THE WWW AGENT A NEW KIND OF COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVXCE WORKER Them}: far flu beam of M. S. MiCHfiGAN SYATE UNIVERSITY Edwin Ear? Motsenbocker 1961 '9" «4.23,: *Txia“.' THE INTER-COUNTY AGENT A NEW KIND OF COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE WORKER BY Edwin Earl Motsenbocker A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Institute for Extension Personnel Development 1961 A Lf A 53-7 '2 4/ 6: I/ 2 (\/é<‘ ’ ABSTRACT THE INTER-COUNTY AGENT A NEW KIND OF COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE WORKER by Edwin Earl Motsenbocker Agriculture is undergoing what has been described as a technological revolution. The Cooperative Extension Service, having contributed to this situation, is now ad- Justing to its new environment. A feature of this is the change of the county agent's work area from an intra- to an inter-county basis. The objective of this study was to assemble information on this development. Three processes were followed. These were: (1) re- view of literature, (2) sampling of farmer opinion and (3) collection of information from states that have inaugurated inter-county work arrangements. Study of related literature showed that many ex- tension people have considered the need for specialization by agents accompanied by an expansion of work responsibilities across county lines. However, reports of such undertakings were scarce. New York State farmers were found to favor the utilization of existing agents and positions over the crea- tion of new positions as a means of establishing cross-county Edwin Earl Motsenbocker line extension work. They also indicated by a four to one majority their interest in maintaining local responsibility in the supervision of extension workers. Reports from the states showed that a new group of extension workers is rapidly developing. They are operat— ing under a variety of titles, but all have one thing in common. They fit somewhere between the level of the county extension agent and the subject matter specialist. The most frequent recommendation from infbrmants was that pro- cedures and responsibilities should be well worked out and all concerned familiar with them, before the employment of workers under the program. These reports ShOW’that inter-county work is being established in most states by the creation of additional positions. Compared to traditional county agent work, more of the financial support for these positions comes from state and federal sources. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am indebted to many people for their guidance and assistance in the development of this thesis. Special thanks go to Dr. George Axinn who has been a patient and — contributing advisor. Others on the Michigan State Univer- sity Staff whose assistance was appreciated include Dr. Edward Moe, Dr. John Carew, Dr. Sheldon Lowry, Prof. Einer Olstrom, and Dr. Noel Ralston. A word of thanks goes to Prof. Wallace Washbon of Cornell University for his thoughtful counselling, also the New York County Agents whose assistance made the commodity committeemen survey possible. I am especially grateful to my wife and children for their numerous personal sacrifices that made it possible for this study to become a reality. ii TABLE OF ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . TABLE OF CONTENTS . . . LIST OF TABLES . . . . Chapter II. III. IV. V. INTRODUCTION . Purpose of the Study Hypothesis of Committeemen Study Second Procedure Definitions 0 o o 0 THE PROBLEM . . . . . The General Problem The Study Problem . REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE Extension's Adjustment to Its «Extension's Traditions, Principles CONTENTS Procedure Used in Study . . . . . 0.0.. «Roles and Role Expectations . . . . Administration, Organization Area and Administration--A Summary Suggestions for COHdUCt o o o o o o MTHODOLOGY O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Identity of Farmers Surveyed Methods Used to Obtain Farmer Opinions Methods Used to Analyze Results . . . . Second Phase-Information Concerning ments in Various States . . . . . PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA . New York Farmer Replies . . . . . Reports on State Activities . . . StatiStical Replies 0 o o o o o Complications Encountered--Solutions Devel Environment op- AdVised o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 iii Page ii iii CfiO ‘0 Omn¢4»no f4 Chapter Page V. Descriptions of Inter-County Projects . . . 56 Titles Applied to Workers . . . . . . . . 56 PrOjeCtS by States 0 o o o o o o o o o o 57 VI. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . 70 Summary.................. 70 Conclusions and Recommendations . . . . Recommendations for Further Study . . . . . 72 BIBLIOGRAPHY00000000000000.0000. 71f APPENDICES O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 79 o o \J N iv Table 1. 2. 3. LIST OF TABLES Page Distribution of Commodity Committee Members According to Preference Between Continuation of County Agent Work Within County Limits or Specialization and Work Across County Lines . #7 Distribution of Commodity Committee Members According to Preference for Method of Providing Specialized Agents for Inter-County Extension 8 Work.................... it Distribution of Commodity Committee Members According to Preference Between Methods of Employment and Supervision of Agents Em- ployed for Work Across County Lines . . . . . 49 Commodity Committeemen's Responses to Questions on Intra- and Inter-County Extension Work Classi- fied According to Committeemen's Age Levels . 5O CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION _We are living in an era of rapid change. Every- thing around us is changing at an almost unbelievable rate. Agriculture, in the midst of the picture, is undergoing what has been called a technological revolution. "The Ex- tension Servicee-along with others-~has contributed to the technological revolution. Now, along with the people it serves, the Extension Service must learn to live with tech- nology."1 v. This same sentiment has recently been expressed by many others. Farmers, extension leaders, leaders of various segments of agricultural business have been discussing ways of updating the extension service in keeping with changes taking place in agriculture. Developments in some states have progressed beyond the talking stage. True to extension's traditions each states extension service has acted independ- ently in its reaction to this need for change. Reports at extension conferences, journal articles, etc. have indicated L 1George H. Axinn, "Extension Meets the Changing Scene," Annual Conference, Arizona Cooperative Extension Service University of Arizona, Tuscon, January 17, 1961, p. 5. tMimeographed.) -1- -2- that something is being done. However, most of this infor- mation is scattered. Just how little information is currently available on this subject is illustrated by the experience of the author in the preliminary step of compiling a list of states where inter-county extension work was being practiced prior to or during 1960. Replies from extension directors and others to the question, "Do you know of states where county agents are working on an inter-county basis?" were not very fruitful. A preliminary review of literature revealed numerous articles on the need for adjustment. However, little if any documentation of working examples or results is available as discussed in Chapters II and III of this study. With mounting evidence that a number of states are in the process of making basic changes in the organization of their extension field staff it is logical to assume that evaluation of procedures, problems encountered, methods of overcoming them, etc. will become increasingly important. It is the intent of this study to serve as a fOre- runner of future studies by beginning the process of infor- mation compilation. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY The primary purpose of this study is to assemble information. Specifically the study is concerned with collection of information on the change of the county agent's -3- work area from an intra- to an inter-county basis. The study is exploratory in nature. Itszhutent is not to evalu- ate methods used to make the change or the results and the effectiveness of various systems. The primary objective is documentation of currently available information. The objective is to facilitate future study of the establishment and operation of inter-county extension work by administra- tors, county agents and others who have an interest in the topic. PROCEDURE USED IN STUDY There are many phases of inter-county extension work which need to be studied in order to provide informa- tion for further develOpment. Limitation of time necessi- tated selection of two procedures. The first was based on the contentions that exten- sion's clientele have opinions concerning its operation, as well as an important stake in its future. The second procedure of study was based on the contention that worth- while infOrmation:E;available from states where inter-county extension work has been established. In developing the first procedures, dairy, fruit, vegetable, livestock and poultry farmers in six western New York counties were selected fOr interviewing. These. particular counties were selected because they are in an' area of mixed agriculture, a situation that has been pointed out as ideal for cross-county line extension work. Farmers -4- were selected for participation in the study on the basis of their membership on county extension service commodity committees. A mail questionnaire was used to test three premises and hypothesis based on them. The premises were: Premise # 1 Those receiving adequate assistance Trom an institution such as the Cooperative Ex- tension Service, will be less interested in a plan for reorganization of the institution than those receiving less assistance or service. In many counties one enterprise such as dairying is pre- dominant. Consequently a greater amount of time, manpower, skill, is devoted to this enterprise. Under these circumstances, farmers engaged in the major enterprise will react less favorably to a plan for reorganizing the extension service than will those engaged in minor enterprises. Premise fi 2 One of the characteristics of farmers is the r conservatism. This applies to their opinions on expenditure of public money as well as their own farm operations. This philosophy can be expected to govern their reaction to proposals for expansion of the extension staff to provide inter-county service. Premise i 3 In some states local committees have had considerable responsibility for the supervision of county extension agents. Therefore, any re- organization plan which appears to undermine local control will be viewed with suspicion by these committeemen. Hypgtheses of Committeemen Study The three theoretic hypotheses which served as the basis for the commodity committeemen study were: Hngthesis I Dairy commodity committee members will show greater preference for continuation of county agent work on an intra-county basis, than will fruit, vegetable, poultry and livestock committeemen. -5- Hypothesi§_l; In choosing between proposals for reorgani- zation of the extension service that would result in specialized agents working in more than one county, commodity committeemen will favor that existing staff members accept inter-county responsibilities over the employment of ad- ditional agents for this purpose. Hypgthesis III Commodity committee members will prefer local and state over state supervision of inter-county agents. SECOND PROCEDURE The second procedure, collection of information from states with inter-county projects, had several objec- tives. A preliminary one was simply to assemble a list showing states with these projects. A companion objective was to assemble infbrmation on the nature of these projects, procedures followed in setting them up, problems encountered, and methods suggested for coping with them. The decision to pursue the above objectives was based on the contention that compilation of such informa- tion would avoid duplication of effort by others interested in studying inter-county extension work. Preliminary in- vestigations revealed that at present there is no one source for this kind of information. ‘ In the development of this study, the analysis and discussion is presented under the following headings. -6- Chapter II (General and Study Problem) includes past and present opinions on the technological revolution taking place in agriculture and the adjustment of extension to this environment. Chapter III (Review of Related Literature) consists of concepts related to the functioning of the Cooperative Extension Service. Attention is given to the implications of change on such items as program planning procedures, staff relationships, and the general question of authority and administration. Chapter IV (Method of Study) describes the methods and procedures used in assembling the information. Chapter V (Results) contains a summary of farmer respondents reaction to proposals for changing the extension service in their counties and an analyses of replies from various states describing inter-county extension projects. Chapter VI (Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations) summuizes the study, gives some conclusions based on find- ings of the study, and general recommendations fOr additional research. DEFINITIONS ‘ Several terms are used throughout the study. In order to establish a common understanding, the meanings of these terms are described here. Commodity Committee: A group of producers of a particular crop or commodity, and others that share a common interest -7- in the commodity, who are generally used in building a county program and in executing plans. County Extension Agents: Persons assigned the responsibility of conducting cooperative extension work on the county level under specifications originally outlined by the Smith Lever Act of l9lh. Agri-Business: Manufacture and distribution of farm supplies, plus the processing, handling, merchandising, and marketing of food and agricultural products, plus farming itself. Inter-CountxsExtengigg: Cooperative extension service activities conducted in two or more counties. Intra-County;Extension: Cooperative extension service activities conducted within the boundaries of a county. CHAPTER II THE PROBLEM The General Problem No one will question that we are living in an age of progress. In the words of Ahlgren1 "Progress means change. Change is an asset-~but the price is adjustment. We cannot live with the 'status quo' today." Agriculture today is undergoing rapid change as has been attested to by many people. Ratchford2 refers to the change in the past 25 years as a "revolution." Speak- ing of the future he states that the "flow of technology pertaining to agricultural production and marketing will continue at an increasing rate "during the next 8 to 10 years. Technology will be increasingly complex and harder to teach." 1Henry L. Ahlgren, "The Scope and Responsibility of the Extension Service " Extension Rural Socio ogy WOrks op, Ithaca, N.Y.z Sept., 1 U 959: Rural Sociolo ists in Extension Look Ahead, .S.D.A., FederaI ExtensIon éervIcel p. I5. 2C. B. Ratchford "Modernizing Extension" Report of Proceedings, Western Re ion Seminar in Extension Super- vision, Sept., 7-12, 1958 INational Agricultural Extension ganger for Advanced Study, University of Wisconsin, Madison), 95 9 p0 240 -3- -9- Clark3 also indicated that scientific development and technological advances affecting agriculture are occur- ring at a rapid rate. His observation was that the kinds of assistance provided farm and rural people is changing, and that "Extension Service Administrators have recognized the need for adjustment in programs, procedures and clientele being served in view of the many changes affecting agri- culture and family life." These changes appear in many fashions. Farm opera- tions are becoming more specialized. Higher investments and costs are involved. Farm operators are becoming better trained and informed. They have broader interests, ask questions on more subjects, and ask more penetrating ques- tions on each subject. Today there are more alternative sources of information such as governmental agencies, field service people of commercial companies, mass media, private consultants. In addition the agent finds himself increas- ingly involved with agricultural business concerns. "These firms must be considered as a part of our Extensions clientele.“P Kirby5 supports the premise that farming is no longer 3Robert C. Clark, "The Role of the County Agent," Farm PolicygForgm, Vol. II, No. A (1958-59), p. 21. ARatchford, o . cit., p. 30. 5Edwin L. Kirby, "Training Needs of Today's County Agents," Extension Service Review (October 1958), p. 209. -10- simple production. He states that "traditional farming is declining in favor of agri-business which includes the complete cycle of production, processing, distribution, re- tailing and consumption." In many instances these functions are combined through vertical integration. All of these develOpments have resulted in making the work of the county agents more complex and more important. The following statement by Ratchford emphasizes the need for greater competence among today's county extension staff. "There was a time when the wrong information was irritating to the farmer, today or tomorrow it could break him."6 The Study Problem The present high levels of esteem that the Coopera- tive Extension Service enjoys is a testimonial to the fact that over the years it has adjusted to changing conditions and remained effective. Carew7 voices an Opinion shared by others. He suggests that "aggressive leadership and technical knowledge" have kept extension at the top, but that today this influence has waned to some extent along with a decline in leadership. He states that these can and must be retained "but first must come an unfriendly look-- ‘ 6Ratchford, op. cit., p. 2h. 7John Carew, "The Role of the Extension Specialist In A riculture," Farm Polic Forum, Vol. II, No. A, (1958- 1959 , P0 290 -11- a searching self appraisal of agricultural extension." Re- ferring to some possible complications in reaching this goal he added, "We must cut through the tangled web of tradition and policy." Carrigan8 said that stagnation results unless changes are made. He agreed that extension, like other institutions, "has failed to read the signs of the times" and that as a re- sult extra energy is needed to make up for lost opportunity. His contention is that we should have clearly defined pro- grams and objectives, that are not final but dynamic. Pro- grams "should be different now from that of a year ago, or even yesterday, and should be different next year and even tomorrow." In advocating change extension leaders have been following the truism widely accepted in American business, that it is necessary to go forward in order not to go back- ward. Alderson9 wrote that growth is necessary for survival. In marketing this means selling more of the same product, adding new products. Extension's growth can be measured in terms of personnel and services rendered. 8J. E. Carrigan, "Long Range Programs and Objectives of the Agricultural Extension Service," The S irit and Phil- 030 h of Extension Work, R. K. Bliss (U.S.D.£. and EpsIIon Sigma Phi Fraternity, I955), pp. 330-331. 9W'roe Alderson, M ketin Beh vior and E ecutive Action (Richard D. Irwin, Inc., Homewood, III.: I957), p. 39—7" -12- How to manage this growth so that it is productive and not wasteful, is a concern of administrators. Business provides us with a partial answer to this through Alderson10 who wrote "An expanding system tends to require increasing specialization of its members in order to maintain the effective functioning of the system of the whole.” The Cooperative Extension growth has followed this path in its grOwth. Ranta11 in referring to the expansion of the extension staff to over lh,000 workers in 1960 com-i mented that "this has led to the employment of county ex- tension personnel who are trained in special fields." This specialization has enabled agents to become more competent in their subject matter area. The complica— tion is that the number of clienteLewithin a county in a particular specialty may be so small that a specialized agent in that county cannot be justified. In such a situ- ation "consideration should be given to employing an agent to work in that specialty in several counties."12 Carew13 supports this as follows: 1011214.. p. 55- 11Raymond R. Rants, "The Professional Status of the Michigan Cooperative Extension Service," (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, National Agricultural Extension Center for Advanced Study, University of Wisconsin, 1960), pp. 1, 2. 12Ratchford, op. cit., p. 34. 13Carew, op. cit., pp. 32, 34. -13- There is a growing realization that the county may not be the most efficient unit for developing an Extension program. Despite problems of local finan- cing and administration we shall probably witness a further trend towards the employing of specialized district or regional agents. He suggests that there might be two kinds of extension "practice," and "product." Practice extension would be approached on a local basis through county extension workers. Product extension would be most effective on a large area basis with close c00peration of producers, manufacturers, merchandisers. The preceding portion of this chapter has been de- voted to a review of the opinions on the need for revising extension and some suggestions for accomplishing this end. The next portion will be concerned with complications and problems hindering progress. Extension is'a complex organization, as shall be explained in greater detail in Chapter III. Any change will call for alteration of patterns of behavior, and re- lationships that will be advocated or resisted to varying degrees individually and collectively. One of the major items which must be considered is that of relationships involving, county agents, specialists, administrators, and the public being served. Additional issues are: overall administrative policies, financing, personnel training. The following infbrmation draws together current thinking on these items and serves as a basis fer the field -lh- studies conducted in connection with this study. Ahlgrenl’+ summarized for us the three courses of action that are open to extension. They are: 1. Maintain status quo. Continue to do business in the same old way at the same old stand. 2. Let changes occur and once trends become clear, come in and offer our services. 3. Assume a position of positive leadership, move boldly into the parade of change and become an important force in shaping it. Advocates of each of these stands can be fOund among extension workers and clientekn depending on their comprehension of the overall issues and concern over how proposed changes may affect their own future status or role. Vieg15 reflected the overall extension view when he wrote that colleges have determined not to let come what may but have "decided to think out afresh what ought to be their relationship with every agency serving agriculture." As a consequence they have decided that "from now on empha- sis must be placed less and less on preserving formal rights attached to them as state institutions and more and more on how best to cooperate while yet safeguarding their functional integrity." ll’Ahlgren, op. cit., pp. 18, 19. 15John Albert Vieg, "werking Relationships in Gov- ernmental Agricultural Programs," Public Administration Re- view, Vol. 1 (1940-41), pp. lh2-lh5. -15- Commenting on the need for expansion and work in new areas, Vieg disagreed with those who urge the creation of "new and separate personnel" competing with extension as a means of instilling "greater vigor in administration." His conclusion was that unless the official extension staff is "enlarged and given a new orientation, neW"extenders' will appear throughout the country" and that this develop- ment will be a "detriment of such relative quiet as now pre- vails in the educational front." Brown and Vandeberg16 noted the changes taking place inside and outside the extension organization and concluded that "it becomes necessary to re-examine the roles and func- tions of various positions in the organization.R They wrote that the top function of the specialist is to keep county agents infOrmed, and this function will become more important. Time for "more help with program planning" and "preparation of county staff teaching materials, etc. will be made avails able by less time at meetings, and on farm visits." Acknowledging that extension clienteh and their problems are changing, Ratchfordl7 indicated the following changes for extension. "We must change organization, long held concepts about what makes successful workers, and 16Emory J. Brown and Gale Vandeberg, "The Job of the Extension Specialist is Changing " Count A ent Vo-A Teacher, Vol. 15, No. 6 (June 1959), pp. 12,TLA‘_—g‘—“. 17Ratchford, op. cit., pp. 2A, 33, 3h. -16.. methodology as well as subject matter. All extension workers must realize that change is normal and look for opportunities fer changing." The following exemplifies the kind of prob- lem that he envisions. All too frequently some traditional organizational pattern becomes sacred. It becomes so sacred that if it becomes a choice between getting an important job done and changing an organization, we keep the organization pattern and let the program go. He added that "Extension workers with specialized assignments must have advanced training in their speciality." As prOgrams become more involved, and agents have specialized assignments, "coordination becomes more important and diffi- cult." His suggestion for this was to have one person in a county become chairman, with "special training in administra- tive leadership and guidance at the county level." Clarkl8 observed that "no agent can be qualified in all fields," that there is a need for a higher degree of specialization in subject matter and teaching methods. He indicated that one agent would probably "continue to function as a program specialist in coordinating and ad- ministering extension work locally," and that this would be supplemented by "specialists in subject matter areas of importance to one or more counties." Mention was made earlier in this chapter that change will be advocated or resisted to varying degrees by extension 18Clark, op. cit., p. 2A. _17- workers. Carew19 indicated that the question of status or rank enters into this situation. He offered the opinion that workers assigned to inter-county extension positions would react differently to the appointment according to their previous extension experience. County agents would consider the new position as a promotion and they would not necessarily be looking forward to future assignment at the college itself. On the other hand former college subject matter specialists would consider this somewhat of a "demo- tion" and would be looking forward to campus and statewide “ reassignment. . Ranta reported that "policies and procedures re- flecting the status of positions in the Extension Service should be continually evaluated to assure proper status distinction." He indicated that improper status distinction can adversely affect county programs and personnel. The following report by Ranta substantiates several of Carew's views mentioned earlier. "The position of County Ex- tension Agent in Marketing was considered as the most pro- fessional position in the Extension Service by the total County Staff." Further, the county extension agent in con- sumer education ranked higher than the county extension agent in home economics. 19John Carew, Personal Interview. 20Ranta, op. cit., p. 152. -l8- Extension administrators at Michigan State felt that incorrect titles assigned to agents stood "in the way of progress in the development of a larger, more all-inclu- sive extension service." Their conclusions were (1) that it was important that titles adequately identify extension workers, and that (2) titles be assigned to various workers so that they "would have an Opportunity to be advanced within their chosen field and to be recognized by both fellow workers and others."21 Another important field related to this study is that of administration. This will be discussed in greater detail in the next chapter. However it would be well to record at this time Ratchford's22 views on the subject. He said that as extension has been growing, there have evolved more programs to coordinate, more problems coupled with a rapid staff turnover. Compared to industry, extension is providing less rather than more supervision. It should be noted further that there has been criticism levied against extension, charging that extension has lagged in its adjustment to the needs and wishes of its clientekh Rogers23 wrote that "The Extension service 1"Cooperative Extension Committee on Ranks and Titles of Field Workers," (File # 6.1.1.2., Files Institute for Extension Personnel Development, Michigan State Univer- sityd. (Mimeographed.) 22RatChf0rd, 0 o Cite, p. 314-. 23Everett M. Rogers, Social Chan e in Rural Societ . Appleton-Century Crafts, Inc., N.Y. (I9EO), p. BIO. -19- has undoubtedly changed more slowly than has the audience served by the agency. Once again there is the familiar pattern of an institutional fix on cultural lag." Kirby‘?’+ indicated that extension has prided itself on the ability to "conduct a flexible, dynamic, education program." He then asked if extension is prepared to meet increased demands in order to maintain present confidence. He implied that the answer is no when he wrote that extension is "faced with the impossible task" of providing specialized professional help to highly specialized agricultural business and to a growing society with varying values, needs and interests. This and succeeding chapters are designed in re- sponse to this and similar challenges. They contain ad- ditional information on some of the subjects reperted here, also tangible evidence that steps are being taken in numer- ous states to "modernizé extension. In concluding this chapter the following comments by Alderson25 on survival in the business world are offered as applicable to extension. A firm does not die because it is inefficient in its original function. It can be reorganized so that it can perform more efficiently, or it can take on new 2“Kirby, op. cit.,p. 209. 25Alderson, op. cit., pp. 54, 57. -20- functions. An organized group behavior system may survive de- spite severe functional disturbance resulting from environmental changes if sufficient plasticity remains so that new functions may develop or new methods may be adapted for performing existing functions. CHAPTER III REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE The writer reviewed available literature directly related to the topic of inter-county extension work by county agents. In addition, literature on related topics was studied. There were few case histories found measuring procedures, techniques, or results. In keeping with the exploratory nature of this study, attention was given to items that might logically be ex- pected to have a bearing on the topic. Those selected as being important were: 1. Extension's adjustment to its environment. 2. Extension's principles and traditions. 3. Concepts of authority, control, supervision. Extension's Adjustment to its Environment In recent years there has been mounting evidence ‘5 that people within and outside the extension family were giving thought to the modernization of the extension service. Students of the history of extension will point out that this is nothing new, that extension has made many adjust- ments since the days of Seaman Knapp when county demonstra- tions were first established. The following material will -21- -22- show that what is being discussed is more in the nature of a cross roads rather than a curve in the road. One of the most authoratative references on the sub- ject is the "Scope Report."1 Taking note of the changes taking place in agriculture the committee had the following to say: . . . all such significant trends re-emphasize the fact that the Extension Service must have a dynamic program. . . . one constantly being modernized to keep pace with the everchanging conditions facing the people it serves. Programs and procedures appropriate and adequate yesterday, are likely to be inappropri- ate today and obsolete tomorrow. Extension must be ever alert, therefore, to adjust its programs, focus and methods to insure that its resources are used more efficiently, and in keeping with the everchanging problems of the peOple demanding services of it. 2 said that "if we are to meet the challenges outlined Rogers by the Scope Report and furnish the leadership in a dynamic program, extension workers of the future must be better trained than many are today." He indicated that specialized training is needed in order to qualify workers for leader- ship in specialized farming. Flexibility is a basic characteristic of extension work. There are those WhO‘Will vouch that this is the major —_—$_( 1Sub-committee on Scope and Responsibility of the Extension Committee on Organization and Policy. "The Co- operative Extension Service-Today." (April 1958). 2F. E. Rogers, "Training Extension WOrkers for the Future," Extension Service Review (Sept. 1958), p. 187. -23- contributing factor to the success that it has attained.3 Commenting on change Williamsh said that extension has "more future than past." He said further that "our objectives remain the same, but scope and methods are chang- ing. Let's not be afraid to expand our scope, to use new techniques." Additional opinions on the topic of extension and its adjustment to the changing agricultural environment can be found in Chapter II. Extension's Traditions, Principles There have been complete books written describing how extension operates. The objective here is to consider several sub-topics that appear especially relevant to this study. These topics are: (1) program development and commodity committees, (2) roles and role expectations. Program planning has gone through three stages.5 In the early days it was pre-determined by obvious needs. The boll weevil was destroying cotton. Smut was reducing 3J. L. Bootman, "The Cooperative Extension Service," The S irit d Philoso h of Extension Work, R. K. Bliss Graduate chooI, U.S.D.A. (I952), p. 3A5. 4H. H. Williams, "Birds Eye View of Extension," The S irit and Philoso h of Extension Work, R. K. Bliss, Gradu- ate SchooI, U.S.D.A. (1952), p. 3h. 5Lincoln David Kelsey, Cannon Chiles Hearne, Coo erative Extension Work (Comstock Publishing Associates, Ithaca, New York, I955), pp. 125, 126. -24- oat yields. In the second stage, recognition was given to the value of county extension organizations for program and research development in addition to extension of in- formation. This is called the period when programs were self determined rather than predetermined. The third period, the one in which we find our- selves, can be called the fact determining period. Program planning procedures in this phase are concerned with farm management, social trends and economic facts as well as production factors. This has given impetus to the assembling of facts by specialists on which to build programs. Cor- related with this is the development of county-wide commodity or project committee planning. Evidence points to the fact that we are now entering a fourth period. Programs and committees now are beginning to operate on an economic area basis rather than territories defined by county lines. Kelsey and Hearne6 explain that county committees are of two types. One is the legal county extension commit- tee which is responsible for financing and execution of the program. The second are "advisory planning and opera- tional committees which build programs and make recommenda- tions." These may be sub-committees of the first group or separate committees. 6Ibid., p. 146. -25- Moe7 wrote that advisory committees or groups are "significantly helpful in determining needs and interests, that their involvement builds interest and support for pro- grams, and that they are particularly helpful in evaluating a program in periods of change." - Brunner and Yang8 say that agents rely on committee members to help locate demonstrations, to promote local ex- tension activities and develop leadership. I 9 indicated that the value of local advisory Baker committees is "now somewhat discredited, based on reports of Federal and State Extension leaders who have been secur- ing salary payments from state and federal funds." These peOple assert that "better-trained personnel who need not count the favor of local appropriating groups can secure more widespread interest." MoelO reported on a doctorate dissertation which referred to the solidification of the interests of power groups in the counties through the county commodity committee 7Edward 0. Moe, "Extension Education," Enc clo die of Educational Research (edited by Charles W. Harris), (The McMiIIen Co., New York 1960), p. 493. 8Edmund De S. Brunner and E. Hsin Pao Yang, Rural America and The Extension Service (Bureau of Publications, Teachers ColIege, Cqumbia University, 1949), p. 33. 9Gladys Baker, The Count Aggpp (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, I939), pp. 74, 175. 10 Nice, 02. Cite, p0 4730 I‘Illifig -26- system. This solidification, in turn was shown as leading to "restriction of college control over the extension pro- gram and perhaps no improvement of the program as judged by objective criteria." Most studies and reports indicate favorable reactions to the formation and use of advisory committees. An un- published Oklahoma report suggests an added value from these committees as follows: "The responsibility that peOple feel toward carrying out a program is directly related to the part they play in determining it and the extent to which they feel the program is theirs."11 The importance of local approval was indicated by Miller.12 He wrote that some person or group has to make decisions in order to get a project going. These decisions in turn must appear "rightful" to those for whom the de- cisions apply. If there is any question concerning the "rightfulness" of a decision, approval by certain community groups or persons may be important. Earle and Evans13 found that "advisory committees 11"Working With Local People in Planning County Ex- tension Programs," unpublished report Committee III, Exten- sion Service Pro ram Planning Workshop, University of Okla- homa (April 1949?. From files Michigan State University Institute of Extension Personnel Development, File #5.2.l. (Mimeograph.) ' 12Paul A. Miller, Commupipy Health Action (Michigan State College Press, East Lansing, 1953), pp. 13, 14. 13WendellEarle and Jean G. Evans, The Organization and 0 eration of Extension Marketin Pro rams (The National AgricuIturaI Extension Center for Idvanced Study, University of Wisconsin, 1957), p. 64. -27- and individuals were observed to be the source of both help and hinderance in the development of extension market- ing programs." They found that complications were most likely to appear when advisory groups or individuals were not representative of the group therefore unable to ex- press real problems of the particular clientele. Their recommendation was that if advisory committees are created, there should be a clear understanding of the scope of their responsibilities and functions by both the committee mem- bers and extension workers. Other writers have described in detail qualifica- tions of advisory committee members and the method of their selection as related to their usefulness. According to Vandeberglh "selection of members should not be left to chance, it should be a systematic process focused on abil- ities to do the job effectively." She contends that groups sending representatives is not a very satisfactory method. "They may have vested interests." A requisite is that they have "imagination, vision, and perspective beyond county boundaries." We can assume that these attributes are especially important for a committee fermed to advise an inter-county extension program. 1“Gale L. Vandeberg, "Gettin The Most From Planning Councils," Extension Service Review IFebruary, 1961), p. 290 ' -23- Roles and Role Expectations Four categories of roles and role expectations were considered important to an understanding of this section of the study problem. These are: 1. The Extension Service itself 2. Subject matter specialists 3. County extension agents 4. Program planning committees referred to as commodity committees. Reference to each of these must of necessity be brief, and selective. Chapter II was devoted to changes affecting the role of the extension service. Program planning committees were discussed in the immediately pre- ceding paragraphs. The following section is devoted to the interrelationship of administration, specialists and the county agent. Points selected will be relative to the overall study problem--changing county extension work from an intra- to an inter-county basis. McElroyl5 expressed what is generally accepted as the main role of the subject matter specialist when he wrote that they "serve as the connecting link between the land grant college and the county extension worker." He clarified this further by indicating that the specialist 1sJohn J. McElroyt "Specialists-~The Connecting Link," A Extension Service Review pril, 1958), p. 77. -29- interprets and adapts research findings to local needs, helps in the training of agents and in program development. Another common view voiced by Clark16 is that as county agents specialize and become more technically qualified in their specialty they will do "a larger share of the direct teaching of local people." The implication of this is that specialists will then have more time for adequate training of agents, etc. Questions have been raised on the effect that changing roles or responsibilities have on individuals and the extension system. Brown and Vandebergl7 offer the follow- ing on this topic. "More effective organization will re- sult if county staff, specialists, supervisors and admin- istrators frankly discuss with each other implications of the changing times." Earle and Evans18 suggested a specific situation where a clear understanding and agreement is important. They recommended that if more than one person is involved in making decisions on matters of policy, a clear under- standing and agreement should be reached, before personnel are hired or assigned. They were referring to area 16Robert C. Clark,"The Role of the County Agent," Farm Policy Forum, Vol. II, No. 4 (1958-59), p. 25. 17Emory J. Brown and Gale Vandeberg, "The Job of the Extension Specialist is Changing," Count A ent Vo-A Teacher, Vol. 15, No. 6 (June, 1959 , p. . l8Earle and Evans, op. cit., p. 60. W .4? -30- marketing agent programs and to situations where district supervisors, state leaders, and county chairmen are in- volved. Particular mention was made of situations where the extension program is moving from the traditional toward new clientele for extension. Admipistrgpion, Organization Any discussion on the administration and organiza— tion of the Cooperative Extension Service should begin with the Smith-Lever Act, for the act "brought together and coordinated the great array of Extension and Extension like activities."19 Under its provisions memoranda of agreement are drawn up between the land-grant institutions and (l) the United States Department of Agriculture, and (2) the counties. These agreements provide among other things for a district administrative division with a responsible leader to conduct extension work through jointly approved projects and plans- Over the years each state has developed an admin- istrative pattern for its own extension service within the framework of the Smith-Lever Law. Clark and Evans20 suggest 19M09, 020 Cito’ p. A92. 20Robert C. Clark and Jean C. Evans, "Guidelines for Extension Administrative Organization," Administration in Extension (National Agricultural Extension Center for Advanced Study, University of Wisconsin, Madison 6, Wisconsin, 1960), PP- 759 76, 770 -31- that a wide range of factors contribute to the unique form which an organizational structure may take. They list six as of utmost importance to extension administrators today. All six are in some way associated with change--change in size of staff, changes in personnel, clientele, objectives of the organization, base of authority and basis of organi- zation. The latter two, authority and organization, seem to bear a special relationship to this study. Under basis of organization, Clark and Evans list three ways of assigning personnel to a superior, on a functional, geographic or clientele basis. They list the following types of authority: 1. Laws and administratively approved rules and regulations. , 2. Knowledge, often called the authority of "know how. I! 3. Authority of position. 4. Authority of the situation. The interlocking concepts of authority, power and control appear in many writings on administration and the administrative process. Axinn21 in discussing the relation- ship of the extension specialist and supervisor suggests that control over other peOple should be labelled power and 21George H. Axinn, "The Million Theory of Control," Public Administration Review, Vol. XVII, No. 2, Spring (1957), pp. 1 3" 50 -32- that power is divided into authority and influence. He describes authority as "legitimized power," and assigns the power of authority to the extension supervisor, the power of influence to the specialist. After explaining how many staff peOple and specialist exert authority and influence, he concludes that "the effectiveness of organization is related directly to the extent to which authority is re- served fer the unitary line supervisor." This stand gains significance when aligned with 22 "State Ex- statements such as the following by Baker. tension officials have substantially limited their authority by administrative agreement or contract with county organi- zations and by a general policy of encouraging local in- itiative in Extension Work." Baker adds that there are those who feel strongly about the maintenance of local con- trol and initiative, as a means of attaining extension's most important objective, the development of local leader- ship. These people fear that the present trend toward centralization will destroy local initiative and eventually destroy the system. Peck23 suggests that the nature of extension work zzBaker, OQ. Cite, ppe 121, 175e 2 3Frank Peck, "Administrative Organization of Ex- tension," address at Fifth National Administrative Workshop, April, 1956 (National A ricultural Center for Advanced Study, University of Wisconsin , p. 18. -33- is such that the "concept of 'boss' is not particularly applicable as educational work must provide many freedoms which may not be so necessary in the organization and opera- tion of industry." He adds that control is useful and nec- essary in the area of program determination, supervision of policies, budgeting, personnel and scheduling but that "controls must be of such a nature that motivation is not stifled." Brown and Deckinsza cite one of the less desirable consequences that may occur from this policy. County agents have developed autonomous units of power by gaining support of legitimate, organized groups, influential individuals and Extension's own sponsored groups such as DHIA and artificial breeders. Administration must deal with these resources of authority and power built up by the local agent. . These authors also indicate that influence on an informal basis is undoubtedly an important factor in ex- tension work. They cite the example of the subject matter specialist who needs skills in interpersonal relations in order to have county staff members accept his program and invite him into the counties. This example refers to social controls which are discussed in detail by Bertrand.25 He describes social 2“Emory J. Brown and Albert Deckins, "Roles of the Extension Subject Matter Specialist," Rural Sociology Journal (Volume 23, Sept. 1958), p. 275. 25Alvin L. Bertrand, Rural Sociolo (McGraw Hill Book Company, Inc., New York, I953), p. I9. -34- controls as consisting of "many processes by which the greater society enforces conformity to the patterns of behavior it considers to be right or good." He adds that this is a form of infbrmal control "maintained by con- science, ridicule, ostracism," while formal control is achieved by "laws, rules, codes, and regulations." Suggestions for Conduct A number of miscellaneous rules or principles have been advanced on the topic of authority, power and control. An exceptionally good collection is contained in a Michigan State University committee report titled "Administrative Organization."26 Some of the highlights of this report are as fellows: One principle of sound administration is that de- cisions of program execution should be as close to the level of operation without violating statewide policies, and without sacrificing unification and flexibility of the over-all program. To accom lish this principle there must be a well-defined de egation of responsibilities and authority to the appr0priate level. . . . An indiviudal who is held responsible for obtaining results in given areas of activity, must have authority to act in proportion to his re- sponsibilities. . . . no staff member should receive directions from more than one person for the perform- ance of a given area of responsibility . . . care must be exercised in carrying out the program to differentiate between the free development of tech- nical relationships and the administrative line of authority. 26"Administrative Organization," (mimeo report File #6.1.1.2, Institute For Extension Personnel Development, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan). -35- Harlow27 lists four places to look for organizational illnesses. l. Span of control 2. Departmentation 3. Explicitness of delineation of functions 4. Addiction to committees Brownlow28 said that an administrator must be "in- fluenced by a catholic curiosity" if he is to have suffic- ient understanding of the persons over whom he has author- ity in their work. An administrator isn't expected "to know very much about anything" but should rely on specialists who know a great deal about particular things. If he does know a lot about anything "he ought when acting as an ad- ministrator to suppress that knowledge." Baker29 commented on the fact that new and complex duties undertaken by county agents and the "necessity of directing additional county personnel responsible for par- ticular types of work would seem to demand more adequate supervision and guidance from the state staff." 27James G. Harlow, "Is Reorganization Necessary," Administration in Extension (National Agricultural Extension Center for Idvanced Study University of Wisconsin, Madison 6, Wisconsin, 1960), p. 70. 28Louis Brownlow, "The Administrative Process," (lecture before Graduate School of the Department of Agri- culture, February 1939), p. 3. ngaker, OE. Cite, Pe 127e -36- Ratchford30 agreed when he said that in many cases the work load of state administrators is "so large that they can hardly handle the administrative management chores and have no time fer program supervision." He suggested that a part of the load be turned over to specially trained persons who would function as staff officers responsible for training, public relations, evaluation, personnel pro- curement, etc. This would permit line officers to concen- trate on program supervision and execution. 31 Kreitlow's observations on the pitfalls of planned direction seem appropriate to this study. He indicated that some leaders make the mistake of waiting fer group direction rather than recognizing their responsibilities for directing its deliberations. He cautioned against the opposite extreme, autocratic leadership used in an endeavor to give direction to group actiOn and hasten the process. Area and Administration--A Summary Many of the items reviewed in this study were con- sidered by Fesler32 when he wrote his book on organization 30C. B. Ratchford, "Modernizing Extension," Report of Proceedings, Western R gion Seminar in Extension Super- vision, Sept. 7-12, 1958 ?National Agricultural Extension Center for Advanced Study, University of Wisconsin, Madi- son, 1959), p- 35. l 3 Burton W. Kreitlow, E. W. Aiton, Andrew P. Tor- rence, Leadershi for Action in Rural Communities (The Interstate Printers and Pfiinshers, Inc., Danv 'le, Illinois, 1960), p. 77. 32James W. Fesler, Area and Administration (Univer- sity of Alabama Press, 1949 , pp. 10-94. -37- and administration of various levels of government. It is no accident that so much of what he had to say has a direct bearing on the Cooperative Extension Service since extension, tracing its origin to the Smith-Lever Act, is a subordinate governmental agency. Therefore, his references to such items as allocation of functions, administrative organiza- tion, adjustment to changing environmental conditions, etc. can serve as a summary for this chapter. His book in- cludes the following points: 1. The citizen asks from the complex of govern- ment that functions wholly allocated to one or another layer shall be so allocated as to be efficiently performed, cost the least money per unit of service, and be subject to effective democratic control by himself and his fellow citizens. 2. Layers of government whose areas have ceased to be adequate fer.their original function shall either be abolished or be expanded or contracted to more appr0priate dimensions. 3. Coordination of the many functional field services should lead to an analysis of the drafting of field service area boundaries and of the factors that need to bring such boundaries into reasonable harmony with natural areas. 4. we can define a cotton area or the urban settle- ment area. An integrated governmental attack on problems of each such area is most successful if the attack is under the guidance of a govern- ment whose territorial jurisdiction embraces the whole of the natural area. 5. Efficiency requires the development of a staff of officials of diverse skills, otherwise the people are denied the fruits of expertness de- veloped in the specialized channels of education and experience. ' 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. ll. 12. -33- A staff of specialists will have an adequate work load only if it has a large clientele, and a large clientele exists only in a larger governmental area. Popular control means different things to dif- ferent people. There is agreement however that government must not be irresponsible, that channels for popular control must be simple and clear and that the peoples interest in control must be kept vital. (A balance is suggested between complete demo- cracy as expressed by local control and efficiency of greater central control. Almost all horizontal cooperation among coordi- nate areas tends to be cumbersome and falls short of providing a fundamental adjustment of area and function. Cooperation often needs a shove from the outside. Centralist tendencies are strongest in the early months of an agency's life, and they recur when- ever policies of central organization is in ferment. During these stages there is a tendency to staff field services with people content to plug away at nondiscretionary duties. By the time the agency calms down at the center, and the question of delegation of discretionary authority to the field service areas can properly be raised, the agency may be saddled with un- imaginative, non-expert field personnel. In addition the central functional divisions may have developed a lack of confidence in the readi- ness of the field service for more substantial responsibilities. There should be recognition that area and func- tion will be reciprocally adjusted not by a single solution but many, and that the adjust- ment is a continuous and imperfect process, not to be realized once and for all. There is a difference of opinion on the relative merits of control and direction by generalists or by bureau or department heads. Administrators of bureaus or departments may have the convic- tion that the function of their department is far' more important to the public interest than such outsiders as agency heads may be expected to appreciate. -39- 13. As much attention must be paid to the center 14. as is paid to administrative arrangements in the field e The doctrine of dual supervision tends to result in dominance of functional over areal supervision. It leads to confusion of the field staff by their having to judge which of two masters to obey in case of conflicting interest. CHAPTER IV METHODOLOGY Identity of Fggmers Surveyed Lists of farmers were secured from six New York state counites. These were Monroe, Wayne, Ontario, Livings- ton, Genesee and Orleans. Agriculture in all six is con- siderably diversified. Farmers selected for the survey were members of Extension Service Commodity Committees in these counties. The commodities represented in the survey were dairy, fruit, vegetable, poultry, and livestock. For survey purposes, committees in some of the counties were combined. For example, one county listed a swine committee and a beef committee. These were considered as one livestock committee. Another county had separate market vegetable, processing vegetable, and potato committees. These three were lumped together as one vegetable committee for that county. , County agents who supplied these lists were asked to remove names of any persons who were non-farmers but were on the list as agri-business representatives. The author is acquainted with this area of'New'York, thus was able to recognize several questionnaires returned by non-farmers. These non-farmer returns were not tabulated. -40- -41- A total of 494 committeemen were contacted. Returns were tabulated from 367 respondents. Methods Used To Obtain Fagmer Opinions County agents in each of the six counties were con- tacted by phone, the project explained and the agents' co- operation obtained. The agents forwarded to the author, names and addressed of the commodity committeemen described. A questionnaire and an explanatory letter were pre- pared and mailed to farmers in Lenawee County, Michigan for pre—testing. The mail questionnaire was chosen as the most efficient means for obtaining the needed information. Gallup1 mentions that the mail questionnaire is "well adapted for reaching specific groups such as dairy farmers, poultrymen or homemakers" who belong to organized groups. "It is free of any interviewer bias, but not nec- essarily instrument bias." Gallup lists several additional limitations of mail questionnaires. "Those who reply may not be typical members of the list." Also, it is difficult to obtain detailed, qualitative answers or to know precisely what these answers mean. Recognizing these and other limi- tations the mail questionnaire was the method selected for collection of data in view of the time and finances available. 1Gladys Gallup, "Methods of Collecting Data," Evalu- ation in Extension, Darcie Byrn, Editor, Division of Exten- sion Research and Teaching, Federal Extension Service, U.S.D.A., pp. 45, 46. -42- The three principal questions were so designed that they could be answered simply by checking "Yes," "No" or "No opinion." There were several additional minor questions designed to check the respondents primary source of farm income against the commodity committee on which he was serving, and his age level against the replies to the first three questions. The same material was mailed to the six county agents for their suggestions and approval. After minor refinement, revised questionnaires, stamped and ad- dressed return envelopes, stamped and addressed forwarding envelopes were mailed to the six county agents. They were asked to reproduce, on their stationary, a letter signed by them that had been designed to describe the study pro- ject, and persuade committeemen to complete and return the accompanying questionnaire. Identical material appeared in all questionnaires, but different colors were used for each commodity to facilitate tabulation of returns. This material was forwarded to the cooperating county agents on February 24. A follow-up letter was mailed directly to the non-respondents, by the author, on March 10. Copies of these materials appear as items "B" and "D" in the Appendix. Methods Used To Analyze Results Since the entire membership on the commodity committee lists participated in the study no tests of significance -43- were computed. Hagood and Price2 point out that: If we restrict our procedures to the methods of descriptive statistics, the case is clear and simple; we have secured one or more descriptive measures for the finite universe we are interested in, and sampling and tests of significance have no meaning or applica- tion to the problem. Prior to mailing the questionnaires, significance levels were set on a simple percentage basis as follows: Hypothesis I Unless the average preference of the fruit, vegetable, poultry and livestock committee- men is at least 10% greater than that of the dairy committeemen, the null hypothesis stating that these two groups do not differ in their desire for change will be accepted. Hypothesis II Unless 60 per cent or more of the respondents indicate a preference on the method of providing inter-county extension work, the null hypothesis that they have no preference will be accepted. Hypothesis III Unless 60 per cent or more of the respondents indicate a preference for the method of supervising additional agents fer inter-county work the null hypothesis of no preference will be accepted. Second Phase--Information Concernin DeveIopments in Various States Determining which state extension had staff members operating on an inter-county basis proved to be more involved than anticipated. Several leads were obtained from the Federal Extension Service in Washington and the Institute 2Margaret J. Hagood and Daniel 0. Price, Statistics for Sociologists (New York: Henry Holt and Company, I952), PP- 35 '37 o -44- for Advanced Study at Madison, Wisconsin. Following up leads from these sources, letters were mailed to four state extension directors. The following are several of the topics on which the directors were asked to comment: 1. Developments leading to establishment of area agents. 2. Examples of their subject matter work area 3. Administrative channels and program planning methods 4. Leads on other states with inter-county programs Other preliminary steps in gathering infbrmation included phone conversations, personal interviews with several extension administrators, and review of extension periodicals. The need for a standardized set of questions soon became apparent. A questionnaire was drafted, pre-tested with several county agents, and extension administrators. With few exceptions the questions were so designed that a simple "yes," "no" or "don't know" answer was asked for. As with the farmer questionnaire referred to previously, the limitations of this procedure were considered. Con- sidering the availability of time and other resources the questionnaire appeared to be the most suitable instrument for obtaining the desired information. A personal letter accompanying the questionnaire was mailed to 43 extension workers in 18 states. A copy of this questionnaire appears -45- as item "E" in the Appendix. The questions were designed to obtain information on several core tOpics. Some of these follow: 1. Methods of financing inter-county extension compared to traditional county agents 2. Comparisons of program planning methods 3. Degrees of supervision and control by various components of extension 4. Reasons for establishing inter-county extension programs 5. Problems encountered, and suggestions for over- coming them Respondents were asked to supply copies of letters, reports, or any other forms of written material that would help convey information on developments relating to the study topic. Personal knowledge concerning some of the develOpments in New York State was included in the summary for that state. Most of the information for Michigan was assembled by personal interview with county agents, area marketing agents, study of records in the district super- visors offices and interviews with state specialists and administrators. Information obtained from these states was handled in several ways. The replies to the first nine questions on the mail questionnaire were tabulated, and the results analyzed for each question. Finally, a summary was made from all available sources, describing inter-county extension projects in each of 15 states. CHAPTER V PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA Two separate sets of data were collected and analyzed. One set was from farmers in New York State. Appendix A shows the counties in which these farmers are located. The other was from extension service staff members from states where some form of inter-county agent work is being prac- ticed. Farmer results are compared by simple percentage relationships. Replies to questions were tabulated so as to present numerically a composite picture of developments in the states. In addition, a summarization of developments in each state is presented at the end of this chapter. New York Fgrmer Replies Table 1 shows how various commodity committee members feel about the desirability of changing the extension service so as to have county agents work across county lines. Hypothesis I which stated that ggiry commodity committee members will show greatergpreference for continuation of county agent work on an intra-count basis than will fruit, vegetable,_pgultry_and_l;vestock committeemen, is not sup- ported by the study results. -46- -47- Table l - Distribution of Commodity Committee Members According to Preference Between Continuation of County Agent Work Within County Limits or Spe- cialization and Work Across County Lines Work Within Work Across No County Lines County Lines Opinion Per Cent Per Cent Per Cent A. Total Replies (N=363) Distribution 48 47 5 B. Replies by Committees Fruit (N=49) 47 47 6 Vegetable (N=106) 38 56 6 Poultry (N=48) so 48 2 Livestock (N=67) 61 34 5 Dairy (N=93) 49 45 6 All Other Than Dairy (N=270) 50 45 5 Data presented in Table 1 shows that 49 per cent of the dairymen favored continuation of intra-county agent work, actually one per cent less than all committeemen other than dairy. Since at the outset of the study a ten per cent preference by dairy committeemen was deemed necessary to be significant, Hypothesis_l must be rejected. Study of Table 1 shows that the group of committeemen most interested in maintaining county agent work on an intra-county basis represent livestock growers. Committeemen showing greatest interest in inter-county agent work represent vegetable growers. -48- Of the 350 committeemen who answered question number two, 57 per cent preferred utilization of existing agents for inter-county extension work, while only 30 per cent favor employment of additional agents for this purpose. (See Table 2). The difference of 27 is greater than the 10 per cent established as the significance level. This supports Hypothesis II which states, in choosing between prpposals for re-organization of the extension service that would result ;p_spgcialized agents workinggin more phgp one counpy, commodgty committeemen will favor that existing staff members accept inter-county responsibilities. over the employment of additional agents for this_puppose. Table 2 - Distribution of Commodity Committee Members Accord- ing to Preference for Method of Providing Special- ized Agents for Inter-county Extension Work Existing Additional No Staff Agents Opinion Per Cent Per Cent Per Cent A. Total Replies (N=350) Distribution 57 30 13 B. Replies by Committees Fruit (i=47) 44 44 12 Vegetable (N=103) 59 30 ll Poultry (N=45) 54 33 13 Livestock (N=66) 53 29 18 Dairy (N=89) 64 ’ 20 16 -49- As with responses to the first hypothesis, committees differed. Fruit committeemen were equally divided on em- ploying additional agents as a means of providing inter- county extension work. Dairy committeemen were most heavily in favor of utilization of existing staff members. Hypothesis III that commodity committee members will prgfer local_gpd state over state supervision of inter- ggunpy agents was upheld by a substantial margin. The in- dicated margin was set at 10 per cent. The actual margin as shown in Table 3 is 78 per cent. Table 3 - Distribution of Commodity Committee Members Accord- ing to Preference Between Methods of Employment and Supervision of Additional Agents Employed for Work Across County Lines Local and State State No Supervision Supervision Opinion Per Cent Per Cent Per Cent A. Total Replies (N=348) Distribution ‘ 5 83 12 ‘. B. Replies by Committees Fruit (N=46) 4 87 19 Vegetable (N=103) 4 84 12 Poultry (N=45 9 78 13 Livestock N=66 8 78 14 Dairy N=91) 2 87 11 The difference in the number of committeemen who chose to mark "no Opinion" for each of the three questions -50- is notable. There were about twice as many who chose to avoid registering an opinion on Hypotheses II and III as compared to number I. Age of committeemen had an influence on how the committeemen answered the question as shown in Table 4. This was especially true with Question number 1. Younger men were inclined to favor inter-county agent work, and each older age group, showed a progressive tendency towards preference for intra-county agent work. Committeemen in the 55 and over age group also indicated the least preference for the employment of additional agents. Table 4 - Commodity Committeemen's Responses to Questions on Intra- and Inter-County Extension Work Classi- fied According to Committeemen's age levels Age Grouping 35 35w 45_’ 55 or to to or Nature of Question under 45 55 over *Per cant 1. Agent Work Territory Intra-county Basis 32 47 54 59 Inter-county Basis 63 48 41 36 _ No opinion 5 5 5 5 2. Methods of Inter-County Work Existing Agents Cross County Lines 62 51 56 61 Hire Additional Agents 28 p 35 3O 22 No Opinion 10 l4 l4 l7 3. Inter-County Agent Supervision College Responsibility 5 4 4 7 College and County Responsibility 86 85 85 77 NO opinion 9 ll 11 16 -51- A total of 401 questionnaires were returned. This represents 81.1 per cent of the total possible. Thirty—four returned questionnaires were not included in the results for the following reasons. Four were received too late for tabulation, six were received from non-farmers, 17 were returned blank except for the signature, three were incorrectly filled out and four were from committeemen serving on more than one committee. A possible indication of the strength of the con- victions of those who favor continuation of county agent work within county limits is the 19 questionnaires that were returned with only this section completed. Several of these committeemen commented that since this was their opinion, there was no justification for them to pass judge ment on questions relating to inter-county extension work. REPORTS ON STATE ACTIVITIES Statistical_Replies Questionnaire forms were mailed to extension workers in 18 states. Information on returned question- naires was tabulated and recorded on a copy of the ques- tionnaire. This material appears as Appendix E. The following is a brief analysis of the replies to the tabulated questions. Question . What are the categories of area exten- sion workers in your state? -52- Many methods have been developed for the conduct of inter-county extension work. In numerous instances, different procedures are being followed in the same state. The most commonly reported inter-county extension worker, is called a subject matter specialist and is stationed in the field. A second group, nearly equal in occurrence, are called area or regional extension agents. Qpestion II. What were the principle reasons for employing area agents or specialists? Increasing specialization by farmers, followed by need to concentrate on regional problems were indicated as the reasons for establishing inter-county work areas for agent 3 e Questions III How are your area programs financed and IV. and how does this vary from traditional methods of financing traditional county extension work? Compared to traditional financing procedures, for county agent work, there is considerably less local financial support of inter-county projects. Questipn_1, To whom do area agents look for super- vision and guidance? States differ considerably on the question of author- ity and supervision. Variations also occur for projects within states. Least emphasis is placed on responsibility and guidance by advisory committees. Study of individual returns shows that some workers are primarily responsible to one group, others are indicated as responsible to and -53- guided "very much" by two or more groups. Question VI. Are programs planned with the help of advisory committees, and if so who serves on them and how are members appointed? Not all of these workers operated with guidance by advisory committees. A majority did, with most of the committees organized on an area basis to coincide with the agents work area. Membership on these committees varied considerably. One state reported college staff members only, another, interested producers. Most committees have growers and county agents on them, and representatives of agri-business. The most common practice is for area agents to be involved only indirectly in the designation of these committeemen. Question VII. What was the reaction of various levels of extension workers to the establishment of area extension pro- grams? The reports indicated very little opposition to the establishment of inter-county extension work by agents. Some replies indicated that college extension specialists were neutral with several Opposed. .Qneatigns In establishing inter-county extension _Vlll_and work was the procedure to have existing ,IX, agents cross county lines or to create new positions? If the latter, how was the personnel selected? Several states reported that they established inter— county work by arrangements whereby existing agents began to work in more than their home county. However, the most -54- frequent practice reported was to create additional positions. These additional positions were staffed mostly with peOple new to extension, followed closely by reassignment of exist- ing county agents. There were but few instances reported of college subject matter specialists taking these positions. Complications Encountered-—Solutions Advised Area county agents, subject matter specialists and extension directors were asked to indicate some of the prob- lems that were encountered in the process of establishment and Operation of inter-county extension work. They were also asked to indicate suggestions for minimizing them. The most frequently reported complications can be classified under one major category--relationships. Allo- cation of expenses and time is another broad category cover- ing a number of reports. Most respondents indicated that considerable pre- paratory work should precede the employment of area agents. A11 involved, including local boards of supervisors, county agents, farmers, supervisors, specialists, etc. should be involved in conferences prior to the inauguration of the projects. As a result, job descriptions, procedural methods, role responsibilities, lines of authority, will be understood helping to avoid later suspicions and misunderstandings. The following are some of the comments on this topic. County commissioners were fearful of an increase in the county budget. _55- There is the problem of fitting this type of specialist between county agents and the highly specialized subject matter specialist. I wanted to know who was boss, the department head or extension supervisor. County agents were hostile at first. It is a problem Of how to become accepted as a member of the county team, and fit into the county' program. We started with county agents calling meetings. Now area agents call their own meetings. This is a better arrangement. Allocation of expenses involved such items as pay- ing for mileage driven in each county and cost of demonstra- tions. Solutions to the transportation cost allocation item included, elimination of county identification, use of university cars, and use of personal cars with billing to individual counties for actual mileage. Several people indicated that a desirable procedure to handle demonstra- tion costs was to have a central budget for small items, and for major items, to charge the county where the demon- stration was made. Time allocation questions involved distribution of time in the various cooperating counties and selection of projects of importance. Several people indicated the necessity of setting aside time to keep up on research and other related developments. One respondent wrote "There is a lack of time to carry on original programs in the county of origin." Suggestions included: (1) streamlining of the -56- established programs and cutting out of the less important parts, (2) assigning new titles to area agents as a means of breaking with the past. In one form or another a majority of the suggestions indicated need for clearly establishing policies and pro- cedures, and taking steps so that they are known to all concerned before hiring personnel. Several additional kinds of problems were encountered. One was a tendency for county agents to lose interest in sub- jects covered by area agents. Suggested solutions for this situation called for additional counseling by supervisors, involvement of county agents in program development, and measures to keep agents informed concerning activities in _ their counties. A related problem reported by one state director was the attitude that if the "administration wants something done in a new field of work, or some special problem, they should place special workers to do it." An- other question appearing in several questionnaires was on the subject of motivating farm leaders and extension agents to think in terms of area problems. DESCRIPTIONS OF INTER-COUNTY PROJECTS Titles Applied to Workers 1 It was Berlo who wrote "Meanings are found in people 1David K. Berlo, The Process of Communication, (Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc., New*York, 1960I, p. 188. -57- not in messages." An appreciation of this statement was helpful in compiling a list of titles that were indicative of extension workers who Operate as agents on an inter-county basis. With few exceptions, it was found that agents with one of the following titles conducted extension work meet- ing the requirements for this study. 1. Associate County Agricultural Agent——Horticulture (or Entomology, or Dairy, etc.) 2. Area Extension Agent 3. Area Extension Agent in Poultry 4. Extension Agent at Large 5. County Extension Agent 6. County Director 7. County Extension Director 8. Area Extension Agriculturist 9. Regional Marketing Agent 10. Extension Vegetable Agent 11. Area Home Advisor (or Home Management Specialist) 12. Consumer Marketing Agent 13. Extension Area A ronomist 14. Area Agronomist Tor Entomologist, or Farm Manage- ment Specialist) 15. Regional Extension Vegetable Specialist There were reports of others with "specialist" titles whose work description identified them more closely with area agents than traditional subject matter specialists. It was found that some states were-in agreement on what these titles symbolize. For others, a description in one state had little relationship to its interpretation in another. Projects by States The study revealed that extension services in 15 states had field staff members who answered the following description of the subject of this study. This description -58- was included in letters of inquiry used in the study. . . . new group Of workers who combine the subject matter specialization of College Extension Specialists, with direct access to producers, handlers, and other segments of agri-business which has been the Operational procedure of County Extension agents. Perhaps the most characteristic description of this new category of Ex- tension worker is that he works in an area of the state and to varying degrees in more than one county. The following section is devoted to a brief analyses of the developments in each of these 15 states. See Appendix B for a list of the extension workers who supplied infor- mation used in the compilation of the following information. California.--Cross-county work increased signifi- cantly in 1960. Arrangements and methods of carrying out inter-county work have varied considerably. One arrange- ment has been to exchange work on a barter basis between two counties with or without formal agreements. For example in Glenn County the farm advisor doing sheep work also is handling the sheep work in Butte County. In exchange a Butte County farm advisor does the citrus work in both counties. The biggest step in this direction involves six counties in the Sacramento Valley. The home advisors in these counties will specialize in a particular subject matter field and operate throughout the six-county area. Another method of inter-county work has been for a farm or home advisor simply to extend his or her services across county lines. For example the poultry farm advisor in Tulare County is extending his services to Kings County. Kings County pays his mileage and subsistence. -59- Another procedure has developed in the delta area of Sacramento, San Joaquin and Contra Costa Counties. There the farm advisors meet regularly to discuss common problems and exchange information. They conduct cooperative trials and demonstrations and hold regional tours attended by pro- ducers from all the counties. Ippg.--At present area extension positions in-Iowa are established for area agronomists and area 4-H workers. The area agronomists have Office space in one of the county extension offices in their area. They assist county exten— sion directors in conducting land use and conservation phases of the county extension programs. They are administratively responsible to a district extension supervisor and techni- cally responsible to the agronomy department. Recruitment of personnel for these positions is the responsibility of the agronomy department, with suggestions from the district extension supervisor. Kentucky.-—There are a number of specialists in Kentucky who are considered to be on a new level. There is a swine specialist, two for poultry, one for horticulture and rural development specialists. These men have no special name but are considered as area industrial or development specialists. They are a member of the staff in a county, meet in staff conferences, and keep the agents informed of their operations. The swine specialist is in a new situation. About -50- 75 farmers in five good corn counties agreed to pay half the cost of a specialist to work with them in the develop— ment of a good system of swine production. This program is working out well and another group of producers want the same kind of program. All these new specialists are supervised by the extension district supervisor in their area. They are also members of their particular subject matter departments at the college. They work on their own and with the county agents. Future plans call for the county extension agent to develop and carry out the overall program with assistance from state and area specialists. They do not intend to add more assistant county agents but will concentrate in area agents instead. Mgssgchusetts.--A plan is now being fOrmulated that calls for the employment of a regional extension vegetable specialist to serve the vegetable industry in Bristol, Plymouth, and Barnstable Counties, Massachusetts. Under the plan the worker will be appointed by the director Of extension. Provisions are being made fOr local participa- tion in selection of the worker, program development and expenses. The new regional extension vegetable specialist will conduct extension work in Bristol County, eliminating a position formerly held by a Bristol County agent. -61.. Michigan.--Regiona1 area work has developed along a number of lines in Michigan. FOr a number of years dis- trict horticultural agents have been assigned to areas of the state. They have worked across county lines and devel- oped programs under the supervision of district super- visors. Office space has been provided in the extension headquarters of one Of the involved counties. Another development has been the establishment Of district marketing specialists in areas of the state. These men have been employed to work with producers and first handlers of commodities such as poultry, livestock, grain and livestock. Most of these men specialize in the com- modities they work with. They are trained well enough to take positions on the university specialist staff. Their work is supervised directly by an associate director of extension who is coordinator of all extension marketing work in the state. They work to some extent on production. However their principal concern is with the handling of the commodities once they have been harvested. A third method of conducting area extension work is now in the process of being developed. This is in an area of the state where most counties have only one or two agents fer the conduct of the combined farm, home and 4-H programs. Under this system each of the agents assumes leadership responsibility for a particular phase of extension work in the cooperating counties. This agent then tends -62.. to become a specialist, available for meetings and other work in each of the counties. He exerts leadership in the activities related to this specialty. Each agent retains authority for the overall program in his county calling on the "specialists" from the adjoining counties to help carry out programs within their specialty. As an example of how this program works, a county without a 4-H agent, will have the services of one suppli- ed by' another county, and in turn the first county will supply a home demonstration agent for work in one Of the other counties. Another possible arrangement would be fer the agents in four adjoining counties like Clare, Gladwin, Roscommon, and Ogemaw, to take a segment of the dairy pro- gram fOr their specialty. Thus the major responsibility for breeding, feeding, herd health, and records would be divided among them. There has been no change in the overall administra- tive organizational procedure. The agents like the idea since it gives them an Opportunity to specialize and be more readily recognized. Missouri.--The Missouri Extension service is moving into cross-county line work in a substantial way. The state is divided into county groupings. In one group for example, there are seven counties with 29 people. As a vacancy occurs in the existing agent staff, the replacement is a person especially qualified in a specialty, for example -53- soils. This person then works throughout the counties in the group. Special in-service training workshops are being conducted to help develop specialties among the existing agent staff. Their men are considered as specialized agents rather than specialist agents. They are assigned to a county and are responsible administratively to the county agent. State subject matter specialists continue to be the final authority on recommendations. In the seven county group referred to earlier, each of the counties contributes $300 towards the specialized agents salary plus a share of the operating expenses. Several basic ingredients to inter-county work are held important. These are: (1) there should be a homo- geneity of interest such as cotton, tourist business, (2) consensus at all levels on methods of work before starting, (3) participation by clientele in decision making. Among the dangers mentioned was the tendency for decision making to shift to the state level and for specialized agents to feel they are state specialists rather than county agents. Montana.--Inter-county work is just getting started in MOntana. Their projects include specialists who are stationed in the field and county extension agents who work in more than one county. Plans are underway for employment of women as district extension agents. Their work will include help with home economics programming and some home -64- economics subject matter work. Nebraska.--Because of "thin" populations several Nebraska counties have been combined into one unit to strengthen extension. Agents in these units continue to be generalists. In addition, Nebraska has area specialists aimed at particular problems. These area specialists are aimed at giving quicker personal service, tying together factors farmers are interested in such as efficient pro- ductions, harvesting, storage and marketing. An area specialist in beef, cattle production covers about one- fourth of the state. Other area projects include: (1) farm management, irrigation and erosion control on sandy soil, (2) potatoes and entomology, (3) irrigation, (4) forestry, (5) urban extension. Some of these workers plan their work and schedules with county extension agents, others with district ex- tension supervisors. Suggestions for improvement call for better work and time scheduling. In the past agricultural area specialists have made plans individually. More respon- sibility on the part of the district supervisors was men- tioned as a means of strengthening area work.. New Mexico.--Area work in New Mexico is in the fields of rural development and farm and home planning. New York.--During World War II and fer a few years afterward, New York had area workers called district agri- cultural engineers. Their war-time function was to help -65.. keep farm machinery in working conditions. These men were responsible administratively and subject matter wise to the department of agricultural engineering. Their work was designed basically to be service oriented rather than education, and was discontinued several years after the end of the war. Interest in regional work has grown in recent years, and a number of varying projects have been established. District marketing agents have been employed to work primarily with distribution Of food. These agents are located in large metropolitan centers, have Office space in local extension headquarters, belong to the state county agents association and are responsible administratively to the state extension Office. They plan their programs with assistance from the department of agricultural economics and committees made up of trade personnel. Other projects have been developed for work with agricultural producers. The first of these multi-county efforts involves the fruit program in Clinton and Essex Counties. The agent is a member Of the Clinton County ' staff and has an advisory committee made up Of growers and agents from the two counties. Recently three pilot models have been set up to explore ways of conducting extension work with commercial growers on a commodity basis. The first is with poultry- men in three counties. No county funds are involved. The -66- program emphases appears to be in management and marketing. The second project is with the beet, carrot and kraut cabbage industries. WOrk is to be with producers and processors. The job is defined as halfway between the county vegetable agent and a departmental specialist. There are three advisory committees One for each crop made up of college representatives, growers, processors, and county agents. A third project, quite similar to the one above is confined to a muck area that was formerly served by agents from two counties. These workers are called extension poultry or vege- table agents. Their relationships are the same as those outlined for area marketing agents. Basic financing is with state funds, a departure from county extension work, which is financed mostly with funds from county sources. The following description involving the dry bean industry illustrates another type of inter-county develop- ment. An appointed group of producers, shippers, county agricultural agents and college representatives have studied the dry bean industry in New York. They have sponsored a state wide meeting and are exploring ways of expanding research work. A county agent is chairman of a committee developing a plan of work methods for communicating through county agents to every commercial dry bean grower. Oklahoma.--Area agents are employed in Oklahoma. One of the problems reported from that state is lack of local -67- funds in support of this kind of work. Tennessee.--Due to a reduction in grants from the Tennessee Valley Authority, a staff of 65 assistant county extension agents on T.V.A. was reduced to 15. Titles of the remaining agents was changed to, special agents in test demonstrations. Each works with 15 to 30 farmers in four to five counties. Recently a forester was established in three counties, he works with suppliers for a pulp mill and is partially paid by the counties. ngg§.--Early in the 1950's several subject matter agents were appointed in highly intensified agricultural counties. These agents carrying such titles as associate county agent--horitculture (or entomology, or irrigation, etc.) worked in three or more counties. Financing was shared about equally between county commissioner's courts and federal-state revenues. These agents were supervised by extension district agents, and were responsible to appro- priate subject matter department fer accuracy of subject matter and training. In time it was found that these agents who were only equipped with 8.8. degrees were not capable of meeting the heavy pressure for the type of assistance necessary in the field. In 1958 all appointments to these agent positions were discontinued. These such positions were then filled with per- sonnel having headquarters staff status. There are now #0 -68.. of these specialists in agriculture and home economics headquartered in district offices in the field. They are responsible to the state leaders fer general supervision and are a part of the subject matter department fer train- ing and accuracy of subject matter. Field work schedules are developed with appropriate district agents. All finan- cing is done from state and federal funds. None of these pe0ple have less than a master's degree. As the area specialist personnel staff was expanded, staff specialists at headquarters were able to devote more time to the interpretation of research, development of publications material, and other resources to assist the state-wide effort. It appears that these area specialists operate about as other headquarters staff specialists. This de- velopment was included here as another example of the establishment of a "layer" of workers between the county extension agent and central subject matter specialists. The reason advanced for the development of this procedure in Texas is the size of the state. The state has 25h counties, with 12 extension districts and approximately 20 counties in each district. Virginia.--An area agent was recently designated in Virginia to work primarily with farm management. A primary purpose of this area agent is to train agents while at the same time training farmers. In addition a livestock -69- specialist, attached to the animal husbandry department, has been established in an area of the state. This was done in response to a rapidly growing swine enterprise which resulted in larger operators needing on-the-spot help faster than they could normally get with a specialist stationed at the college. Others mentioned are a man dealing primarily with Turkish tobacco, and two fruit specialists. With all of these is an indication that the area specialist should work closely with and through the county agent. For each area specialist, there is a counterpart located at the college. Supervision of activities and work of either the area agents, or area specialists, falls within the respon- sibility of the district agents. washington.--For the past two years an area agent has worked with row crop growers (primarily potatoes) in the Columbia Basin where irrigation is an important practice. Three counties are involved with the agent lending some assistance in other areas of the state. The area agent is located at an experiment station and is responsible to their state extension director through a division leader. . Most of the extension projects described in the preceding paragraphs definitely come within the scope of this study. Others have features that are related to the study tOpic. All are illustrations of changes extension is making as a result of its changing environment. CHAPTER VI SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary This study was designed to assemble information on the change of the county extension agent's work area from an intra- to an inter-county basis. The objective was to provide a source of infbrmation on this development. Three steps or processes were followed in the assembling of this infbrmation. The first was a review of literature, the second was a mail survey of 494 commodity committeemen, and the third involved a mail questionnaire, phone calls, and personal interviews with extension workers in 18 states. Study of related literature revealed that many people in extension are concerned that extension should keep pace with the changes taking place in agriculture. There were numerous indications that specialization by agents accompanied by an expansion of work responsibilities across county lines was a needed change. However, reports of such undertakings were scarce. Analyses of the questionnaires submitted by the commodity committeemen showed that dairy committeemen do not differ from fruit, vegetable, poultry and livestock -70- -71- committeemen, taken as an average, on the desirability of having extension agents work across county lines. Con- sidered as individual committees, the livestock growers were strongest advocates of agent work within county lines, while vegetable committeemen were the strongest supporters of work across county lines. When asked to make a choice between utilization of existing agents and employment of additional agents for cross-county line extension work, the committeemen voted 57 per cent for existing agents, 30 per cent fer additional agents, and 13 no opinion. This supported the premise that farmers are concerned about the expenditure of additional public money for extension. The data showed that committeemen are strongly in favor of maintaining local responsibility in the supervision of extension workers. Information assembled from the 18 states showed that inter-county extension work is rapdily coming in. A new group of extension workers is rapidly developing. They operate under a vast array of titles and different arrange- ments. However, they have at least one thing in common. They fit somewhere between the level of the county extension agent and the subject matter specialist. The recommendation most frequently made for the prevention of complications was that procedures should be well planned out and all con- cerned familiar with them, before the employment of workers under the program. -72- Conclusions and Recommendations Information on developments in the various states indicates rather clearly that inter-county work by agents is being accomplished in most states by the employment of additional agents. Commodity committeemen of New York State expressed themselves as against this procedure. To the author this suggests the need to move slowly in the establishment of additional agents. This would apply particularly to states where extension's clientele partici- pates to an appreciable degree in determining extension policies. Another tendency shown by the study is the increased amount of financing with state and federal funds. This, coupled with the indicated emphasis for area agents to be responsible to and guided by state level authority runs counter to the strongly expressed desire of New York farmer committeemen to have a say in the operation of extension. Study of individual commodity committeemen returns showed that a fairly sizable number of farmers were serving on advisory committees that were not representative of their major farming enterprises. This could have had an effect on the application of the questionnaires to the first hypo- thesis. Recommendgtions for Further Study Future studies utilizing commodity committee lists as a means of comparing grower responses by enterprise should -73- have control measures to take care of the complication de- scribed in the previous paragraph. A study that presents itself as extremely important, is an evaluation of the various methods being established for the conduct of inter-county extension work. Before such a study is made more details are needed on what is taking place in the various states. A questionnaire such as used in this study reveals only a fraction of what is transpiring. With such a vast topic, open ended questions can lead both the informant and informer down unfruitful channels. The best means of communicating information on developments associated with this study were readily avail- able, also the least complicated for the informers. These means were copies of progress reports, annual reports, and similar material that had been prepared to convey informa- tion to co—workers and others within the state. Information available in these ready made sources can be used profit- ably in the development of further study procedures. A suggestion for future study would be to determine whether financial "conservatism" as suggested by Premise # 2. of this study, or other forces motivated New York farmers to prefer that inter-county work be instituted without an ex- pansion of total staff. Several of these other considera- tions are farmers age, educational level, and degree of sat- isfaction with existing programs. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Alderson, Wroe. Marketin Behavior and Executive Action. Homewood, III.: fiIcHard D. Irwin, I957. Baker, Gladys. The Count A ent. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, I939. Berlo, David K. The Process of Communication. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc., I960. Bertrand, Alvin L. Rural Sociolo . New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., I953. Bootman, J. L. "The Cooperative Extension Service," In; Spirit and Philosophy of Extension WOrk. Edited by R. o B 1530 .S.D.Ao: Graduate SChOOl, 19520 Brunner, Edmund De S. and Yang, E. Hsin Pao. Rural Americg and the Extension Service. Teachers Co ege, Cqumoia University: Bureau of Publications, 1949. Carrigan, J. E. "Long Range Programs and Objectives of the Agricultural Extension Service," Th S irit and Philoso h of Extension Work. Ed te y R. . Bliss. U.S.D.A. and EpsiIon Sigma Phi Fraternity, 1952. Fesler, James W. Are and Administration. University of Alabama Press, I9h9. Hagood, Margaret J. and Price, Daniel 0. St tistics for Sociolo ists. New York: Henry HoIt and Company, I955. . Kelsey, Lincoln D. and Hearne, Cannon Chiles. Coo rative Extension WOrk. New York: Comstock Pu 5 ‘ng Associates, I955. Kreitlow, Burton W., Aiton, E. W., and Terrence, Andrew P. Leadershi fer Action in Rural Communitigg, Danville, §g£6n0i3: The Interstate PrInters andPublishers, -75- -76- Miller, Paul A. Community Health Action. East Lansing: Michigan State College Press, I953. Moe, Edward 0. "Extension Education," Encyclopedia of Edu- cational Research. Edited by Char es . Harr s. New York: The McMillen Co., 1960. Rogers, Everett M. Social Chan e in Rural Societ . New York: Appleton-Century Crafts, Inc., I959. Williams, H. H. "Birds Eye View of Extension. The S irit and Philosophy of Extension Work. Edited by R. K. B 1330 U03. 0 o: raduate SChOOl, 19520 Public Documents Ahlgren, Henry L. "The Scope and Responsibility of the Ex- tension Service." Ithaca, New York. Extension Rural Sociology Wbrkshop, Rural Sociolo ists in Extension Look Ahead. U.S.D.A.: FederaI Extension Service, September, 1959. Brownlow, Louis. "The Administrative Process." Lecture before Graduate School of the Department of Agri- culture, February, 1939. Clark, Robert C. and Evans, Jean C. "Guidelines for Exten- sion Administrative Organization." Administr tion in Extension. Madison 6, Wisconsin: NationaI AgricuItural Extension Center for Advanced Study, University of Wisconsin, 1960. Earle, wendell and Evans, Jean C. The Orégnizgtion gnd O ration of Extension Marketin ro rams. n ver- sIty of WIsconsin, The NationaI Agricultural Exten- sion Center for Advanced Study, 1957. Gallup, Gladys. "Methods of Collecting Data," Evaluation in Extension. Edited by Darcie Byrn. U.S.D. .: v sion 0 Extension Research and Teaching, Federal Extension Service. Harlow, James C. "Is Reorganization Necessary," Administra- tion in Extension. Madison 6, Wisconsin: at ona AgricuIturaI Extension Center for Advanced Study, University of Wisconsin, 1960. -76- Miller, Paul A. Communit Health Action. East Lansing: Michigan State Co ege ress, 953- Moe, Edward 0. "Extension Education," Enc clo edia of Edu— cational Research. Edited by CharIes 5. Harris. New York: The McMillen Co., 1960. Rogers, Everett M. Social Chan e in Rural Societ . New York: Appleton- entury Cra ts, nc., . Williams, H. H. "Birds Eye View of Extension. The Spirit and Philoso h of Extension Work. Edited by R. K. BIiss. U.S.D.A.: Graduate School, 1952. W Ahlgren, Henry L. "The Scope and Responsibility of the Ex- tension Service." Ithaca, New York. Extension Rural Sociology Workshop, Rural Sociolo ists in Extension Look Ahead. U.S.D.A.: F'ederaI Extension Service, September, 1959. Brownlow, Louis. "The Administrative Process." Lecture before Graduate School of the Department of Agri— culture, February, 1939. Clark, Robert C. and Evans, Jean C. "Guidelines for Exten- sion Administrative Organization." Administr 1 in Extensiog.E Madison 6, Wisconsin: Nationaat on Agr cu tura xtension Center for Adv University of Wisconsin, 1960, anced Study, Earle Wendell and Evans Jean C. The Organi g g ’ O eration of Extension Marketin ro gag?“ Uggver- 3 ty 0 isconsm, e Nat ona Agric tural Exten- sion Center for Advanced Study, 1957. G , ~43. “methods of Collecting Data " E ' v ‘3, Edy?“ by Darcie Byrn: W exten31on Researc ° ° " r'vice. h and Teaching, Federal i Reorganization Nece ....._.._.' 533W " Administra- 181011, Madiso : . , .EfpenSion Cengeg' Wiscoflsin. Vati'onaI Wisconsin, 1960.for Advémced Stude -77... Peck, Frank. "Administrative Organization of Extension." Address before Fifth National Administrative WOrk- shep. University of Wisconsin, National Agricul- tural Center for Advanced Study, April, 1956. Ratchford, C. B. "Modernizing Extension." Report of Pro- ceedings, western Region Seminar in Extension Super- vision, September 7-12, 1958. Madison: University of Wisconsin, National Agricultural Extension Center for Advanced Study, 1959. Sub-Committee on Sc0pe and Responsibility of the Extension Committee on Organization and Policy. "The Co- operative Extension Service Today." April, 1958. Periodicals Axinn, George H. "The Milieu Theory of Control." Public Administration Review, Vol. XVII, No. 2 (Spring, 57 . Brown, Emory J. and Deckins, Albert. "Roles of the Exten- sion Subject Matter Specialist." Rural Sociolo Journal, Volume 23 (September, 195 . Brown, Emory J. and Vandeberg, Gale. "The Job of the Ex- tension Specialist is Changing." Count A ent Vo—A Teacher, Vol. 15, No. 6 (June, 195 . Carew, John. "The Role of the Extension Specialist In Agriculture." Farm Polic Forum, Vol. II, No. A (1958-1959). Clark, Robert C. "The Role of the County Agent." Farm Polic Forum, Vol. II, No. 4 (1958-59). Kirby, Edwin L. "Training Needs of Today's County Agents." Extension Service Review (October, 1958). McElroy, John J. "Specialists--The Connecting Link." Ex; tension Service Review (April, 1958). Rogers, F. E. "Training Extension WOrkers fer the Future." Extensipn Service Review (September, 1958). Vandeberg, Gale L. "Getting The Most From Planning Councils." Extension Service Review (February, 1961). -78- Vieg, John Albert. "WOrking Relationships in Governmental Agricultural Programs." Publgc Administration Review, Vol. 1 (19tO-h1). Unpublished Material "Administrative Organization." File # 6.1.1.2, Institute For Extension Personnel Development, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. (Mimeographed.) Axinn, George H. "Extension Meets the Changing Scene." Annual Conference, Arizona Cooperative Extension Service University of Arizona, Tuscon, January 17, 1961. (Mimeographed.) "Cooperative Extension Committee on Ranks and Titles of Field Workers." File # 6.1.1.2, Files Institute fer Extension Personnel Development, Michigan State University. (Mdmeographed.) Ranta, Raymond R. "The Professional Status of the Michigan Cooperative Extension Service." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, National Agricultural Extension Center for Advanced Study, University of Wisconsin, 1960. "WOrking With Local People In Planning County Extension Pro- grams." Unpublished report, Committee III, Exten- sion Service Program Planning WOrkshop, University of Oklahoma (April, 1949). From files Michigan State University, Institute of Extension Personnel Development, File # 5.2.1. (Mimeographed.) Other Sources Personal interview with John Carew, Extension Vegetable Specialist, Department of Horticulture, Michigan State University. December, 1960. Personal interview with Jean C. Evans, Associate Director, Extension, University of’Missouri. February, 1961. Personal interview with Einer Olstrom, District Extension Director, Michigan State University. January, 1961. A. B. C. D. E. F. G. APPENDICES Location of Commodity Committeemen . Commodity Committeemen Questionnaire Cover Letter for Questionnaire . . Follow-up Letter for Questionnaire . Extension WOrker's Questionnaire . . Sample Cover-Letter . . . . . . . . List of Informants by States . . . . Page 80 81 82 83 81+ 87 88 ~89- 0. V 0‘ 0‘ 0. oh 0. o. it: \|\ 1.. ‘ . a . Q Q .w :\ . 3‘ «Shsnhugh k t O x 3 N >‘ we!" ‘ 35: at e w 53* 39 3 1.n % A «m m 2 x mu 2...... .1112 a 311:... _t sin m nOU ”w. 3.3 s m M. m >533. $8.36 92.33 83 P 0 sets m S 83.5. An mnu 13:28: Air 4" X 23 a u m .2... is... m 2.... C M 3.3! m. m s... . 3‘8 t a.» 3:3... 3 an... as. .v ta, an i230 i .e .t .n .3 .u 1. APPENDIX B Om MENSION WOHC IN RE 1960's (Please answer all questions) Indicate with an (\/) your preference for one of the following: t-() b.() c-() County Agents should continue to work within county limits. County Agents should develop specialized areas of work and operate across county lines. I have no opinion on this. If arrangements are made for agents to become more specialized and work in more than one county this should be done by: a~() c-() Having one or more members of the existing agent staff in each county accept the responsibility for a particular phase of Extension werk in each of several cOOperating counties. Employing additional agents to be responsible for a particular phase of Extension work in each of several cooperating counties. I have no opinion on this question. If additional agents are hired to serve specific agricultural enterprises in more than one county they should be: u-() b.()- c-() employed and supervised directly by the college emloyed and supervised under a cooperative agreement between the college and a local county committee I have no opinion on this question. Comments on any of the above questions (Use reverse side if necessary) Is your farm income mostly from (check one) dairy fruit ) vegetables poultry livestock other Fill in the blanks below based on your 1960 operation: ‘OROP ABREPGE CROP ACREPGE 1.1mm: gHIIIE Isbyoursge 35 orunderm, 351;th _, h5to 55 ______, 55 or Your countyis llama -_ ———— w -32- APPENDIX C {— New York State Cooperative Extension Service I wayne County - Agricultural Department, Alton, New Ybrk Dear Conmodity Committeemen: YOUR ASSISTANCE IS NEEDED IN AN EXTElBION RESEARCH PROJECT! I am sure you will agree that agriculture is undergoing many changes. Farms are becoming larger and operations more specialized. In. counties such as ours, with a diverse agriculture, this specialization has often resulted in only a small number of farmers producing a particular crop. To them their specialized crop or enter- prise is very important, but may be considered as a minor enterprise in the county or state. This changing agricultural picture has led farm leaders like yourself and Extension people to ask how the county extension service of the future should be organized. Their concern is that county agents continue to meet the needs of those engaged in the "major" agricultural enterprises where many people are involved, as well as those engaged in the "minor" agricultural enterprises where only a few are involved. The enclosed questionnaire is being sent to obtain your opinion on the following vieWpoints related to this matter: work, and then conduct Extension work in those specified fields, in two or more County Agents should become especially qualified in certain areas of Extension )/ counties. ty Agents should become especially qualified in areas of work depending on I/ the needs of a specific county, and then conduct Extension work in that one county. Which procedure is in your opinion best suited to our county situation? Please answer all the questions on the enclosed mimeo. A stamped, addressed envelope has been enclosed for your convenience. Individual replies will be kept confidential. This questionnaire is part of a report being prepared by Edwin Motsenbocker (Agent from Monroe County, New York) during his study leave at Michigan State University. Identical copies are being mailed to conmodity committeemen of Monroe, Wayne, Ontario, Livingston, Genesee and Orleans counties. M Raymond c. Nichols County Agricultural Agent sdJ enc . Sincere COPY . o I . . A. l n ‘ 1 ~ a< ‘ . . -- . ‘ . E ’ ‘ I w I . . l v -5. . A I h . A K . _-. ' l ' V a I _ ,, 9 . ' . ' n. r -- '7 l ‘ v ...u ‘ I . I . ‘0 ' . D A l‘ I ‘- ‘ - , ~ 'I .' — n .‘ n , I . .. f ' - . J ‘ 4 I ‘ v ' r ' . l ‘. . .7 I . O c ‘ ‘ . . . 3 I . r . ' h I I ' . I ' . V ‘ ' ‘ I " v ‘ ‘ . I . ‘ . a ' ' o I ' . - I l I .. ’ J a . " ' - I . . I u . - . . | . C O ‘ ‘ - .. . . ‘. D V ' .- . . I . . . I . . . ‘ l J'. ' I . - ' ‘.I. h ,. I. h. ‘ . s . s . D . ' ' l ' O f‘ -33- APPENDIX D Institute for Extension Personnel Dev. 113 Agricultural Hall Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan Dear Sir: I have not received your reply to the County Extension Service questionnaire that you received recently from your County Agent. Enclosed is a duplicate copy in case you have misplaced the original. Please complete and return it at your earliest convenience even though you check the "no opinion" sections. It is important that opinions of all who received the questionnaires beiincluded in the tabulations. If your reply is now in the mail, ignore this second request. Please send to above address. Sincerely yours, Floatation. 777.4:ZJ-W'W7 {AW Edwin Motsenbocker EMzmh Enclosure . _ .. . . . . . e I. . . ll. ~I ‘0 . “w a s. . . . A s; o L s. I I h . I .I . . o _ A n . i ‘ I A; ‘ 4 . .. Oi . o l . . . \s. .. . . . o . l s ‘ \' s. v s I . . o I O r I A; I I. ’ ‘ . ‘ . .- A s t . . . I v ' a s .. . s . . v u. . s s u i r O I 5’ ~ . a 1 s - ‘ u u . to s a v .. I. o y . . . a I I I I o l‘ ‘0. .b‘ s . .l I . . . .a I O C .- .c . .’ s .t . o . .. . .. u —. .. o .. w . 1 t. I. s . I . . u ~ ~ .. o. c .l '4 ‘ A . e I I. o it . . . it v . s . s v s s». on s. .s . .s . . s s . t . . I v. ' u u l I . . r . , ft? .4 . . o .l . \ t o ' A I U as E I. . . . a . . s . . t a . a c ' s . A ‘ § n l l I . h I o s in ‘ 4 . L . , . . A . . e t . .. s a is a - fi'l . . V v s u ’ .. . s I. a .~ . . o . J c u.’ w n n 0. I v .. .1 \ y . g .. . ,\ . I Is . I Z. I . . . . o. I s a. -gg- APPENDIX E INFCIWAIION CONCERNING AGRICULTWAL MENSION W CONDUCTED ON AN AREA, RMIONAL, DISTRICT OR INTER~GOUNIY BASIS (The following questions pertain to extension workers who m a m m except that they work in more than one county and tend to specialize in their subject matter responsibilities.) 1. Place a check mark (V) before the categories which describe area extension workers in your state. 9 ( ) Subject matter specialists stationed at the college who limit their work to a portion of the state. m, ( ) Subject matter specialists stationed in the field, who limit their work to a limited number of oeunties . 7 ( ) County extension agents who work in more than one county. 13 ( ) Area or regional extension agents who work in more than one county. ( ) Other--specify. ‘ ' 11. What were the principal reasons for employing area agents or specialists? (Please rank in order of importance, 1, 2, 3, etc.) 45' ( ) more efficient utilization of extension flinds. 7.3 ( ) increasing specialization by farmers. 44% ) increasing need for extension to concentrate on regional problems . .39. ( ) need for better service to minor enterprise interests. 41 ( ) rapid scientific and technological developments affecting extensions clientele.e Ty £0 {Lg gtjm, wax/Wda Cw Lew; ( ) other“ “l” X: 5 ' 3 = 3 ' c1: ‘/ M 02’ 95/4 WV III. How are your area programs financed? /é( ) state or State and Federal funds only. l/( ) state and local funds. I ( ) local funds only. 4 ( ) other-specify IV. Does this vary from traditional methods of financing individual county extension work in your state? 5(.~ ) No (.20) Yes If yes, how? I/ ( ) more local financial support 151 ) less local financial support 3 ( ) pooling of funds from several counties A ( ) other--apecifv V. To what extent are area agents responsible to or guided by: A- m W m? 0- W291 mm W? ‘H ) very much /0( ) very much 2} ) some ’7( ) some ( ) very little 6 ( ) very little ’(lIdon'tknov ()Idon'tknow B. State Extension Administrators? D. m M? Iu)verymch 4(gverymch /o( 3 some /3( some / ( very little 3 ( ) very little ()Idon'tknow /()Idon'tknow VII. VIII . -35- IV ) If programs are planned with the help of advisory committees: A. Are these cannittees set up: /3( ) on a regional basis to coincide with the work areas? ‘7( ) on an individual county‘basis? B. Indicate below who serves on these conmittees: n( ) growers .3( ) research workers ’5‘) ) county extension agents 7( ) agricultural business 5 ) subject matter specialists representatives 9” ( ) state extension administrators ( ) ( ) 0. Are members of advisory committees appointed: !( ) by the area agents with possible suggestions from others? 14,42 3 by others, with possible suggestions from the area agents? In your opinion what were the reactions to the establishnent of the area extension programs by each of the following? favorable neutral opposed don 't College extension specialists College department heads County extension agents Ass't. county extension agents District extension supervisors Farmers Agric. business representatives (eg. processors, buyers, etc.) Consents assess? QWMUOUF In establishing area or inter-county extension work, was the pa-oceduee to: EU ) Have existing county extension agents become more specialized and extend all of their services across county lines? I3()lisvetheseagentsexteMonlyaportionoftheirservicesacrosscounty lines? 4% ) Create new positions with the regular extension staff maintained in individual counties as before? ( ) continents-- If additional positions were created and staffed on a regional basis how were the personnel selected? H( ) yes ( ) no From among existing county extension staff? 4/( ) yes ( ) no From among subject matter specialist staff? ) yes ( ) no Individuals new to extension work? Other-«specify listproblemthatwereencomrteredinmaungthechangetoareaextension work and your suggestions for minimizing them. mm fimnmsihan -86— XI. List problems that developed after the area program was underway? mm W XII. Please describe briefly other measures that have been tried or are under consideration in your state in response to considerations of the items listed under question two on page one of this questionnaire. Additional comments on any of the preceding questions-«- Return to: __ Edwin thsenbocker . Your name Institute for Extension Personnel Development 113 Agricultural Hall .-..._..._. luchigan State University Address: East lensing, Michigan -87- APPENDIX F Institute for Extension Personnel Development 113 Agricultural Hall Michigan State University East Lansin Michigan April 6, 19%l C O P Y Dear I am asking your help with a project that should be of value to you and to other Extension workers of your state as well as to me. May I introduce myself? I am a New York County Extension Agent on leave of absence for graduate study at Michigan State University. As a special project I am assembling information on a new type of Extension program that is emerg- ing in many states. As indicated on the enclosed questionnaire, I am primarily interested in the new group of workers who combine the sub- ject matter specialization of College Extension Specialists with direct access to producers, handlers, and other segments of agri-business which has been the operational procedure of County Extension Agents. Perhaps the most characteristic description of this new category of Extension worker is that he works in an area of the state and to varying degrees in more than one county. It has been brought to my attention that Extension work fitting this pattern is being conducted in your county. Will you share with me your observations and opinions on these developments in your state? The enclosed questionnaire should not take too much of your time. A summary of my study will be available by early summer for those desiring a copy. Sincerely yours, Edwin.Motsenbocker M.S.U. Graduate Student EM:mh Enclosure APPENDIX C LIST OF INFORMANTS BY STATES California George B. Alcorn Ray C. Geilberger Director of Extension County Extension Director University Hall P.O. Box 126 University of California Federal Bldg. Berkley, California Santa Barbara, California J. Price Schroeder wallace R. Schrader Turkey Farm Advisor County Extension Agent 720 weSt 22nd P000 Box 391 Merced, California Red Bluff, California Woodrow Mitchell Jesse W. Bequette Room 310 Old Post Office Bldg. County Director 7th and K Streets P.O. Box 560 Sacramento, California Redding, California Edward Libra 201 S. Pine Street Madera, California Iowa Alvin T. Goettsch District Extension Supervisor Iowa State University Ames, Iowa Kentucky S. C. Bohanan George M. Nelson, Jr. Coordinator Extension Programs Area Agent in Extension University of Kentucky Box 307 Lexington, Kentucky Bowling Green, Kentucky J. B. Williams Ronnie G. Graves Area Extention Agent Area Agent in Poultry Leitchfield, Kentucky Grayson, Kentucky -88- -39- Massachusetts Lloyd H. Davis Assoc. Director of Extension University of Massachusetts Amherst, Massachusetts Michigan E. G. Olstrom District Director Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan George Axinn Assoc. Director of Extension Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan Missouri Jean C. Evans Assistant Director of Extension University of Missouri Columbia, Missouri Nebraska E. W. Janike Director of Extension University of Nebraska Lincoln, Nebraska Paul E. Fischback Extension Irrigationist University of Nebraska Lincoln 3, Nebraska H. Robert Mulliner P.O. Box 416 Hasting, Nebraska NeW'Mexico A. E. TriViz Associate Director of Extension New Mexico State University University Park, New Mexico H. J. Carew Horticulture Specialist Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan Montana Torlief S. Aashiem Director of Extension Montana State College Bozeman, Montana Elton Lux State Leader Personnel University of Nebraska Lincoln, Nebraska Clark Jensen Box 7 Elmwood Station Omaha, Nebraska New York Wallace Washbon Assoc. State Leader Cornell University Ithaca, New York -90- W L. H. Brannon Director of Extension Oklahoma State University Stillwater, Oklahoma Texas J. D. Prewit Assoc. Director of Extension Texas A &.M College College Station, Texas Tennessee V. W. Daiter Director Extension Service University of Tennessee Knoxville, Tennessee Virginia P. H. De Hart Asst. Director of Extension Virginia Polytechnic Institute Blacksburg, Virginia Washinggon John P. Miller Asst. Director of Extension washington State University Pullman, Washington Gustaf Hokanson County Extension Agent Court House Passe, Washington Others Edgar J. Boone National Agricultural Extension Center for Advanced Study University of Wisconsin Madison 6, Wisconsin Roland C. Hintze County Extension Agent Box #96 Ritzville, Washington Nicholas Sandar County Extension Agent Box 252 Othello, washington Darcie Byrn Division of Extension Research and Training Federal Extension Service, USDA Washington 25, D.C. 'N-Q HICHIGQN STQTE UNIV. LIBRQRIES il 11 9 312 3103061317