $3,322,751,71 while the total amount from all sources spent on Negroes was about $431,500, or 13 percent of the Federal funds alone.

These data make it evident that the Negro has not been receiving opportunities for extension work equivalent to those provided for white persons and that the disparity has been becoming progressively more marked. In interpreting this statement it should be borne in mind that a large proportion of the Negro farm population is made up of tenants of white landlords, and that so far as their farming operations are concerned changes must come about largely through contacts with the landlords.

The Second Morrill Act and the Nelson Amendment require that in States maintaining separate white and Negro landgrant institutions the legislatures shall propose to and have approved by the Secretary of the Interior".

a just and equitable division of the fund . . . between one college for white students and one institution for colored students. . .72

70 Derived from Table 9.

71 Wilkerson, op. cit., Table 46.

72 Sec. 1.

It has already been pointed out that this provision has in general resulted in an allocation for resident instruction that corresponds closely to the numerical importance of the two elements of a State's population.74 Under the Smith-Lever Act the Secretary of Agriculture was granted wide powers, greater than in any previous legislation affecting the landgrant colleges. There are two definite provisions in that Act which would have made it possible for the Secretary to have corrected in a measure at least the disparities in the allocation of funds that have been pointed out. They are:

and this work [cooperative extension] shall be carried on in such manner as may be mutually agreed upon by the Secretary of Agriculture and the State agricultural college or colleges receiving the benefits of this Act.75

... before the funds herein appropriated shall become available to any college for any fiscal year plans for the work to be carried on under this Act shall be submitted by the proper officials of each college and approved by the Secretary of Agriculture.76

The most liberal interpretation that can be made of the situation indicates that the Negro has been discriminated against in the administration of the Smith-Lever Act in the South and that this discrimination has occurred in spite of the fact that there was sufficient basis in the legislation for the United States Department of Agriculture to have prevented it. It is not clear that a completely separate administration of funds for Negroes and white persons is desirable, owing to the difficulty of dealing with the counties, but it is evident that the administrative procedures and practices that have been followed have not given equitable results. It appears probable that if equity is desired it will have to be provided for in legislation.

The Program of Work

Program making in any active organization is of primary importance. The Extension Service has favored the policy of building a program from the bottom up, rather than from the top down. Though the Federal leaders have attempted

74 See Table 3, p. 26.

75 Sec. 2.

76 Sec. 3.

to guide and counsel in a broad and general way, and to define the field and nature of the work, they have left the details of the program to the States and counties. This policy, however, has been evolutionary. At first, in the early demonstration work of the United States Department of Agriculture before the Smith-Lever law was enacted, the Federal agents formulated the program and carried it to the individual farmer. Then followed a period in which the colleges formulated the program. Later it was found that farm people were more receptive if they had a share in determining the program, and so they were called together in their respective counties to formulate it.

Although the earlier methods of program planning are still present in isolated cases, the standard procedure now consists of the following steps: (1) Group study of national and State outlooks for agriculture, presented by an extension specialist; (2) an analysis of local conditions, usually made by the county agent; (3) review of this analysis by a local group, such as a county advisory council and decision as to whether anything should be done about it, and if so, what; (4) statement by the district supervising agent regarding the help that may be rendered by the agricultural college; and (5) agreement upon a mutual plan of action for the county, with the promised assistance of the college staff of specialists."

The county advisory council is gaining in popularity and effectiveness as a means of securing intelligent and judicious advice on local conditions, the feasibility of certain procedures and projects, and the probable response of local people. Such a council is formed on the initiative of the county agent. He may request each organization and public official directly interested in and serving rural people to appoint a member to the advisory council. Thus the various farm organizations, the bankers' associations, and the chambers of commerce or merchants' organizations are usually represented. Schools are sometimes included, with representation from the county superintendent, a village superintendent, or a vocational agriculture or vocational homemaking teacher. In some

77 Smith and Wilson, op. cit., pp. 132-45.