A SYSTEM FOR ALLocmm'g cowmmtvg EXTEN'stou Resouacasro COUNTIES Thais fat the Degree of M. S. macaw»: smug COLLEGE ' ‘ Daniel C. Pfannsfiel 1952' This is to certify that the thesis entitled {W presented by pkg/6’. 7M has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for W ' degree inMd éz‘én QM xx: / Major professor Date h 2.3 /73' V I ‘C - c"..y ‘ .~!-¥.' ' bu!" 2.1: '~ 7') fig 38'- '." Q 3‘ '.| f3 ‘ :ngffo ‘.V. I ‘ it 4‘ a A b; v s;x...~‘.u - - ._ -...___. ..._- ah. I OI... . _...,.. *d"” A gage-rd -. 4-4..- lw T. '3 .e I _ '3 l1 "3 - d "0%! A SYESTEM FOR ALIDCATINI'} UGPEnATIVE EKTEESION RESOURCES TO COUNTIES DAXIEL C. PFAfiKSTIEL A THE? 1:5 Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan State College of Agriculture and Applled Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Agricultural Extension 1952 TABLE OF CONTENTS CRAPTER PAGE I. IhTRCIyVTCTIOH OF THE PROBLEM.o.0.0.0.0...0.0.0.0000000000 1 Definitions of Terms..................... ............ .. “J4 Related Materials.... .......... .............. ........ .. 6 General flethode of Research.. ........... . ......... l.... 8 II. OBJECTIVES OF THE EXTEHSION SER‘iCE..................... 10 Federal Legislative Acts.... ......... inxi.............. 10 Financing of Extension............... ...... .. ......... . 18 Interpretation of Extension Objectives......... ...... .. 23 Simmer-v”................ ....... ...... . ............ . 28 III. EVALUATION OF PRESENT COUNTY CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS..... 31 Evaluation of the Michigan System...................... 31 Evaluation of Systems Used by Other States.. ........ ... 57 S‘tnlhrary... ...... 00.000.00.00. ....... ....OOOOOOOIOOOO... 59 Iv. SELECTION OF FACTORS FOR COUNTY CLASSIFICATION.......... 60 Criteria for Selecting Factors......................... 60 Analysis of Factors That Might be Used................. 61 Summary........................ ....................... . E? v. MISHIGAE POPULATION CLASSES................. ........ .... 65 Pepulation of Michigan................ ............. .... ‘9 Urban Pepulation Categories............................ 7h Rural Farm Pepulation....................... Rural Non-Farm Population.................. . . ...... . 99 Summary.......................... ..................... . 113 11 Titza or compares, eonerrrr: CHAPTER PAGE VI. PROPOSED METHOD FOR ALLOCATING EXTENSION REEOTfiiES....... 116 Method Based on Federal Appropriations.................. 117 Method Based on Weighted Population Classes............. 128 Summary................................................. 136 VII. SUMMARY AED CONCLUSIONS.................................. 130 BIBLIOGRAPHY.................................................. 130 avg/Exxmlxoooooo000.000000000000000000000.0000...a...uoooooooooo EASE; iii TABLE I. II. III. IV. VII. VIII. IX. X. XI. XII. 1‘1 :5? C ‘P.A3 [1E3 F533 Bases for Distribution of Federal Extension Funds to States and Territories. 1950—51, by Acts of Congress............................... ........ ... 10 Distribution of Federal Extension Funds to Michigan, 19h9—50 Fiscal Year by Acts of Congress........... ?1 Census nets of 1950 on Six Factors used in Present Michigan County Classification System............. #3 nkinge of Michigan Counties and Per Cent of Average Figures as Determined by Present System... ho Rural and Urban Population of Michigan Counties, 1950 Census (New Urban Definition)................ 7? Categories of Michigan Urban Pepuletisn by Counties (l950)................................... 77 Average Number of Michigan Fern Persons Per Farm by Counties (IBUO and 1930 Census)................ 8% Estimate of 1950 Michigan Rural Fern Population by Counties....................................... 99 1950 Michigan Rural Non-Fern Population by Counties 100 Estimate of 1350 Michigan Rural Non-Farm Non- Villege Population by Counties.................... 111 a y Sumnary of 1950 Michigan Urban Population.......... 11h Summary of 1950 Michigan Rural Pepuletion.......... 115 iv TABLES XIII. XIV. XVI. XVII. XVIII. XII. LIST OF TABLES, COHTIYUED Amount of 1950-195? Federal and State Funds Available to Michigan Counties Determined by Eases of Federal Allocation of Funds to Michigan...................... Rankings and Extension units of Michigan Extension Administrative Units Determined by Basis of Alloca- tion of Funds to Michigan............................ Michigan Urban Population Classes and Weightings...... Michigan Rural Farm Population Classes and Weightings. Michigan Rural Non-Farm Pepulation Classes and leightings........... ....... .... ..... ................ Example of Scoring Procedure for Counties (Ingham County).............................................. Ratings and Extension Units of Michigan Administrative Units Determined by Basis of Weighted Population 0188883....0.........OOOOOOOOIOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ... FAG- E‘J lhh CF ‘TER I INTRODUCTION OF TEE Phfihllu The county is in: basic unit in the satiristroti o crxarire- tion of the Hichigcn Cooperative Estes -icn Service. There are differences in the si"e of t =c Ex eIsicn tenchina job from county to county. A major ed"i “I Wrs ive Tr“b.+n is to allocate public funds and Exte ensin npcrecnnel to each co czty. Beam-sse of thew differences a rating scime c to nczsnre tire sis e cf tie Entensicn teaching load in the counties is needed so that prcnnr s'lrceiic" l of Extension resources can.be made. A basic policy of the Extension Service in Michisan is to move itself available to all people in need of its services. ”his L is done .-y proviczing at lens-t one nrcfessi onsd wor‘ er to 823.: ‘r '- cczzntr re»ardless of othsr considcrntic.s. This is a worthwhile policy because itr p rcv ific cs for accessible outposts and infcrust - centers of th88W3rl011t12ral college t} reu;ncut the stats. Wren funds nermit tie employment of more workers than this minimum, the ccuz..ties meritir g the additional workers must be de c:mined. There are varying factors which inf LeIce tlm size of the Ex- tezsion teaching load. An satirical study will rcveel me.y 6ie~ similarities in population nurlcrs, land area, tyres of acricul- ture, and cultural backgrounds. ”hose dissin 1 ,Jo .aritics must be l C. V. Ballard, Director of the HiCIigsn COOjer'.tive E"term ion Service, oral convu.icn.icr. recognized when making personnel assignments as well as when form- ulating salary schedules for county'profsssional workers. Because of their positions stats administrators must make these decisions. Arbitrary Judgments. even if valid, are difficult to dofsnd.whsn quostionsd.by county workers and local people. The difficulty is magnified when a county's demands are not commensurate with avail- able funds. An objective means of measuring the Extension teaching load would assure clearer understanding of allocation methods by Extension personnel and the people. Administrators in all states are confronted with the sans problems of allocating limited personnel and financial resources to the several counties of their respective states. Although con- fined to the state of Michigan the study should be of value to any stats desiring a systematizsd means for spreading Extension resources among its counties. Definitions of Terms Allocation of Extension resources. By this is meant the distribution of personnel and funds made available to the Mich- igan Extension Service for the counties of the state. It is to be understood that Operating funds for the Extension Service de- rive from Federal, state. and county sources. However. county funds were not considered in this system of allocation because these are not under direct control of the state Extension admin- istration. Extension teaching load. This refers to the amount of Ex- tension educational responsibility in a county. In Extension learning groups, participation is voluntary, causing difficulty in accurate measurement of participating numbers. The definition of an Extension teaching load must not be limited to those actually served, but must include the potential numbers of’perticipants in any county. This is unlike the teaching load of a formal school organization. in which the number of peeple to be served is ac- tually known, forming a basis for individual teaching assignments. Classification of counties. This term implies the utilization of a measuring system to determine the size of the Extension teach- ing load in any county or administrative unit of the Michigan Ex- tension Service. The Michigan googgrative Extension Service. The division of Michigan State College charged by law with disseminating agricul- tural and home economics information to the peeple of the state, except those residing at the College, is the Michigan Cooperative Agricultural Extension Service. This organization is cooperative, in accordance with the Smith-Lever Act,2 being a Joint undertaking of the Federal and state governments. The general functions of this organization are outlined in the Smith-Lever‘Act.3 This or- ganization was referred to as the Extension Service, the Service, and the Cooperative Extension Service. References to the Federal Extension Service and to the Extension Service of other states were specifically designated. Administrative unit. An administrative unit is the smallest division of the State Extension Service to cover a specific geo- graphical area. Ordinarily these units are counties, but exceptions are found in other units which are composed of two counties combined or, in two instances, of one and one-half counties. The latter groupings have been made largely due to the spare settlement in parts of the northern Cut-over region of the state. Extension worker. This term applies to any professional mem- ber of the Michigan Extension Service. These workers are coopera- tive employees of the nation and the state and are cooperatively salaried. 2 .Alfred C. True, A.History of Agricultural_Extension Worgfiin the United States,gl]SS-l923 , (Washington: United States Government Printing Office, 19287. pp. 195-197. 3 Loc. cit. County agent. The title of county agent is used to designate county Extension workers who are primarily responsible for the agricultural teaching activities of the Extension Service. Included in this grouping are the positions of County Agricultural Agent. Associate County Agricultural Agent, and the Assistant County Agri- cultural Agent. County Home Demonstration Agent. The term as used refers to those county workers who are primarily responsible for the home economics activities carried on within a county. h—H Club Agent. The county worker chiefly responsible for Extension youth programs of a county is thus designated. Extension administrators. Extension administrators are those workers responsible for the state leadership of the Michigan Ex- tension Service. Positions included are Director, Assistant Di- rector, State Agricultural Leader, State h-H Club Leader, State Home Demonstration Leader, Specialist in Extension Training. and the four District Supervisors of the Michigan Service. Related Materials Literature on county classificatign. Little study on county classification has been reported to date. One method of county classification was developed by a groupuof Michigan Extension Service administrators and specialists. Various factors were selected and weighted which these individuals felt would.best re- flect the relative Extension teaching load in each county. A more complete discussion of this system occurs in Chapter Three. A review of existing schemes used by the Extension Service of other states was found in a circular of the Federal Extension Service.5 This report outlines the formulas used by Georgia, Michigan, North Carol1na, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. The information contained in this report on these formulas is also discussed in Chapter Three. Census data. Most census figures used in this study were based on the 1950 Bureau of the Census reports. The agricultural data on farm numbers and related information came from the prelim- inary 1950 Census of Agriculture. u Michigan CooPerative Extension Service, 'County Classification”, (unpublished mimeographed report on file, office of the Director, Michigan COOperative Extension Service, East Lansing, Michigan). H.W.Gilbsrtson, 'An.Analysis of the Sources and.Uses of COOpera~ tive Extension Funds,“ Extension Service Circular No. M75 (Washing- 6ton: united Stated Department of Agriculture, August 1951), pp.39-h8. "Farms, Farm Characteristics, Farm Products,“ Preliminary 1950 Census of Aggiculture, Series‘AC 50-1 (Washington: Bureau.of the, Census, September 13, 1951). Figures on population were obtained from advance reports re- 7 leased by the Bureau of the Census. More complete data was found in a later report.8 Other census data.used in this study are specifically cited where used throughout the text. Literature on Extension objectives. The chief sources of mater- ial on the purpose of the Service were the laws and enactments af- fecting the organization and the interpretation of these given by Congressmen and leaders of the Extension Service. Specific refer- ence to these materials is made in Chapter Two. ”Population of’Michigan: April,, 1950,” 1950 Census of Population Advance Reports, Series PC—S, so. 21 (Washington: Bureau of the Census, October 7, 1951). 8 "number of Inhabitants, Michigan,” 1950 United States Census of gppulation, Series P-A22, Preprint of Vblume 1, chapter 22 (Wash- ington: United States Government Printing Office, 1951). General Methods of Research Establishment of objectives. The first step in a system for allocation of Extension resources in counties was to determine the purpose of the Extension organization. The determination was made by considering the enabling Federal legislation - the Smith-Lever Act of l9lh - and subsequent Federal legislation affecting Extension work - the Capper-Ketcham Act of 1928, the Bankhead-Flanagan Act of l9h5, the Research and.Uarketing Act of 19h6, and others. A study of these laws was used in ascertaining the general purpose of the Service; however, they proved to be written broadly and are not entirely consistent with each other as to a basic pur- pose of the Service. Therefore, a study was made to determine the intent of these laws by reviewing statements of legislators and others who were instrumental in securing passage of Extension acts. Also, policy opinions of leaders in Extension, from earliest days of Extension to the present, were inspected. The rationale of the Extension Service is then summarized as a basis for deve10ping a system for measurement of the teaching load of the counties in the allocation of Extension resources. Selection of factors. Objectives of the service were estab- lished to aid in selecting those factors to be considered in mea- suring the size of the Extension teaching load. Present systems for rating counties used by Michigan and other states were evaluated in terms of the objectives of the Extension Service. Those factors viewed as most effective in measuring the Extension potential in a county were selected. Eggplgtion classes. The foregoing analysis resulted in the .utilization of population classes as a means for measuring the teaching load in the counties. A review of population categories established by the Bureau of the Census and other organizations was made. This permitted categorizing of the pepulation by place of residence. The number of people in each category for each county was then determined, based en the 1950 Census of Agriculture and Population. The relative importance of each established population class to the total Extension responsibility was determined with Extension objectives as a basis. These classes were given numerical weights values according to their respective importance. The methods used will be described in greater detail throughout the remainder of the report. 10 CHAPTER II OBJECTIVES OF THE EXTENSION SERVICE The development of a county classification system and the evaluation of present systems required that the rationale of the Extension Service be lucidly established. The aim of this chap- ter is to examine the legislative enactments and the policy inter- pretations relating to Extension so that the responsibility could be ascertained. This was difficult because of the nature of the or- ganization. Its simultaneous deveIOpment in various parts of the country gave rise to some confliecting ideas as to exactly what the Service ought to be doing. The enabling legislative enactments and subsequent acts affecting Extension are not entirely harmoniuos as to a basic policy. Review was made of these laws, as well as the interpretation of them by instigating legislators and leading Ex- tension personnel. Also this chapter gives an account of the basis for distributing funds that are apprOpriated for the Opera» tion of the organization. Federal Legislative Acts Smith-Lever Act of lfilh. This was the enabling legislative act of the Extension Service. .A complete copy of this law may be found in the Appendix of this report. Section Two of this law reads: That cooperative agricultural extension work shall consist of the giving of instruction and practical dem- onstrations in agriculture and home economics to persons ll not attending or resident in the said colleges in the several communities, and imparting to such persons information on said subjects through field demonstrations, publications, and other— wise; and this work shall be carried on in such a manner as may be mutually agreed upon by the Secretary of Agriculture and the state agricultural college or colleges receiving the benefits of this act.1 The colleges referred to in this act were those which received the benefits of the Merrill Act of 1362, granting Federal aid to the 2 states for establishing and supporting agricultural colleges and the Hatch Act of 1387,3which established experiment stations to carry on research for the colleges. The general pinpose of the Smith-Lever Act was to carry the results of agricultural research at the state colleges to the farm people. The cooperative nature of the act provided that the land- grant college of the state cooperate with the United States Depart- ment of Agriculture in administrating the Extension Service. With- in the first year a sum of ten thousand dollars, to be continued annually, was given to each state. which did not require offset by the state. This provision was made to supply funds sufficient for establishing a nucleus organization in each state to draw plans for Service administration and programs. Additional funds over the ten thousand dollars were granted to the states which required an equal amount of offset from state sources. Six hundred thousand 1 Lincoln D. Kelsey and Cannon C. Hearne. Gosperative Estension Work (Ithaca, New York: Comstock Publishing Company, 13kg), p. 398. 2 .Alfred 0. True, A Histgzy_pf Aggjggnggpgggghng log in the_United §IP§£ED_}1§§:}325' iWashingtcn: United Stated Government Printing OffICO. 1999). pp. 99-101- 3 Ibid., pp. 208-210. dollars was added the first year. and five hundred thousand dollars was to be added each year for seven years. The money distributed to each state was based.upon the proportion of ruralngpulation of each state to the total ruralpopulation of the country based upon the last preceding census. The intent of this legislation definitely was to help rural people. At the turn of the century, leaders of government were coming to realize that the nation's progress and oresperity'depended to a large measure. upon the social and economic health of the rural pepulace. In particular. interest in helping rural youth stemmed from the feeling of educators about the inadequate rural schools of that time. which were not especially related to farm living. One manifestation of this educational inadequacy was the flow of youth from fans to city.5 Senator Vardaman, one of the leaders in Congress supporting the Smith-Lever Act, expressed his opinion on its objectives as follows: . . . . how. the purpose of this bill (Smith-Lever) is to help the tillers of the land to discover the hidden riches of the soil. to devise methods of cultivation which will lessen the burden of farm life by shortening the hours of drudgery. and render more productive the land. Its splen- did purpose is to improve the man. enlarge his mental hor— ison. and give intelligent direction to his efforts. The 37' Additional discussion of this act may be found in the book of Kelsey and Kearne. op.cit.. Chapter Three. q Franklin I. Beck. The h—H Storz, (Ames, Iowa: The Iowa State College Press, 1951), p.vii. 13 effort also will add comforts to the country home, lighten the burdens of woman, afford greater opportunities to the boys and girls upon whose shoulders must fall the responsi- bilities of home and the burden of government. Dr. Seaman A" Knapp. one of the best known early Extension leaders, heped the bill would readjust agriculture and give country 7 living an increased dignity. Representative Lever, Chairman of the House Committee on Agriculture and co-author of the Act. hoped the bill would help the farmer with distribution.problems. as well as 8 increase his production and aid him in becoming a better citizen. Theodore Roosevelt was the first president who felt that a system of Extension would benefit the farmer, as evidenced by his statement: . . . . there is no greater agricultural problem than that delivering to the farmer the large body of agricultur- al knowledge which has been accumulated by the National and State Governments. and by the agricultural colleges and schools. Nowhere has the Government worked to better adv vantage than in the South. where . . . in many places the bell weevil became a blessing in disguise. . . . It is needless to say that every such successful effort to or- ganize the farmer gives a stimulus to the admirable educa- tional work being done . . . to prepare young people for an agricultural life. . . . Education (he concluded) should not confine itself to books.9 Kelsey and Hearne. op.cit.. pp. 33-3h. Ibide ’ P0 330 Loc. cit. \OGNO‘ Theodore Roosevelt. "The Man Who Works with His Hands.I United States Department of Agriculture Circular No. 2h-(Washington: Office of the Secretary, United States Department of Agriculture. 1907), pp. 8, 10-11. In There appeared to be no doubt in the minds of these and other early promoters of the Extension Service that its first and fore- most responsibility was to the rural citizenry of the nation. Dur- ing world War I emergency appropriations from Congress enabled expansion of the program beyond Smith-Lever provisions. Shortages of certain essential agricultural products during the war were responsible for this action. It was felt that the Extension Ser- vice could do much to increase production and to educate people in meeting scarcity of certain farm products. The Extension Service record during that period indicates that it did much to achieve this short term objective. This situation probably contributed to the thinking of many early workers which still persists that the main objective of the Service was to increase production, and the higher goals such as better life for the rural people would take care of themselves. CapperéKetcham.Act of 1928. The maximum funds, outside of emergency war assistance, became available under the Smith-Lever Act in the fiscal year of 1922-1923 and were destined to remain constant from there on. Overproduction and resulting low prices were responsible for widespread rural adversity that certainly could not be overcome by increased production. Public acceptance of. and confidence in, the Extension Service generated feeling that the Service should be enlarged to facilitate its effective treat- ment of these problems. This led to passage of the CapperBKetcham 9.4 \31 10 Act of 1928. a complete copy of which may be found in the Appendix of this report. The provisions of this enactment are much the same as the Smith-Lever.Act. A sum of twenty thousand dollars was granted to each state, not requiring offset by state sources. A sum of half a million dollars was made available to the states in preportion of their total rural pgpulatigp_to the total gggal_population of the nation. The value of u-s Clubs organized under the direction of the Extension Service was instrumental in gaining support of this act. Committee members of Congress listened.to testimonies of enthusiastic “-3 Club members who had found.persona1 benefits in Club work. These rural youth told of the help to themselves and their families in the application of improved methods suggested by their Extension workers. This incident is evident within the Act, which specified that the work was to be "with men, women. boys. and girls."11 Concern was seen over the fact that a large proportion of men agents was employed, as compared with women agents. Consequently the Act provided that expansion of the Service should be effected with men and women agents in fair and Just proportions. Passage of this bill resulted in largely increased h-H and home economics activ- ities within the Service. 10 Kelsey and Hearne. op.cit.. pp.h01-u02. 11 Beck. gp.cit., p.231. 12 Egnkhead:ggn§s Act of 1935. The increase in agencies of the Department of Agriculture that were established for dealing with depression problems resulted in the enlargement of the Ex- tension Service so that it could assist these other agencies through its educational work. Eight million dollars was appropriated the first year, with each state receiving twenty thousand dollars. The remainder of the appropriated amount was to be distributed to each state in proportion to its total farm_p0pulation to the total farm. population of the nation. One million dollars was apporticnsd in this way. ‘None of the amount appropriated by this Act required state offset. This probably was due to the prevailing poor finan- cial condition of many of the states. The two maJor differences between this law and the two pre- vious acts were that farm population instead of rural population was used to apportion the funds, and that the funds provided did not require off set by the state. The first difference is signi- ficant evidence that Congress desired Extension activity directed toward those people whose incomes derived from agricultural pur- suits, rather than persons who resided in rural areas, but who had other means of income. ‘A copy of this law may be found in the Appendix of this report. 12 Kelsey and Hearne. oo.cit.. PP. ”OhuhOS. 17 13 he Banahead-Tlanaran Act_g§_l£2§, The purpose of this Act was to wider expansion of the Extension Service, particularly in county work.1h The Appendix contains a copy of this Act. This law is rather lengthy and detailed, so attention is only directed at its major provisions. It provided for four and one- half million dollars each year after the first year, plus an addi- tional four million dollars starting after the second year. In general. the provisions followed the Smith-Lever Act. with some exceptions. These provisions were that only two per cent of the money from this Act could be used for expenses of the Federal Ex- tension Service, and that the apportionment be based on farm popup lation. .A half million dollars could be used by the Secretary of Agriculture to assist certain states having special needs as de— termined by him. provided that it did not exceed ten per cent of the amount already endowed the state by the Act. These "hardship“ funds also had to be offset by funds from state sources. This act emphasized broad matters relating t9 improvement of rural standards of living, such as better nutrition, rather than 15 those relating to increased agricultural production. i3 1mm. pp. hos-hog. 1h "'"" Ibid.. p. 32. Ibid.. p. 33. 13 Eigpellaneougégggg. There are some other acts that provided Federal funds for the Extension Service. The Farm Forestry Acts of 192M and 1937 granted $38,130 to the Extension Service so that it could give increased assistance in educational work pertaining to forestry activities. The Research and Marketing Act of 19h6 provided one-half million dollars to promote educational work on matters relating to the Act. Both of these require at least equal offset by the states. The Farm Housing Act of 19h9 granted $33,050 to the Service to enlarge its educational work in housing problems. This money does not require offset. Financing of Extension Federal Sources, The preceding section lists some of the main sources of funds and bases of apportionment. The manner in which they were distributed can best be shown by the following table, Table I. This Table is based on the 1950-51 fiscal year (July 1, 1950, to June 30. 1951) of the Federal Government. The significant revelations of this Table are the percentages of the total amount that comprised the various bases of d18tf1bfl9 tion. Seventybone per cent of all Federal funds were distributed on the basis of farm population, i.e.. those persons that the Fed— eral census listed as actually living on producing farms. Fifteen per cent was distributed on the basis of rural population. i.e.. all persons living outside centers of p0pulation having less than twentybfive hundred inhabitants. This latter group: of course. in- cluded farm people also. The remaining 1N per cent was distributed according to special needs to certain states. 19 TfiBLE I BASES FOR DISTRIBUTION OF FEDERAL EXTENSION FUNDS TO SEATES AND TERRITORIES, 1950-51, BY ACTS OF CONGRESS* To be paid Amount of State Basis of Act” °f °°n5r°93 without offset_o{§set rquired Distpitgggon l Smith-Lever Act,191h, $ $8,208,660.06 $308,660.06 and extension to Alaska, 510,000 Proportion of Hawaii, and Puerto Rico rural population (permanent, annual of State to total approyriation) U.S. rural peon- lation Capperbxetcham Act,1928 and extension to Alaska, Hawaii. and Puerto Rico $1,020,000 511,828.00 511,828.00 figral_gopu1atigg u,720.1+88.08-Tota1 on rural popula- tion basis - 15 per cent Bank‘nead-Jones Act,1935 81.14.08.000 11.020.808.00 Basis farm popur lation, us States. Alaska, Hawaii Bamcheanffiamgan Act, l9h5 None 11.790.862.00 11.790.362.00 Basis farm popur lation 22, 811,‘6’70.00-'rot31 on farm pepula tion basis - _ 71 PQEL££E§ Farm Forestry Acts,192‘4 ‘ 88,180.00 Allocated to 1}: and 1937 dividual States Further DeveIOpment $ 555,000.00 on basis of spec- Act, 1939. In conformity ial needs and with historical base cov- adjustments ered in U.S.D~L.organic act of 19hh, Title II. Bankhead-Flanagan.Act. Sec. 23 500,000.00 Research and Market- ing Act, 191631130 11. Sec. 20h (b) 528,000.00 Farm Housing.Act,19h9, Total 32,17h,388.06 Percentage of total 1h, ,858.00 17.627.530.06 1.70h,230 - Total Federal funds 5 per cent 55 per cent distributed on basis of need - __1 IDEQer_cent . ILIS Gilbertson, "An Analysis of the Sources and Uses of Gosperative Extension Funds“ Extension Service Circular M75 (Washington: U.S. Dent. of.Agricu1ture. Asgust 1951). p.15. * Stetgwsourcgg; The Ste‘e 0’ .i'bigan is requirsd to march at least the minimum amount of Federal furtrs snI.c*I reouire offset, if Federal funds are to be obtained. This it does at the Irescnt tim e and exceeds this amount conoiflerebtv. Tabl we Two shows the amounts received from the Federal sources in the fiscal year of lghg-lgao, A comparison of Trbls Cne ané Two revealed tLat 76 or cent of the Federal funds that accrued to Michigan in the fisczal vear of 1353“ 1951 were based on the farm population of the state as compared with o lo 71 per cent of the Eece cra.l funds tint accrued to the nation as a whole. The state received 17 per cent, or 2 per cent more than the average, cased on total rural notulaticn. Oulv 7 pIr cent was rec cive dbased on special need, as compared with lb per cent for the average of the nation. The larger amount that the Michigan Extension Service acouirsd from state sourCes compared to that acquired from Federal sources it 17 toe fiscal year of 1939-1950 is shown in tr e followir us table. Sources Total Per Cent of Tctel - Funds from Federal sources (offset required) $ 509,567.7M 2h per cent Funds from Federal sources (offset not required) 365,229.h0 18 Funds from state and college sources 85M,E£5.h, hl Funds within state from countv sources ___‘§EJE§§;§O 1 ¢/,o4c,o58.b3 100 per cent 1” These tables, altr ougjh based on two different yerflr are ccoosrsble because t}e 1940 census enumera.tionw was used in both cases for the bases of distrioution. No changes occurred in either year as a result of other conditions. 17 "Report of Cooperative Extension Work in Agriculture and Home Eco— nomics, 1951,“ United States Department of Agriculture (Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office. 1952) no, h3.61. 21 TABLE II DISTRIBUTION or FEDERAL Exrsnsxon FUNES TO EHIGAH, 19h9-50 FISCAL YEAR BY ACTS or 002m 333 5* Ar__.-___ -F_ Acts of Congress To be Paid Amount of Bases of Without State Off- Distribution Offieet ;est_rsssissfi Smith-Lever Act,191h $ 10,000.00 $129,007.00 Preportion of Mich.Rursl Poou1.at ion to Total U.S.Rl- rnl Populatign Capner‘Ketchum Act 1928 20,000.00 15,683;36 sgggisgggggzo ‘f_ Prooortion of Mich. Farm Pop- ulation to To- Bsnkhosd-Jones Act 1935 332,829.u0 none tal U.S.Fsrm Population (in~ eluding Alaska and Hs3siil__ Banrbssd-Flannran Act‘19u5 none 5,5,85_2.fl same as sbgze Farm“ Forestry Act 1924 none 1,630.00 Special Need Adjustment U.S.DcA. Organic Act of l9uh. Title II, Bankhead- nous 1,620.00 same as above F1 ”Egan Ag #Sec. 23_ Research and Marketing Act, 1936, Title II, none 28,079.56 same as above See. 20h (b) __i __ Farm Housing_Act Title V 24U00.0 none same as @0333 Totals $s7h,797.1h $365,229.h0 $509,567.7h Per cent of total funds nger cegg_m 58 Egg_ggng Sources Total Per cent of Total ApprOpriated based on rural population $lhh,695.96 17 ApprOpriated based on farm papulation 666,351.62 76 Appropriated based on special needs 6§,Zlfl.fi6 7 Total $37h.797.1h 100 fi .2— ---. -m Table reproduced from statistics found in “Report of Cooperative Extension Work in Agriculture and Home Economics. 1951, ' United States Department of Agriculture (Washington: United States Government Print- 1ug OfIics, 195?), pp. “2-61. R) [‘0 The table shows that the Michigan Extension Service acquired 58 per cent of its operating funds from sources within the state. The minimum amount for offset was more than twice that required. The funds apnr0priated by the state are part of the Michigan State College budget, and as such are free from state legislative specification.18This money was made available to constitute the off- set necessary for acquiring Federal money, thereby indicating that the Service should Operate in the manner specified by Federal laws and enactments. It would, however, be hazardous to come to the same conclusion regarding the amount apprOpriated by the state over that required and the amount contributed by county governing boards. 18 H. A. Berg, Assistant Director of the Michigan COOperative Exten- sion Service, oral communication. 23 Interpretation of Extension Objectives Joint Committee Report. In 19h6 a committee was appointed to study and make recommendations on programs, policies, and goals of the 19 Extension Service. The anpointment of this committee was recommended in October l9h5 by Secretary of Agriculture Clinton.P. Anderson to the 20 President of the Association of Land-Grant Colleges and Universities. This recommendation stated: Many of the basic extension ideas, particularly with refer- ence to organization, programs, and procedures, were develOped prior to and during the First World War. I feel that there are now a number of important basic problems in connection with the Cooperative Extension Service and its relationships with the De- partment of Agriculture that need careful study and re—evaluation. Some of these problems are fundamental to the effective cooperation of the Department of Agriculture and the land grant colleges to attain maximum results in their joint efforts towards common goals. It seems to me that this is the time for both the colleges and Department to appraise carefully the services and the experience of the COOperative Extension Service for the pest third of a cen- tury and to regimmend broad extension policies, procedures and relationships. The committee consisted of an equal number of members from both 22 the Department and the Association. An examination of this study and its findings was of value to this report. 19 "Joint Committee Report on Extension Programs, Policies. and Goals" (Washington: United States Government Printing Office, 19kg), p. iii. 20 Loc. cit. 21 Loc. cit. 22 For names of committee members, see Appendix. R1 42' The committee felt that "the primary function of the COOperative ?3 Extension in agriculture and home economics is education." It grouped the contributions of past Extension activities into twelve areas. These were: 1. Applying the Findings of Research 2. Solving Problems through Group Action 3. Understanding Economic and Social Factors u. Improving Family Diets 5. Improving Other Functions of the Homemaker 6. Work with Rural Youth 7. Counselling of Farm Problems 8. Mobilizing Rural Peeple to Meet Emergencies 9. Contributing to the Science of Government and Education 10. Aiding Esthetic and Cultural Growth of Farm People 11. Contributing to Urban Life 12. Developing Rural Leadership The committee recognized that the major responsibility of Exten- sion was to farm people: however, it cited the phrase of the Smith- Lever Act which states that Extension's responsibility is to the peo- ple of the United States, and it used this as a basis for indicating that Extension should work to some extent with all people interested in agriculture and home economics.25 The fact that the total farm pap- ulation is steadily decreasing proportionately was given as the reason for directing Extension efforts toward part-time farmers and non-com- mercial farmers, to city workers residing in rural areas, and inhabi- tants of small towns, as well as to actual farm peeple. The phrase 23 ”Joint Committee Report." on. cit.. p. 1. 2h Ibid., pp. 3-5. 25 Ibid. , Po 3. Q) kn cited was also given for justification of Extension time spent with city dwellers on gardening, landscaping, and home interests. Extension emphasis on rural work is substantiated by: The stake of extension in good education, country and even city, is clear. With the increasing complexity of our interwoven life and the increasing application of science to agriculture, anything less than educational parity between country and citv is completely unjustified. . . . Until such equality is achieved, extension, as an educational agency, will have to deal with a pop- ulation group, which in comparison with the city pepulation, will be disadvantaged in terms ofpghe amount and the quality of formal education they will receive.‘ The committee considered the existing staff of workers too small, but it considered this smallness of size a stimulus to effective organ- ization which would facilitate better assignment of personnel and re- sources according to need. ngeral Committee Reporj, Prior to the appointment of the Joint committee, the Federal Extension Service of the United States Depart- ment of Agriculture organized a committee from its own internal organ- . o ization to consider the scepe of Extension educational responsibility.C7 The committee then categorized these responsibilities into three groups. These were content, Operational, and functional. Under the heading of ’functional responsibilities were placed these groups: the diffusion of information, development of interest in significant problems, encourage- ment of planning. and stimulation of action upon decisions. The Opera- tional responsibility was coisidered to all peeple of the country inter- ested in information on agriculture and home economics on an out-of—school 26 Ibid.. p. 66. 27 “Report of Committee of the Federal Extension Staff on the Scope of Extension's Educational Responsibility" (Washington: United States Gov- ernment Printing Office, 19h6). p. l. basis, regardless of place of residence, age. economic status, or other restricting factors. The committee felt that the Operational respon- sibility was first to the peOple living on farms, but not solely to 28 then. The content responsibility was felt to be in an evolutionary state, ever changing. The content of Extension programs was determined by the peeple; therefore. they usually were willing participants in 29 Extension programs. 30 Other interoretetions. Brunner and.Yang state that the word objective is frequently used by the Extension worker. For some of these workers one objective was the increase of production through the use of recommended practices. "The real objective of all these lesser object- 31 ives is the improvement of the pe0ple.' These two authors felt that the main task of the Service was helping of rural peoole by the appli- cation of science to their daily lives so that they could help them- selves. Smith and Wilson listed the main objectives of Extension as follows: 1. To increase the net income of the farmer through more efficient use of capital and credit. 2. To promote better homes and a higher standard of living on the farm. 28 Ibid.. p. 2. 29 Ibid.. p. 2. 3O Edmund deS. Brunner and E. Hsein Pao Yang, Rural America and the Extension Service (New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers Col- lege. Columbia fihiversity, l9u9), pp. 1M7-lh8. 31 Loc. cit. . To develop rural leaders. . To promote the mental. social, cultural, recreational. and community life of the rural people. To implant a love of rural life in the farm boys and girls. To acquaint the public with the place of agriculture in the national life. To enlarge the vision of rural people and the nation on rural matters. . To improve the educational and Spiritual life of the rural people. mflmgw Hoffer and Gibson state, "the purpose of agricultural work is to 33 help farmers improve rural life." 32 Clarence B. Smith and Meredith C. Wilson, The Agricultural Ertensign Svstep of the United States (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., lQEJY, pp 0 5:5. v—W 33 - C. R. Hoffer and D. L. Gibson, "The Community Situation as it Affects Agricultural Extension Work.” Special Bulletin 312 East Lansing, Kichi- gan: Michigan State College Agricultural Experiment Station, October, 1914].) 9 Po 5- I") (.1 Summary The purpose of the foregoing presentation was to sketch the ob- jectives of the Extension Service. It is seen that individual Opinions varied considerably. Broad in scone were the basic laws affecting Extension; therefore. any of the interpretations given might be Justi— fied according to these documents. Qmalitatively, certain conclusions that aopear to be consistent with the overall intent of these Federal acts and the intent of other apprOpriating bodies were reached. based on Extension objectives. One readily perceived objective is education. The Extension Service's educational responsibility is: first, to rural farm people. second, to rural non-farm peoole, and third, to urban people. This ranking could be defended from the standpoint that well over half the funds appro- priated by Federal legislative bodies is based on the proportion of farm peOple and rural peeple. but none on proportions of urban peeple. Qpantitatively. the demarcation lines are difficult to delineate. Exactly how much of Extension resources should go to each population class will be considered by this study. That Extension has demands for service from others besides farm people is apparent. Their claims for service as taxpayers to public-supported Extension are not to be overlooked. On the other hand, many governmental organizations exist which benefit only limited segments of the total pepulation. The difficulty in arriving at a solution of this dilemma stems in part from the broad wording of the Smith-Lever Act which charges 29 the Service with the teaching of agriculture and home economics to "the people.“ This is an extensive, liberal charter which appears to be inconsistent with the basis of fund distribution outlined by the same law. The phrase "the people" provides. however, some justifica- tion for working with non-farm residents. Contrariwise, the basis of fund distribution, of this and subsequent acts, offers defense for ex- cluding non-farm groups from Extension services. For many years Extension administrators have been concerned over this question, which is becoming more pressing because of the decreasing proportion of farm population to the total pOpulation and because of the heavier demands on the Service from non-farm people. The fact that the organization has not been able to meet the de- mands of its primary res-onsibility - the farm people - should preclude considerations of work with other groups. When the first goal has been approached, activities with other groups might more justifiably be con- templated. But until that time, Extension is charged with directing the major portion of its resources toward rural farm peOple. Local non-farm people desiring service might contribute to the maintenance of Special workers for themselves, thus making aided service to them advisable. Unless Extension receives specific direction to work with non-farm people from Federal and state appropriating bodies, the Service should first strive to assist the farm people. When their demands are reasonably well met, service to other groups would be permissable. Based on the review of basic Extension legislation and objectives it seems clear that Extension resources must be allocated among the counties according to the rural and the rural farm pepulations. Exten- sion is financed to perform its educational functions to these people. As a public service Extension has a moral obligation to serve all resi- dence groups as far as possible. However, until legislation is enacted and finances are provided to serve other groups, preference must be given to rural groups in the allocation of Extension resources. This is especially true when funds are inadequate to meet all the demands of this group, which Extension is charged specifically to serve. CHAPTE3.III EVALUATION OF PRESEflT COUYTY CLASSIFICATIQH SYSTEMS Methods of county classification used in Michigan and other states for allocating Extension resources may'be evaluated in terms of the Cooperative Extension Service objectives discussed in the pre- ceding chapter. The other states that have developed classification systems are Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. In this chapter some of these systems are examined and are evaluated. Evaluation of the Michigan System The present Michigan system. The Michigan Extension Service 1 was one of the first to develop a system for county classification. This method was deveIOped by a group of Extension administrators and specialists who selected certain factors on which reliable data were 2 available. They listed six factors as a basis for comparing work sit- uations within the counties. These factors and their reasons given for selection were: 1. Number of farms. This factor was considered because (a) Each farm, large or small, presents a set of prob- lems, in management, peculiar to itself. (b) The interests of rural families center around the farm as a place to live and make a living. (c) The number of farms provides a measure of the num- ber of farm families in a county around which the county extension program is built. 1 Michigan Cooperative Extension Service. ”County Classification" (unpublished mimeographed report on file, Office of the Director, Michigan Cooperative Extension Service, East Lansing, Michigan). 2 Ibid.. p. 3. \J I v.) 2. an her_ of com: erp_-l_ff:1_ This factor was used f-o the same reason as the ”number of farms" but in some ways it gives an even better picture of the farms served by a county extension worker because of tie definition of a farm used in the census. [This 1933 Census of Agriculture defines a con ercial farm as any far: that reported a gross incon me of over two huncred fiftv dollars in the year 1939 from sale of agricultural products and where the operator worked less than a hundred days off the farm or reported less income from non-farm work than from sale of his agricultural products; 3. Rural‘fopulatiog The rural pOpulation of the counties includes all peonle living outside of towns having a population of more than 2,500. (a) People living in small towns and others living in rural areas, even though they do not depend on the farm for a livelihood add to the extension teaching load. hany exter iSiCD activities, especially Home Economics Clubs, are organized in and around a small town. (b) It is the responsibility of the extension avent to serve both the farm and non-farm peeple. (c) The funds allocated to the COOperative Extension Ser- vice under the Smith-Lever Act are based on the rural pOpulation. u. Urban Pooulation Vhereas extension workers 5: end a major portion of th time working with rural peeple a large urban pooulationr materially increases the number of people to be served by an extension agent. (a) City farmers, pet owners, ba.cm1rard gardeners and hor— ticultural enthusiasts make ever-increasing demands on a county agent's time. ‘ (b) Agents working in counties dominated by large cities have different problems than those working in strictly rural areas. (1) They have access to powerful radio stations and they work with large urban newspapers rather than the small town weekly. (9) They must maintain working relationships with a greater variety of organizations both in and out Of the city. (3) Usually the tax base is greater in the counties with lar5" 6 urban populations, thus making it poss- ible for agents in these counties to obtain bis- ger county appropriations from the Boards of Sn- pervisors, etc. 5. Farm Income Farm income is a major criteria of the extension ayent's job within a given county. It reflects: (a) The economic importance of the extension agent's job. (b) Specialized and highly develOped farm enterprises de- manding considerable technical knowledge. (c) Agricultural production. In that the extension job is a continuous one it cannot be accurately measured with an elastic yardstick. Farm incomes fluctuate widely between: (a) Different growing seasons (b) Different price levels The relative differences in the total farm income between counties is fairly consistent except in years of crop fail- ure in some local area. To minimize this possible bias the average farm income of the years 1929 and 1939 were used. 6. Area of the Counties This factor was used because of the great variation in size of Michigan counties. (a) In larger counties, all other factors being equal, it was recognized that the agent would have to serve more com- munities and more of his time would be used in travelins from place to place. (b) In some sparsely settled counties the roads are poor, farmers are scattered over a large area and are diffi- cult to reach by county workers. (c) The larger the county the less accessible the county extension office becomes to the outlying areas, requir- ing ghe agent to spend more time away from the office, etc. This data for the categories of this system were the most recent when the system was devised. Some of the data would have been available, but all were not, so all data were based on the l9hO Census of Population and Agriculture. The committee felt that these six factors were not of equal importance in reflecting the size of a county Extension teaching load, so a formula weight was given to each of the factors as follows: 3—. # Ibidc’ p. 1-20 KN 4:? Factor The Formula Weight lumber of farms Number of commercial farms Rural p0pulation Urban population Farm income average, 19?9-l939 Area of county HL’I—‘HNN Any city having a population of over sixty thousand persons was considered to present approximately the same sort of Extension problems, regardless of the variations in size. Some lichigan counties are com- bined as single administrative units because of the extremely low Ex- tension potential existing in certain counties alone.5 The method of computation consisted of determining the data for each of the six factors from the 19h0 census, calculating the average of the entire state for each factor. The next step was determination of the per cent of the state average. for each county. These percentages factors were then weighted according to the for- mula weight for each item and totaled for each county. The county totals were summed and the average was determined. The resulting figure was considered to be the average Michigan Extension county load, which was also considered to be one hundred per cent for purposes of evaluation. The per cent of average of the figure was tabulated, the result of which tabulation was used in ranking counties. Resulting values ranged u Ibid., p. 3 These county combinations are: Alger-Schoolcraft, Luce-Mackinac, Houghton—xeweenaw, Alcona—Oscoda, Crawford—Kalkaska, Missaukee-Roscommon, Montmorency-Otsego, Osceola-(one-half of) Lake, Mason- (one-half of)Lake. from 228 at the highest to 25 at the lowest ranking county. The cosmit-. tee deemed the final results to be indicative of the true situation.“ The final values desplayed rather obvious breaks in sequence which were used as a basis for division of the rankings into four classes, Groups One, Two, Three, and Four. Contrary to the original intent the number of counties in each division was not equal. Group One contained 12 counties, Group Two contained 18, Group Three had 20 counties, and Group Four contained 25. These ratings have been used for formulating pay schedule for workers and for assigning workers to the counties. Gener- ally sneaking, Group One counties have been assigned four workers, GrOUp Two counties have received three workers, Group Three counties have had two, and Group Four counties have been assigned one worker. Table Four shows the final rankings and per cent of averaze figures for the counties based on lgho census data. The Michiggn system ngfio census). The report suggested that the present rating system be revised as soon as the 1950 census figures were available. These figures were becoming available about the time this study was begun. The former method of tabulation being rather laborious and time-consuming, it was examined with the idea of devising a simpler system which would also produce satisfactory results. The first computation was division of the total number a county had in a particular factor by the product of its per cent of average and the weighting used for the particular factor. For instance, Kent 6 Ibido. pp. 6-13. County had a total of 5,623 farms according to the lane agricultural census, which was 225 per cent of the average total farms in the state. The factor total farms had a weighting of two assigned by the committee. Computation was as follows: 2 x 225 = 1150 5,623 + 1450 -.-.: 12.5 This 12.5 figure was obtained for every county neasured. Mscomb had 3,969 farms, or 159 per cent of the state average. Using the same procedure the results were: 2 X 159 as 318 3.969 + 318 - 125 Iosco County had 623 total farms according to the l9h0 census, or 25 per cent of the state average. The results for this county were: 2 X 25 =1 50 623 + 50 = 12.5 This provided the basis for assigning one point to each 12.5 farms in a county. By the same procedure the point system for commercial farms was obtained. Arenac had 800 commercial farms according to the 19MO census, whichvvas 56 per cent of the state average. 2 x 56-:- 112 800 4- 112 = 7.11; Branch County had 1,819 commercial farms, or 127 per cent of the everafle. 2 X 127 = 251: 1,319 + 251; = 7.16 Monroe County had 3,006 commercial farms, which was 210 per cent of the average. 2 X 210 = 1+20 3,006 -:— 1420 = 7.16 In every case the value was near the 7.16 figure. As the measurements were somewhat rough, this was rounded to 7.0 farms for one point. The rural population factor was weighted but one point. Therefore, the per cent of average figure in the case could be divided into total rural population directly. Berrien County had h8,102 rural persons in l9h0, or 200 per cent of the state average. 1.18.102 -:- zoo =- 2%.5 Isabella County had 17,569 rural persons which was 73 per cent of the average. 17,569 —:- 73 = 2140.7 In all instances other than these two the value was consistently near 230.6. This number was rounded to BMO so that one point was given for each'2h0 rural persons in a county. These examples are sufficient for illustration. This procedure was used for the remaining factors, and their assigned points were: One point for each 12.5 total farms in a county One point for each 7.0 commercial farms in a county One point for each 240 rural persons in a county One point for each 206 urban persons in a county"5 One point for each $8,000 farm income in a county One point for each h,800 acres in a county 5 In this case it was necessary to consider each county which had over sixty thousand urban persons as having only sixty thousand because the committee felt that any urban area of over sixty thousand population presented similar problems to Extension. The utilization of the points involved dividing the total number of each factor for each county by the corresponding point value. To simplify the procedure the reciprocals of each were determined by di- viding each point value into one. This resulted in the following values which could be used as constant multipliers: Factor Reciprocal Value Total farms 0.030000 Commercial farms 0.1h2857 Rural pepulation 0.00h166 Urban pepulation 0.00 35h Farm income 0.000125 Area 0.000203 These constants were then multiplied by the correSponding factor for each county, and the resulting points were summed as illustrated below: Clinton County 3,1141 total farms X 0.080000: 251 points 2,286 commercial farms X .1h2857z. 327 points 22,2h9 rural population X..00Ml66= 108 points M,h22 urban pepuletion X .00385h=- 21 points $5,169,500 farm income X .000125=. 6&6 points 365,000 acres of county x .000203=. 80 points Total l,h22 points Since the total number of points used in weighting was eleven, this total of 1,u33 points divided by eleven gave the value of 130. The result of the value using the former method was 132. The differ- ence between the values is only two, probably resulting from the rounding off of numbers. For instance: 6 Average of 1929 and 1939 farm incomes. Genesee Countv 5, 231 total farms x .080000= 1423 points 2, 019 commercial farms x .1h2357= 2233 points 73, 5224 rural populatio x .oohisss 301; points 60, 000 urban populatio x .ooh85‘4: 291 points $14,523,500 far'n incomes 1: .000125: 565 points h1??,000 area of county X .000208=- __§l points Total 1,958 points 1958 points '1' 11: 178 The value as determined by the former method was 181, the difference being three. In every case the value determined by this method for each county corresponded closely with the numerical value placed by the previous method. The new data made available by the 1950 census were obtained for each county, and this system of tabulation was used with a file card being kept on each county or administrative unit. The census figures were arranged in rows and each factor was multiplied by the corresoond- reciprocal constant. These values were totaled and multiplied by the reciprocal of 11, which.was 0.909091. This process was used to estab- lish the final order of ranking. Table Three contains the 1950 census data that was used to tabulate the rankings. The total number of farms, commercial farms, farm income, and county area were found in the 1950 Census of Agriculture.9 The total number of farms. according to census definition, given by this reoort included all units having three or more acres. producing agricultural 7 The actual urban population was 15h,920. 8 Average of 1929 and 1939 farm incomes. 9 "Farms, Farm Characteristics. Farm Products," Preli_ninarv 1950 “Canons of Agriculture, Series AC 50 - 1 (Washington: Bureau of t1e hCensus, October 7, 1951). o O u ‘ o A A . ’ k I . a d D . & f > A I . A i. ' ' ' a -. ‘ I \.,‘ r - r ,, a ‘ . . , . ‘ \ '9 ‘ . . v “ l i I ‘- . . . ‘ ' c a . _ w ' ‘ O .. . ,. _ ; ‘ ‘ . . .r . ' A b ‘ v , ‘ u . 4 I Q . \ 1 v . ~‘\ . y,‘ u . ¢ - ‘ I. u v 0:, t . v . 'I TABLE III CEFSUS DATA OF 1950 ON SIX FACTORS USED IN PRESifiT MICHIGAN COUNTY CLASSIFICA310N SYSTEM vri cul ture data Name of County or Administrative Unit Number of To- tal Farms‘ Number of Com- mercial Farms Having Income of $1200 and owe!”I Farm Income Avq erage of 19hh** and 19kg. Alcona-Oscoda Alger-Schoolcraft Allegan Alpena Antrim Arenac Baraga Barry 3&2 Benzie Berrien Branch Calhoun Cass Cahrlevoix Cheboyzan Chippewa Cnlre Clinton Crawford-Kalcaska DEItq Dickinson Eaton Emmet Genesee Gladwin Gogebic Grand Traverse Gratiot Hillsdale Houghton-Keweenaw Huron I ngham Ionia Iosco Iron Isabella Jackson Kalamazoo Kent 1,089 792 u, uu1 1 077 1,087 1,15u 553 2.390 2,8h2 5&1 u, 77M 2, non 3.059 2 .269 976 855 1,15M 777 2,706 5&6 1.160 h33 3.107 901 3.691 1,1u5 ugh 1,200 2,815 3.295 1.232 3.716 2.531 2.557 696 679 2,249 2,85% 2,518 n.302 529 305 2.792 59% 567 590 232 1,u1u 1,912 136 2,885 1.668 1.7M? 1.233 396 276 99 29 1,911 201 668 258 2,007 333 1.653 622 178 53 2.165 2, 023 706 3.091 1,626 1.736 321 2&1 1.576 19552 1,35u 2, uni $ 1,690,108 1.176.592 13.3h3.h50 1.91h.983 2.323,uu7 2.957.51 785.694 5.571.710 7.660.833 1.593.713 16.670.6h9 7.153.hh5 8.1h8.995 5,081.87“ 1,5u7,1u§ 1.132.723 1, 791, M16 127399505 8 I7132096 826.866 2,702,276 1.019.332 7.873.710 1,300,2s3 7.107.0h1 1,862,867 690.9h9 9 335.133 10.077.258 8,661,952 Ml TABLE III,.A, COYTIHUED Number of To— Number of Com- Hame of County or Farm Income Av- .Administrative Unit tel Farms‘l mercial farms Garage of 19913 “ Invite Income and 19h9‘ q:_§1222_220 over‘ Lapeer 3900 290163 $ 0’363006? Leelanau 85 M61 2.739.335 Lenawee 3,772 2.752 1h,336,987 Livingston 1.963 1,179 5,515,uo5 Luce-Mackinac 5“? 223 993,836 Macomb 3,112 1,702 10,030,h03 Manistee 971 MMO 1,738.72“ Marquette 53h 229 1,133,081 Meson-2 Lake 1,708 970 3,825,218 Mecosta 1,672 962 3,633,916 Menominee 1,850 1.199 n.1u5,21u Midland 1.737 759 3.211.736 Missaukee—Roscommon 1,159 6M9 2,629,212 Monroe 3,598 2,079 10,869,738 Montcalm 3.061 1.933 7.575.15O Montmorency-Otsego 809 h15 1,396,19h iuskegon 1,977 673 3,515,080 Newaygo 2,156 1,089 h,69h,695 Oakland 3,107 1,288 8,h37,587 Oceana 1,798 950 5,095,928 Ogemaw 896 520 1,595,993 Ontonagon 88h M39 1,217,132 Osceola-% Lake 1.726 971 3,110,796 Ottowa 3,665 2,231 10,908,321 Presque Isle 937 629 2,272,h15 Saginaw u,h96 2,960 12,8u1,000 Sanilec u,385 3,377 15,192,997 Shiawassee 2,8h3 1,935 8,267,958 St. Clair 3,631 2,058 8,h58,7h9 st. Joseph 2,039 1,326 5,52u,008 Tuscola 3,911 2,706 13,369,h60 Van Buren 3. 697 1 o 936 9 2 9143 9 377 Washtenaw 2,889 1,839 10,11u,5u8 Wayne 2.596 829 5.909.199 wexford 961 :71 1.17?.EQZ Totals 35.589 91.093 $ h19.623.319 . _n_ "Farms, Farm Characteristics, Ferm Products," Preliminary 1950 Censu§__ of Agriculture, Series AC 50-1, (Washington: Bureau of the Census, September 13, 1951). to “Farms, Acerage, Value, Characteristics, Livestock, Livestock Products, CrOps, Fruits. and Value of Farm Products," 1995_Census of Agriculture, Michiflnn, Volume I, Part 6. (Washington: United States Government Erint- ing Office. 1996), pp. 135-153. TABLE III, CCHTIKUED 3. Population* and Land Area Data Name of County or Rural** Urban** Lend Area in Enministrative unit Population Population Acres*** Alcona-Oscoda 8,990 O 79h,880 Alger-Schoolcraft 9,730 9,h25 1,351,680 Allegan 35.935 11.558 530.560 Alpena 9.059 13.135 363.590 Antrim 10.721 0 305.280 Arenac 9,669 0 235.590 Bereee 8,037 0 578,560 Barry 20,087 6,096 351,360 Bay 32.771 55.690 285.690 Benzie 8,306 0 371,200 Berrien 21,608 8.59M 323,8h0 Calhoun 55,969 6u,8u9 h53,760 Cess 21,6h3 6,592 312,320 Charlevoix 7.75? 5,723 26h,960 Cheboygan 8,0hh 5,687 h6h,000 Chippewa 11,299 17,912 1,011,200 Clare 10,253 0 366,030 Clinton 26,291 n.95u 365,hho Crawford-Kalkaska 8,7u8 0 721,280 Delta 12,912 20,001 755.200 Dickinson 6,869 17,975 989,930 Eaton 25,902 1h,621 362,880 Emmet 10,066 6,M68 295.0h0 Genesee 100,70u 170,259 u12,160' Gledwin 9,h51 0 321,920 GOgebic 8,73u 18,319 711,680 Grand Traverse 11,629 16,97u 296,960 Gratiot 21.791 11,688 362,2h0 Hillsdale 2u.619 7,297 389,6u0 Houghton—Keweenaw 30,926 12,269 1,007,360 Huron 30,176 2,973 526,080 Insham 56.973 115.968 357.760 Ionia 2h,503 13,655 368,000 Iosco 10,906 0 350,080 Iron 13,6nu n.0h8 766,080 Isabella 17,571 11,393 366,080 Jackson 56,837 51,088 h51,200 Kalamazoo 69,003 57,709 362,808 Kent 105,37h 182,918 551,680 Lapeer 29.651 6.193 h21,760 Leelanau 8,6h7 0 233,350 Lenawee 39,hh3 25,136 h39.560 TABLE III, B, CONTIYUED h} Jame of County or Rurnl“I Urban** Lend Area in dministrstive Unit Ponulation Po0u1ation Acres*** Livingston 22,372 n.353 365,h0h Luca-Mackinac 11,686 5,7h8 1,233,920 Mecomb 100,190 8h,771 307,8h0 Manletee 9,882 8,6h2 357,120 Marquette 15,018 32,636 1,178,2h0 Mason-% Lake 13,597 9,506 h9?,560 Mecosta 12,232 6.736 360,320 Menominee 1h,1u8 11,151 660,h80 Midland 21,377 1h,285 332,800 Missaukee-Rosconmon 13,37h O 695,0h0 Monroe 5i,199 21,h67 359,680 Montcalm pu,3u5 6,668 h55,680 Montmorency-Otsego 10,560 0 69h,h00 Muskegon 5h,283 67,257 322,560 Newaygo 18, 11 3,056 5H8,h80 Oekland 186, -1 209,600 561,280 Oceana 16,105 0 3M3,0u0 Ogemaw 9,3h5 0 367,360 Ontonagon 10,282 0 5u5,hh0 Osceola-%Lake l6,h26 0 53h,830 Ottawa h5,282 28,h69 360,960 Presoue Isle 8,123 3,873 hl8,560 Saginaw 60,597 92,918 519,680 Sanilac 30,837 0 615,0h0 Shiawnssee 26,825 19,1h2 3u5,600 St.Clair u2,333 u9,266 h73.600 St.Joseph 20,500 lu,57l 325,120 Tuscola 32,26h 5,99u 522,200 VanBuren 33,555 5,629 388,h80 Washtenaw 62,705 71,901 h58,2h0 wsyne 203,u56 2,231,779 388,h80 Wexford 8,203 10,h25 360,320 Totals 2,327,h56 n.0uu,309 36,h9h,080 . ._ 01d census rural and urban definition- it "Population of Michigan: April 1, 1950," 1350 Census of Ponulation Advance Bgnorts, Series PC-S, No. 21 (Weshingtox: October 7, 1951). till Farmg,Farm Characteristics, Farm Products," Preligingrz;l§§0 Census “...—9 f-’ Eureau of the Cengus, of éff}§§;3pr€. Series ACBO-l (Washington: Bureau of the Census, Septem- ber 13, 1951). products selling for one hundred fifty dollers or more. Places having fewer than three acres, but having a total sale of agricultural oroducts of one hundred fifty dollars or more, also were counted as farms. This is different from the 19h0 definition which counted all places over three acres a farm, regardless of income, and counted those having less than three acres as farms provided the 1939 income was over two hundred fifty dollars. Commercial farms were defined by the 1950 census as being all farms 'bringing an income of over two hundred fifty dollars, provided the oner- ator worked less than one hundred days off the ferm and made less from non-farm work than was made from the sale of agricultural products. Extension administrators felt, however, that farms having an income of over twelve hundred dollars would better represent commercial ferns, and therefore, this definition was employed rather than the one given by the census. Any farm having an income of over twelve hundred dollers was considered a commercial farm, as listed in Table Three. The farm income listed in Table Three was the average of the incone for lghh and 19U9. This was the gross value of all farm products sold. County area was listed by acres according to the census. The population data were obtained from the 1950 census nouuletion 10 reports. The old census definitions of rural and urban ponulations were used instead of the new ones. The old definition classifies all inhabitants of incorporated cities of 2,500 or more as urban and the 10 ”Population of Michigan: April 1, 1550", 105Q-§9§§u§-9fhfonul§tjon “an. Advance Renorjs, Series PC-E, No. 21 (Washington: Bureau of the Census, -v .. --..n.‘ October 7, 1951. remainder of the population as rural. The rural and urban figures wer arrived at by summing the number of persons living in incorporated cit- .103 of 2,500 or more for each county. This figure subtracted from the total county ponulation yielded the total rural population. The second column of Table Four shows the rankings and the per cent of average figures for each Michigan county based on data available from the lBhO census. Some time after the counties were ranked by the short- ened method the administrative workers of the Extension Service tabulated the results which were listed by rank and per cent of average figures for each county. The fourth column contains the rankings and per cent of average figures as determined by the shorter method of computation. A comparison of these two solumns revealed that in no case was a county's rank affected by the shortened method and that usually the values were very clearly equal. Differences probably resulted from rounding off of numbers. Should the present system be continued, the short method of computation would save much time in computing the final results. The four groupings of counties as determined by the oririnal tab- ulation based on the 1930 census were noted in the second column of Table Four. The committee reportllstated that the division between Group One and Group Two counties was selected because of the wide breach in the per cent of average figures of the twelfth ranking county, Ottawa (172), and the thirteenth ranking county, Washtenaw (166). Divi- sion between Group Two and Group Three counties was selected between the thirtieth ranking county, Montcalm (130), and the thirty-first ranking ll "County Classification," on. cit..'P. 5. RAEKINGS or MICHIGAN CCUKTIES AND PER AS DETERXINED BY PRESENT svsrau* TABLE IV EFT OF AVERAGE FIGURES Rank ISUO Census Based on 1950 Census Based on 1950 Census Data Data. Long Method of Data. Short Method _*__ Tabulation of Tabulation 1 Kent -T Berrien Berrien 228 . 315 315.5 2 Saginaw . Kent Kent 222 . 285 285.1 3 Berrien . Saginaw Saginaw '210 . 276 276.h h Lenawee . Sanilac Sanilac 196 . 272 271.6 5 Sanilac . Lenawee Lenawee 195 . 261 261.2 6 Oakland . Allegan Allegan 188 Group I 2M9 2h8.9 7 Huron . Huron Huron 188 . Zhh 2hh.1 8 Tuscola . Oakland Oakland 182 . 2h} 2h3.5 9 Genesee . Tuscola Tuscola 181 . 2ho 2ho.1 10 Allegan . Macomb Macomb 178 . 229 228.9 11 Macomb . Washtenaw Washtenaw 176 . 219 218.6 12 Ottawa Ottawa Ottawa 172 -1 216 216.2 13 Waehtenaw'-—i Monroe Monroe 166 . 21” 213.5 In St. Clair . Wayne Wayne 16h . 207 207.3 15 Monroe . Genesee Genesee 161 . 201 20l.h 16 Calhoun . Calhoun Calhoun 152 , 196 196.0 17 Wayne . St. Clair St. Clair 150 . 196 195.9 18 Jackson . Van Buren Van Buren 1h9 Group II 188 187.5 19 Ingham . Jackson Jackson 1M9 , 18h 183.6 20 Kalamazoo . Gratiot Gratiot 1M1 , 183 183.h 21 Van Buren . Ingham Ingham IMO . 183 183.1 TABLE IV, CONTIEUED 1£7 rank 1910 Census Based on 1950 Census Based on 1950 Censm Data Data. Long Method of Data. Short Method Tnhuletion of Tabulation 22 Gratiot Group II Laneer lepeer 137 Cont'd. 177 176.7 23 Eaton . Kalamazoo Kalamazoo 135 ' . 176 175.8 2h Bay 0 Bay Bay 13h . 175 175.0 25 Lapeer . Hillsdale Hillsdale 13h . 169 168.h 26 Hillsdale . Shiewaesee Shiawassee 133 . 165 16h.9 27 Shiawassee . Clinton Clinton 132 . 162 162.5 28 Clinton . Eaton Eaton 131 . 161 161.1 29 Ionia . Montcalm Montcalm 131 . 15h 15u.2 3O Montcalm Ionia Ionia 130 J 153 152. 31 Isabella --7 Branch Branch 107 . 138 138.5 32 Branch . Isabella Isabella 105 - 135 135-5 33 Barry . Barry Barry 10h . 116 116.0 3h Muskegon . St. Joseph St. Joseph 99 . 115 115.u 35 Livingston . Muskegon Muskegon 9O . 112 112.5 36 Newaygo . Livingston Livingston 88 . 109 109.5 37' St. Jesenh . Cass Case 88 . 107 107.3 38 Cass . Newaygo Newaygo 85 . 102 101.9 39 Osceola-fiLake. Menominee Menominee 80 . 99 98.7 no Houghton-Keweenaw Oceans Oceana 78 Group III 87 87.h M1 Mason-éLake . Mason-%Lake Mason-%Leke 78 . 87 87.h M2 Menominee . Grand Traverse Grand Traverse 75 . 8h 8u.o M3 Mecosta . Boughton4Keweenaw Boughton-Keweenaw 7h . 8h 89.2 TABIE IV, CONT INUED -.~1 O .nk 1930 Census Based on 1950 Census Based on 1950 Census Data Data. Long Method of Intel Short Method Tabulation of Tabulation uh Chippewa Group III Mecosta Mecosta 71 Cont'd. 80 80.h L5 Oceans . Midland Midland 7O . 80 79.5 MS Midland . Oseola-%Lake Osceola-%Lake 68 . 77 77-2 M7 Marquette . Delta Delta 65 . 76 76.1 Mg Delta . Chippewa Chippewa 62 . 70 66.9 M9 Grand Traverse Missaukee-Roscommon Missaukee-Rosccmmon 61 65 6h.8 50 Missaukee-Rosc mmon Marquette Marquette 59 63 62.9 51 Alger-Schoolcraft Alger-Schoolcraft Alger—schoolcraft 5h . 56 56.0 52 Alpena . Alpena Alpena 50 - 53 53-5 53 Alcona-Oscoda . Presque Isle Presque Isle MS . 53 53.5 5h Luce-Mackinac . Alcona~08coda Alcona-Oscoda h7 . 52 51.8 55 Manistee . Leelanau Leelanau us . 52 51.6 56 Arenac . Antrim Antrim 115 . 51 51.5 57 Antrim . Arenac Arenac 1+5 . 50 M9. 8 58 Gladwin . Luce—Mackinac Luce-Mackinac uh . M8 h8.1 59 Wexford . Gladwin Gladwin nu . M7 h7.3 6O Presque Isle . {anistee Manistee “2 . 87 u6.8 61 Otsego—Montmorency Cntonagon Ontonagon . M6 h5.9 62 Gogebic Group TE' Otsego-Montmorency Otsego-Montmorency hl . nu hh,3 63 Leelanau . Ogemaw Oeemaw M1 . M2 ul.8 6h Emmet . Clare Clare no . h2 u1.7 65 Iron . Charlevoix Charlevcix 39 . kl h1.5 TABLE Iv, oozmrunn '1' 1950 Census Based on 1950 Census aned on 1950 Censu: Data Data. Long Method of Date. Short Method Tabulation of prulstion 66 Cheboygan Group IV Iron Iron 38 Cont'd. “0 39.7 67 Ogemaw . Wexford Wexford 3s . ho 39.6 68 Charlevoix . Dickinson Dickinson 38 . 38 38.1 69 Ontonagon . Gogebic GOgebic 37 . 38 38.0 70 Clare . Emmet Emmet 36 . 38 37.9 71 Kalkaska-Crawford Cheboygan Cheboygan 35 . 37 37.0 72 Dickinson . Kalkaska-Crawford Kalkaska-Crswford 35 . 33 32.9 73 Baraga . Iosco Iosco 30 . 32 32.1 7% Iosco . Benzie Benzie 28 . 31 30.6 75 Benzie . Enraga Baraga 25 . 30 29.7 I Michigan Extension Service, “County Classification," (unpublished mimeographed report on file, Office of the Director, Michigan Extension Service, East Lansing, flichigan). K"; JV county, Isabella (107). because of an obvious break in the per cent of average values. The division between Group Three and Group Four coun- ties was selected somewhat arbitrarily between the forty-ninth ranking county. Grand Traverse (61). and the fiftieth, Missaukee-Roscommon (59). as there were no distinct breaks in per cent of average values. No such delineation was made for the county rankings which resulted from 1950 census data up until the time this report was written. It may be noted in this instance that definite breaks in value were not as pronounced as they were formerly. Evaluation of the Michigan countgpciassification system. The six factors and their relative weights used in classifying the Michigan counties appeared to generally reflect the differences in Extension teaching loads. This was believed because the system's validity had not been seriously questioned in the years of its employment. Empiri- cal study substantiated the difference between any two counties that were considerably apart in final standing when comparison was made. This difference is not so easily apparent when comparing counties that rank c1ose together. One weakness of the system was found to be the high importance attached to factors which were not harmonious with the objectives dis- cussed in Chapter Two. Neither legislative acts nor interpretations of these acts have stated that the wealthiest and most prosperous farm peoole were entitled to a greater share of Extension benefits. Yet. out of a total of eleven points used in weighting. four points. or 36.3 per cent. are given to the total farm income of a county. To some extent \fl y.‘ farm income may indicate the number of farm persons, but justification on this basis would be unreliable because of the wide divergence in incomes per farm throughout the state. A total weight of two was given to com.ercial farms, also emuhasi7 ing monetarv eta: ”d1 0. Only arms ,« M.) having income over twelve hundred dollars in 1939 were considered com- mercial ferns. Clearly these two factors would be highly related. To find the relationship, rank correlation of these two factors was deter- mined by ranking every county from high to low values in the number of farms and farm income. The dierrences between the ranltings of each county were determined and squared. The sum of these squared differ— ences for all counties or administrative units was then found, which 12 was D2. Spearman's rank correlation coefficient was used in deter- mining the rank correlation. The number (N) was 75 in this case. r g 62 D2 Nana—1) The rank correlation between the total number of commercial forms (farms reporting an income of twleve hundred dollars or more in 19h?) and the farm income (average farm income for the years 19th and 19h?) was found to be 't.9609. The high correlation between these two fac- tors substantiated the hypothesis. The wei ght ting of four for total farm income and two for commer- cial farms gave a total of six for the factors together, which is six- elevenths or over one-half the entire weirhting of the forulula, based 12 E. F. Lin ndquist, S etistical Ar nalvsis in Educat ionol *Res_eorch _—--‘ .. (Boston: Hou :hton mmnn C()1115£Ey, 19403 p. 2L7. ‘ I1 0-.) primarily on the monetary nature of a county's agriculture. The commit- tee report reasoned that the farm income for a county reflected the 13 economic importance of the Extension agent's job. Wealthy counties might conceivably have a higher tax base, enabling them to contribute more to Extension programs than the poorer counties could. Income does not merit such a heavy consideration in view of the bases of aporopra- tion from state and Federal sources. The legislative acts pertaining to Extension could hardly be contrued to intend such a meaning. In fact, as was pointed out in Chapter Two. support of the Extension Ser- vice as a help to farmers arose partly from recognition of educational disparity existing between urban and rural peeple. There is evidence that the medium high income farm groups take the greater share of an 1M Extension worker's time. Gibson's interpretation of this situation was that. Extension participation being involuntary, the more prosper- ous farmers are more apt to avail themselves of useful information 15 offered by the Extension Service than less prosperous farmers. Gibson makes the conclusion: It is not a simple answer to the problem to assert that the common welfare of all rural society would be better served by denying the assistance of county agents to the successful farmers who ask for and use the extension service, and reouiring those agents to devote their efforts to arousing the interest of farmers who are not asking for help, perhaps do not think they need it, and may even feel that they are leading more enjoyable lives. measured by their own stan- dards. without it.1 13 h "County Classification." on. cit., p. 2 l D. L. Gibson, "The Clientele of the Agricultural Extension Service." V01. 26. No. h, (East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan Agricultural Experi- ment Station Quarterly Bulletin, May, iehh), p. 7. ' 15 Ibid., p. 9. 16 Ioc, cit. ‘11 ‘44 The additional Federal funds that were made available to the Ex- tension Service during the agricultural depression of the late 199019 were doubtlessly intended to benefit the hard-pressed rural peonle. 7 Those critics of Extension who claim that its programs are designed to help the more prosperous farmers could make a good point by citing the present Michigan rating system in which over half the classification scheme is based on the financial condition of agriculture within the counties. The older and lesser objective of Extension, that of increasing agricultural prodiction, appears to be reflected in this dollar— conscious rating scheme. One of the reasons given for considering farm income was that specialized and highly deve10ped farm enterprises demand more technical knowledge on the part of a county worker. The total farm income was recorded, but this did not indicate the diversity in type of agriculture. Conceivably the farm income of any one county might be large because of high value products, such as livestock and certain specialized fruits, without reflecting the greater Extension teaching responsibilities. The objectives of the Service are not more and better crops and livestock, but the improvement of the people served. This consideration would certainly disqualify any rating system which used farm income as an index to Extension responsibility. One difficulty faced in evaluating this county classification system was the inter-relation of most factors. It was, therefore, 17 CapperHKetcham Act, 1928, and Bankhead-Jones Act, 1935. difficult to determine the exact influence each had in the total rating scheme. The relationship between farm income and total number of farms 2 was roughly measured by using Spearman's rank correlation coefficient.lfi The rank correlation between farm income and total number of farms was 't.9688. This gave a better justification for using income because the total number of farms is some indication of the farm population. It will be recalled that the farm population provided 76 per cent of the basis for appropriating Federal funds. However, the average number of persons per farm varies from county to county,19which discounted this interpretation. The total number of farms gave the best indica- tion of the farm population to be found among the six factors. The rank correlationzobetween total number of farms and commercial farms was*F.95uO. This was true because the number of commercial farms is a part of the total number of farms. The rank correlation2lbetween rural pepulation and area was '?.O938, which was so small that the two factors could be considered independent. In summation, there was no evidence that the larger counties had a greater number of rural persons. No other rank correlations were tabulated between the existing possible combinations of factors. The factors of rural population, farm income. total number of farms, and total number of commercial 18 Lindquist, op. cit.. p. 2‘47. 19 See Chapter Five for further discussion. 20 Lindquist. op. cit... p. 2M7 21 Loc. cit. farms were obviously related. Area and urban population were the most in’enendent factors. In order to determine the relationship of any factor with the final rankings, the rank correlation coefficients were determined: rank correlation between farm income and final rank: +3605 rank correlation between total number of farms and final rank:~f.Q§97 {I rank correlation between commercial farms and final rank-k.920? rank coorelation between rural ponulation and final rankcf.9200 rank correlation between urban yogulation and final rank-wk.3hQ? f rank correlation between area of county and final ranknwf50158r An analysis of these correlations supported the hypothesis that a county's final rank in this rating scheme was determined mainly by its total farm income, which was apparently intended. The second highest positive correlation with final rank was the total number of farms. Inclusion of this factor could be better justified because, as stated in Chapter Two, 76 per cent of the total Federal funds that are annro- priated to Michigan are based on farm pOpulation. Commercial forms correlated rather highly with the final ranking. This would be true because farm income and commercial farm numbers are closely related. Rural population was correlated positively and highly with the final ranking, which could hardly be criticized in view of Service objectives. Urban penulation correlated positively with the final results. That it was correlated to all with the final rank was more a result of the fact that the larger urbanized counties were also some of the larger agricultural counties. The main flaw in using this fee" tor at all was that any county having over sixty thousand urban nonu- lation was not given any credit for the additional numbers. This 22 LOCO Cit. rating scheme intended to consider lightly the urban factor. If Ex- tension had any resnonsibility at all to urban peonle, and if this were to be measured, it would not seem consistent to discount numbers over sixty thousand altogether. This may have been planned to avoid giving a high final standing to the few highly urbanized counties. Even a little weight on this factor would bring the total value up very high because of the exceedingly large number of urban persons residing in a few counties. Area was weighted but one unit out of the eleven, and the size of a county had little to do with the final rank, as evidenced by its cor- relation with the final standing. This factor might possibly have been omitted entirely without affecting the final rank of any county. In no way was this analysis thought to be complete. The purpose wrs to obtain some general information about the present rating scheme and to see the consistency of the factors used with Extension objectives The weakness of the system was that most of the factors considered were not mutually exclusive. There was also difficulty in analyzing the system because of the nature of the units of measurement used. Numbers of persons, numbers of farms, amount of income, and acres in area were all thrown together for consideration. This was possible because the per cent of averare figures of each factor were used before weighting, but comparisons of two factors possessing different scales of measure- ment was difficult. Even if the system could actually measure teaching loads, the arbitrary delineationof the four groups is not easy to sub- stantiate. The system, however, apneared to be more concerned with the relative ranking of counties than with measurement of the Extension teaching load. Evaluation of Systems Used by Other States 32333.9§3931223 A number of other states have deveIOped.systems for county classification according to a report of the Federal Extension 93 Service. North Carolina was reported as using a method of classification based on the county pronerty valuation. The counties that had an assessed pronerty of over twenty million dollars were granted fifty per cent of the total county worker's salary from state and Federal funds. The counties having between seven and twenty million dollars Draperty valuation were granted one per cent more for each million under twenty million from state and Federal sources. Counties with less than six million valuation were granted 65 per cent of their county workers' salaries, with two per cent additional for each million under six million valuation. The North Carolina system would assume that valuations were equal- ized throughout the state. As county valuation includes property be- sides that which is agricultural, it could not be argued that such a measure reflected the Extension teaching load very well. Possibly this system was designed in the realization that the higher valuated counties 23 ‘ H. W. Gilbertson, "An Analysis of the Sources and Uses of Cooperative Extension Funds." Extension Service Circular No. NYE, (Washington: United States Department of Agriculture, August 1951) pp. 39-h8. k.“ '3'} had higher tax incomes and so could pay the greater part of a worker's salary. Such a system distributes Federal funds in a manner inconsist- ent with the intent. Texas. Texas had a system whereby counties having a pronerty valuation of less than seven million dollars were termed "hardship counties.” If these counties contributed more than twenty per cent of their general funds for Extension, they were given additional assistance from state and Federal funds in order to assure a minimum salary for Extension workers. Illinois. In Illinois the Federal funds from the Bankhsad-Flannagan —.— Act were used for employing youth and h-H Club agents. These funds were distributed so that three cents was granted for each rural person, five cents for every farm person, and two dollars for each completing h-H Club member. Special allotments were made to counties of small ponue lation. This procedure placed large emphasis upon present work, rather than on the potential teaching load. Other examples. Other states were listed in the report and were usually similar to the three systems cited. In none of these systems was there any evidence that much effort was made to measure the size of the Extension teaching load. IUHMABY The Michigan Extension Service has a classification system at the present time which is used as a guide for allocating resources. This system employs the use of six factors which are combined to determine the rank of all counties. These six factors are: total number of farms. number of commercial farms, rural population, urban pepulation, farm income. and land area. These factors are weighted numerically so that some factors are more important than others. This method places a high importance on the monetary value of agri- culture in a county. The Extension objective is education. Education is to help peeple help themselves. Peeple are the subjects of education, not the dollars that they possess. Any method for rating counties which does not consider the number of persons to be served as important is inconsistent with the objectives of the Service. Systems used by other states also do not place much importance on number of individuals which are to receive service. For this reason, all the systems considered in this chapter were considered to be inad- equate for measuring the teaching load in a county so that proper allo- cation of Extension resources can be made. CHAPTER IV SELECTION OF FACTORS FOR COUNTY CLASSIFICaTION The two-fold nurnose of this chapter is to review some of the factors utilized in present systems and to examine some other factors which might show relative Extension responsibilities to the various counties. As a basis for evaluating the possible indicators, the char- acteristics of an improved means for classification were established. Criteria for Selecting Factors Characteristics of an improved system. As was shown in the tre- vious chapter, the Michigan system was difficult to evaluate because of the nature of the six included factors. In certain ways any one of these factors denoted differences in Extension resnonsibility from county to county. However, four of these factors were closely inter- related, making it difficult to isolate the effect of any one of the related factors on the total rating scheme. Considering this diffi- culty, it was concluded that an improved method of classifying ought to consider only those factors which were mutually exclusive - that is, the numerical value of one was not directly denendent on another. The mutually exclusive categories were desired to be reliable, based on measurable data from every county and especially indicative of Extension Service goals and objectives. These four requisites, (l) mutually er- clusive categories, (9) reliable and measurable data, (3) reflection of Extension objectives, and (h) similar units of measurement, were desir- nated as criteria in judging the suitability of factors. Analysis of Factors That Might Be Used Tote} number of farms. If considered alone, this i actor has the advantage of comolete ability to cate7orize exclusivelv. The 1950 Census of Agriculture save the total number of farms in each county 1 of the state. This total number was broken down further into groups of commercial farms and other farms. Commercial farms were those from which the sale of agriculture -1 products in l9h9 brou5ht tEJe Operator an in— come of $250 or more and on which the operator worked less than a hun- dred days off the farm or earned less from outside sources than from the o .— sale of his agricultural oroducts. Commercial farms were classified as follows: Commercial Farms Class I (Value of products sold, $25,000 or more) less II (Value of products sold, $10, ODD-$9h, 999 Class III (Value of nroducts sold, $5,000-b9.999) Class IV (Value of nroducts sold, $?,BOO-$J,999) Class V ('Valie of prodicts sold, $1,?OO-$2.h99) Class VI (Value of products sold, $950-$l,199) 3 The group of other farms was divided into three sub-classifications: part-time, residential, and abnormal. Part-time farmers were those whose value of products sold was between $950 and $1,199, or those who reported more than a hundred days work off the farm, or who resorted more income from another source than sale of agricultural products. Hes- identiel ferns were those selling less than $250 in agricultural nroduce. Abnormal fares were those belonging to public or orivate inst i.tutions or those which were community projects. I—- T "Farms, Farm Characteristics, F: Hru Products, Preliminarv L1L7O Census of LAnri :ultuLe, Series AC 90-1 (was? ingtozn Bureau of th e C8A~ui, Cetu- ber 7. 1951) R)! Lee. cit. W as..- 0.1.3:. The different groups of total ferns have the characteristic of oossessing mutually exclusive categories and relicble data. Since Extension is primarily resoonsible to farm people, this factor soul show merit. In light of total Service objectives this could seem some- what incomplete because some Federal a propriations were based on rural nooulation. A means of classification based on categories of farms does not include persons living in rural areas who are not farmers, such as rural residents who work off the farm and residents of small villages and towns. The Smith—Lever Act can be read to imoly that Extension has some responsibility to city dwellers desiring its serv- ices. The problem then was to include some just measurement of these pooulation segments. One means would be catecorizing this arouo, giv- ing weight according to the relative import nce to the Extension task. The difficulty here would be in measuring numbers of persons with num- bers of farms, which would be inconsistent with the established criteria of an identical form of measurement. This handicap might be overcome by converting the non-rural segments into numbers of places of resi- dence. corresoonding with numbers of farms as thev relate to the farm penulation. It would be assumed by this reasoning that the number of persons per farm residence would not be significantly altered in chang- ing locations. This assumption would be invalid because the average number of persons per farm varies considerably from county to county. This conversion would not be justifiable, when it is remembered that Federal annropriations are made on the bases of rural farm pooulation and total rural population. h Smith—Lever Act of 191M, Capper—Ketcham Act of 1928. ON L91 Fern Income. The agricultural census token every five years given data on the total value of farm produce in each county for the year immediately preceding the census. Generally it is true that hiah agri- cultural inc0me within a county implies a corresnondingly large number of farm persons in that same county. This figure does sunoly some in- formation on the relative importance of farming to counties. but it is possible to visualize a county with comparatively few farm persons in prooortion to the farm income should each family have a total farm in- come substantially above the state average. Within the course of a few years there is much fluctuation of farm prices, particularly in regard to certain products. It is conceivable that a county having one highly soecialized crop might be the victim of exceedingly low prices while another county which also soecialized might be tremendously fa- vored with high prices at the time rating occurred. Other possible weaknesses were mentioned in Chapter Three. For these several reasons. farm income would not appear to be a desirable factor for inclusion in a rating scheme. Area of counties, This factor alone is not one which reflects the Extension teaching load of a county. If all farms were of uniform size. its use might be better justified throughout the counties. But in Michigan some of the largest counties have the smallest farm pepulatiots. It was recognized that a larger county provided extra work for an Ex- tension worker because of the‘additional traveling time for reaching his clientele and the increased difficulty to participants in contactinv --I., him at the county Extension office. The size of a county in acres or square miles does not reveal adeuuately the nature of its problems. A large county could have only a concentrated settlement of scenic in one area, or a small county by having a few or poor roads might present difficulty in accessibility of Extension resourcesto participants. Also relevant is the site of the county seat. Large counties generally create more difficulties in work for the Extension agent, but this fact in itself could not indicate the number of persons served. This factor might be included among others, but its use would necessitate employ- ment of two different kinds of measurement within one system. Social groups of neoole. County Extension work is sometimes made difficult by immigrant groups or groups of foreign extraction. Differ- ences of language and cultural background reouire more understanding and effort on the agent's part in meeting and serving these people. The presence of such groups is easily recognized, but it would be another matter to assign a value to them so that one county could be compared with another in this respect. Special considerations. There are other factors that are not without influence on the Extension teaching load of a county. One rea- son is the many types of farming to be found thro shout the state. Some counties have greater land use problems. some have more diversi- fied farming reouiring a variety of knowledge by an agent, and other considerations vary — for example, the amount of soil erosion. Under such conditions the agent must be a competent advisor in myriad fields, and he must also Spend more time in coordinating the Extension nroerom. Extra time is required by any number of groups. such as the special commodity groups. m U? These factors are but a few which signify differences in the Extension job among the counties. While the conditions may have some importance attached, no satisfactory means for measurement is known. Pooulation classes, A study of the basic legislative acts re- vealed in Chapter Two that Extension has more responsibility to some groups of the pOpulation than to others. These laws appeared to be primarily directed toward assistance for farm peoole, as evidenced by the basis of appropriating funds on farm population. To other pecule, but to a lesser degree, Extension has responsibility. These others often desiring service are rural non—farm peonle and urban people. The expressed objective of Extension is education in agriculture and home economics. The county Extension worker is, therefore, a teacher. This position as teacher differs from the traditional one. The Ex~ tension worker's students are voluntary participants. Usually an Ex— tension worker serves a larger group than does the formal classroom instructor, as the organization has aimed to be available to all those desiring its help. The percentage of the pOpulation who avail themselves of its services may vary from county to county, depending among other things upon the past influence wielded by Extension and the ability of the workers to arouse interest. In Chapter Three it was seen that some states appropriate Federal and state funds to the counties partly on the basis of current participation in Extension programs. Illinois used a formula whereby twodollars was appropriated for each N~H Club member completing a project. Other instances of giving extra weirht to the size of the current clientele of a particular county can be 66 found. The procedure may be of value in stimulating county workers to meet more peeple, but this factor would remain unjustified in the apportioning of Federal funds. The money is not made available on the basis of the number of participants, but on the basis of the total num— ber of persons. Allotment of Federal funds to the states is made mostly on the bases of farm and rural populations. For this reason, a method of dis- tribution incommensurate with the original intent could hardly be ified. The advantage of using pouulation groups in a classification sys— tem is that data are easily accessible and are reliable, coming as they do from census reports. These may be divided into mutually exclusive categories. Use of this factor alone provides an identical unit of measurement - that is, population numbers. The objectives of Extension can surely be reflected by use of different classes of pepuletion. The population can be broken into such classes as urban, rural non-farm, and rural farm peeple. By numerically weighting these poouletion groups in a proportion that is indicative of Extension's responsibili- ties to them, the Extension teaching load of a county could be deter— mined. A decided advantage in using population numbers for rating counties is that this basis is the same as that used for Federal anore- priations. .f Y‘ “J SUKXARY Many are the factors which might create differences in the Esten— sion teaching load among the counties. Although of imoortance some of the factors were difficult to measure in a manner which would permit comparison with another county. Also some factors alone could not show the total Extension responsibility. The best of these misht be com- bined so that the total reswonsibility could be measured, but the dif- ficulty in this procedure would be that these factors would require dissimil r means of measurement. A system of classification based on pooulation classes seems to offer a factor that could best be used to measure relative Extension teaching loads. It is a simple process, not involving the combination of unrelated factors or sub-factors having different means of measure- ment. The ultimate objective of Extension is the improvement of the peeple. The resoonsibilitv of Extension does not become greater as farm income increases, or area increases, or production increases, but it does become greater as the number of nersons the organization is dedicated to serve increases. 0“ (1'4 CEAPTER V fiICYIGAN POPULATION CLASSES The number of persons in different populstion classes was deemed tobe the best means for measuring the Extension teaching load. County classification systems now in use in some states for purposes of allo- cation of resources did not sufficiently consider this factor, and therefore are inadequate when evaluated in terms of the Service object- ives. Extension is charged by law with education to people. It is at the present time primarily responsible for provision of educational programs with rural and especially rural-farm people. To a lesser ex- tent it has some responsibility for serving the remaining pepulation. The conclusion was reached in the previous Chapter that numbers of peOple according to classes of population gave the best basis for distributing Extension resources to the counties. The classes of pon- ulation then could be weighted numerically in a proportion that re- flected the importance of any class to the total Extension resnonsi— bility. Before this was feasible, a delineation of the classes and deter- mination of the numbers of persons in each class was essential. This is done in this Chapter on the bases of the 1950 Census of Ponuletion and Agriculture. 59 Pooulation of Michigan Source of data. Information from 1950 census reports, as made available every ten years by the Bureau of the Census of the United States Department of Commerce, was used in this report. At the time of this study complete data were not forthcoming. Two publications, 1 one containing advance reports and another containing more detail on 2 Michigan inhabitants, were used. An agricultural census is taken every 3 five years, and its preliminary reports were available. Method of_procedure. Places of residence provided the basis for division of Michigan population in 1950 for this study. The major divisions were patterned after a plan employed by Beegle in a bulletin on Michigan pOpulation. In his first table he lists the population numbers and percentages of population by places of residence and by counties, using l9h0 census data. County populations were divided into two main categories, rural and urban. Rural population was further divided into rural farm and rural non-farm groups. The rural non-farm portion was additionally categorized into rural village and rural non- village groups. 1 "Population of Michigan: April 1, 1950," 1350 Census of Ponuletion Advapge Reports, Series PC-S, No. 21 (Washington: Bureau of the Census, October 7, 1951). 2 ”Number of Inhabitants, Michigan," 1950 United States Census of P33: ulntion, Series P-APZ. Preprint of Volume 1, Chapter 22 (hashington: Bureau of the Census, United States Government, 195l). ”Farms, Farm Characteristics, Farm Products,” Preliminagy 1950 Census g£_ég§igpltpgg, Series ACSO-l (Washington: Bureau of the Census, Sep- tember l}, 1951). _ h J. Allen Beegle, "Michigan Ponulation, Composition and Change," Special Bulletin 3M2 (East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State College Agricultural Experiment Station, November 19h7), pp. 76-78. Use of places of residence seemed to be the best means for estab- lishing population classes. Rural farm population numbers were proner- 1y used in this measuring sch me, as rural farm nonulation provides the basis for appropriating most Federal funds to the Extension Service. The rural non-farm populace may be included because they too would be included in those Federal aperOpristions made for all rural people. As complete information was not available from 1950 census releases on these population classes at the time of this study, the numbers were computed by a method described in this chapter. Rural and urban ponuv lations for each county were contained in the census, and these figures were utilized in the computation. Other categories influencing the Ex— tension load of a county were established and their reSpective ponula— tion numbers were also4 HHb mamde mm.: mmw.m www.mfl HH.: omw.m mfio.mfl Samoacom m:.: mma.: www.mH wm.: mom.m mm:.~a ooaqox om.: aam.a 3mm.m mm.: m~o.H mHo.m mwxsammfi: 05.2 wHH.m mmm.m mm.: :m~.a mgm.w caxfloflz mm.2 moo.m mwm.m Hw.: Hmm.fl mm:.m mmafiaocmn m:.: fixa.m mzm.m mm.: mmo.m flm~.m apmoowz Nm.g wmm.a anm.~ m:.: Nmm.fl mmm.~ comma mm.z emo.H mmm.: mm.: moo.H mwm.z ovumzoumn mm.: wmm.H Naw.m m~.: NNH.H mmm.m moumfiamd Hm.q mm .m mmw.~fl mo.m Hmm.m mmm.:H psoowz o~.m Ham m:fi.m mm.m ma: Ham.m omufixoam ms. mmfi mmo.H 0:.m wNH mma.H oosq mm.z wmm.w w~m.oa ~m.: mma.m oom.m acummadbdq w.: me.: omn.mH mm.: mm:.: m H.om mmsaswq mm.: mHH.H Hmm.m mw.: ooH.H m-H.m uwnaflwoa mm.: :;;.m wmo.mH mm.: m~m.m mmw.:a umwmsq mo.: Nmm :mw.m ~m.: Hmm moz.m oxen :H.m Ozfi ooh ow.m moH mmm swamoamx m:.: mmm.m www.mm m:.: mm:.: Hpm.ma puma mm.2 0mm woo. o~.: om: m0m.m mgmaxfimm mp.z mom.m mmm.m~ ww.: HmN.m AN .mH ocuaaaflam 9am £3 a}: 91m wood Rafi 3303 on. mflm.m mma.:a mo. Nom.m mom.mH «HampamH mm.: ~mw :mm.m am.: How ozm.m nouH om.: HJN wmm.m no.m mmm mma.m oomoH Hm.: ago.m mo~.mfl no.2 mmw.m o~w.ma afiqu om.: mmm.m wmm.za mH.: Hmm.m mmm.ma augmcH am.: mmH.: mam.ow mw.: mmfl.z m~fi.om acpsm mm.z :zm.a Hmw.~ mm.: ozw.fl maw.w cepgmsom mm.z Hom.m omm.mH HH.: :zm.m mmm.za oaacmafifim finch Amp mncm Ewm pom mncm - ...Hmm mo pop .....unflwm uncapwggom 1.8m .wo non. cgmamm s aowumdfiwom EHSS 1:32 @3993 .«o .3852 8.2mm HEM Igz cwmumbd mo nopfinz Bush ”mam mamrmo onma mpmzmo omma 993980 325. mafia. UHHHQ LHH+;-5H paw. 5.>um m¢+u+m mngzD "10» v H:Dom we m5mxeo 0:0H :.nmmeon a :mm W mmeom umHHfi .wpwrnqu. m 5 HHH; .HHHHquHc HHH HHHHHHHHHm HHHH HHHHH HHHH H0 H- HHHo HHH HcoHo HHHHHHHHH .HHHH Ho HHHpH Hm! MN .qp .ANJOH .mOHHmo Mchchm pgmfidpmbob mmeHm owuwm H .noprHdaom 0:» #0 moH+mHhop.Hamro: Ill mm.z wm.2 Spa& 909 mHmomm mo hopfifiz ommpmbm m~m.mmH mm:.m- mH88. HH.H mm.: mzH.H Haw": HHOHHHH mm.: m:.m mno.m NHH.HH oaHHH Hz.: m:.: mmm.m mnm.nH HHH¢HHHHH Hm.: Hm.m :mm.: mmH.HH cmhsm cap Hm.: m~.: mmz.: mzo.Hm , «Hoomse 2H.: Ho.: Hmm.m mmz.m Hammou .Hm H:.2 mm.: Hum.m Ha .HH HHHHQ .Hm mm.: mH.z mwo.n mHm :H HHHHHHmHgm :H.: mm.: Hmm DIN. H HHaHOHooHom Hm.: mm.: mmm.: mow. mH oHHqum 0H.: mm.: Hmw.: :w~.mm HHHHHHH mm.u mN.m owH mww coasnomom mm.“ 2H. Hm HHo.m HHHH oscmHHm m:.a Hu.: mmm.m www.~H «waHHo :m.m wo.m oz: Hmm.m ommmHo Hm.: om.m omm on.H «Hoomo mw.: om.: Hmw.H mwm.~ HHoooHo HH.: m~.: JHH.H me.m mommaoHao om.: mg.: mmm mm:.: Ems$6 mm.n Hm.: mHo.m mm~.w gm80 w~.: wH.m m .m mo:.mH HHHHHHO mm.: mm.: mm .m HHH.oH ommasoz H:.: HH.: www.H m w .H nommxms: mJJA mm.: Nam Nmfl. H bonehiosfinofi Spam hmmlwccm eummmwmm,mnom .II 5: . :. upmm mo amp aimshwm Hmoauwfldmom 3pmm mo non HHmauwh HnoHchsmom mambo 1852 mmwumbd mo hmpasz Sham Hwhdm IEfiz owmnmbd no nopazz Hymn Hakim msmyru5ozmH mamHMO ommH omsz HHHH mHmo Mcfiemm comma.msoo A0 N p luv Iowa“ mauve asH manna magma Hess -aH oomaa soap Hnfioameeoo tommm mahmm lamesoo no hobo msach [caficom Sham commfi Show hog anon godpeadoom deoumSSOO newuwanmom Hmaoumfisoo ommH Hence mfipcm no vamm mo ampasz mo oumsapmm co Aspens mo oveaapmm mo panama no osssapmm senses Heaoa owssm>< ozma a A m M o u o p mongtfibmom :m4m AdHomMXEOo and Adaoe mo emmlHa mmHaabco em oneegpmom mass geese aseHmoH: omma mo meaaHamm HHH> mqm mqua $5 0mmH .EerH .Hmm maomumm mo hopesz 05.2054 Hmo.mm swo.mH www.mas o:~.Hm wam.:H~ mm m.mUH uHspoa on mzH mam.H Nam amm.w Hem mH.: ensues; sea mmH mm~.m mam mmm.HH mam.m nm.: onase 0mm mom omm.w mmm.H Hmw.mH saw.m ~:.: :saopamme ass.H mam HmH.w mmm.H 2mm \ amm.m Hm.: sauna ass new.H mam mHo.mH mo~.m mHm.wH HHm.m Hw.: eHoossa mmm How - .m mam.H mmw.w :wo.m am.: summon .pm mom.H Haw wao.m wmo.m mHo.mH Hmw.m Hs.: eHmHo .sm umo.H 0mm NHo.m mmm.H Ham.mH mew.m mm.: mammscsHsm OwH mm mu: HOH mmm mmm 2H.: assOHoonom mm~.H mo: mmm :H Nam. m oom.mH mam.z Hm.: osHHnam mam.H mam waH. :H 0mm.m mmm mm:.: m~.: usustm mNH mm mmH mm mmm mHH mw.a eozsmomom ma: Hm mwm.m 2mm wmm.z .mm mm.m sHmH snowmen mMH.H mmm mmm.m Hmm.m OHm.mH m m.m mm.m unease mam Hm mmm.H 0mm emm.m am: e . oesmpo scH mm Hma mzH mHm.H swm am.: seoomo mmm one mm~.m mew wen. m mom. mm.: sHooumo mam aw now.H mm: :mw. m sew HH.: nameaoseo mmm mmH ozm.m 0mm mmo. : wmw 0m.z sesame HHo.H mHm man. s cm mH:.w mm~.H mw.: eqmooo mom.H mmm NmH m mmm.H mmw.sH NOH.m m~.: easHaao meH.H mmm mmm. mmo.H Hw~.m mmH.m no.3 omsszoz on :HH woo. new mow.m NNJ.H ~:.: assesses a M m o c o p _ a “60339.33 gHazoo 4:; Huge rm). f) : H was No} cam Ham mm.2 mmsweena acute o o Hmw NMH 3mm maH m~.q oHpmsom o o mam omH mop mmH mH.m eHaesHe m: m MHm.z mao.H zom.m sea H~.: essence o o HsH.H mew mew com 2m.s amass o 0 :mm H Oxm moH.m me: :w.z cones o o mHm m: m: mm my.2 someonHq o 0 New me HHN mmH mm.m euHmm o o o wH ow mH on. esocamso m H «OH.H mm“ mmm.H Hmm Ha. coacHHo o o mwm HOH :mw m: Hm.m 0.3.8 o 0 wow NmH Nao.H mmm mH.s esmspHao o o mom me awo.H mmm mw.: summonses o o oaH.H mwm mmw omH mm.: xHo>sHs¢ao o o cm~.H mH: m:~.H mo: mm.: memo : H omw.m mmw mmw.H mm: m:.: qsoaHeo : H mmm Hmm mHm.H zen :m.z sonata an a amm.m MHm mmm.z New aw.s smHHusm o 0 wow wNH ow: wOH mm.m oHNasm o o mmm.H Hmm mHs.m Ha: H. smm o o mmm.H mHm me.H mas wo.s spasm mm m mp: moH mam HmH :m.: ssmpem o o wmm mmH mmo.H mmm am.s oseon< o o mso.H Hmm 1mm :wH mm.2 aHupae o 0 New maH me 22H m~.: g3H... am m m:~.m mmm mHm.m Nap Hm.: usesHHe : H me oHH emm mw H~.: nomHe mm m mam :sH amm mMH Hm.: seoOH< fl An.» p "Hy HH x p unv + 30H» ommH noHp aoHpaH >uesco amafimom each macaw .wHHHaom sham ommflfiahem ufieom each comma «sham 8.3m you maom Hsaucuns sHsahogne dsHpeseHmmm .HsHamoeHumm osHpansm oaHpupusmeuom mo ampasz mo oeaegmm no .3852 .«o modicum mo ampaflm mo memefimm mo $0.892 awakens“. Ozma e a H a n H p a dogcdacm each .350 Mo oucefimm .m mmszeaoo qHHH> sHmea : H om:.H msm oew.H mm.: sHooouoa : H omm.m Nmm mm~.« ms.: ooucon o o oaw HMH ow mm.: mosoomen o o om~.H omm Noo.m o~.: oeaHoHa o o mo:.H Nam HHm mm.: oooHaoeos o o mom mmm mom m:.: mpmoooz m: oH mmp mNH sow em.: comes a H How mom mm mw.: opuooopes o 0 com pom ow mm.: oesoHcoa o o mHH.m oom omH.m Hm.: paoooz o o mom Na mam m~.m ooeHauua m H mam mm msH we. oosH o o oom.H mam Nom.H :m.: nepmmoH>Hn mm m amm.H mmm mHo.m mm.: ooseeoH o o Ham moH awe mm.: sequooH m H nmo.H one moH.m no.2 smoocH o o mm: mHH NNH mo.: oasH o o :m mm mm :H.m passages wH : omw.n Haw :mH.m m:.: some o o mam mmH mom mm.: sameaHsa mm m oo:.m Hom oam.m ma.: consecHaM : H moo.“ wmm mom.m m:.: gaseous m: m emo.H HmH mmm.H 0:.m oHHopomH o o Ham Ham :mm mm.: conH o o mmo maH «a: om.s oouoH m m awo.H or“ mHm.H Hm.: oHooH m H mmm.H mmm m_m.H om.: assoeH o o ozm oHH HNN mo.: oopsm o o mom wow mvm m.: assesses o o mom.H mam mom.H mm.: oHsomHHHm o o mmw oNH mHm.H m~.: aoHooso H M n. F d s§§§ . EHBZOO 4H H E amuse To C. pwwer HIGmIOd wmfihcm .c:.+~.:odhv< we wrmcco Ceca >mcnfifififim .MH umosoHcmm .mSmcco my. me flocpwm uncvmcfigquv hm :.mu05coam each .wofiumaawuocpc emu sash .maauhz II n .91 in .... i1 slit i on.: omm each can mzompcm Mo hmpasz excam>< new moH Hos.mHH oom.am HHH.oHH mmo.sm oHoooa o o nmm zoo “mo :Hm mH.: spaces; mm m mmH.: mHo mmm.m omw mm.: onsoe H» a ~oo.m mes moa.H mm as.: seeoosmoe Ha m mom.m mwa mom.m omo Hm.s oopsm as» m H mom.H mH: mam.H oH Hw.: oHoowoe o o Hmo.H mm m omm.H mo :m.; gnomes .om o o mm..m amw amo.m mmm H:.: “HoHo .om o o mam.H mmm :mm.H mum mm.: sowsosoHam o o mom mOH wmm w: :~.: acoaUHoosom o o moo.H Hmm oom.H mom Hm.: ooHHosm o o wsm.m mmm moH.m Hmo m~.: emswmsm o o HJH mm mm mH mw.m ooEECOmom o o :om mHH mam ooH mm. oHsH opossum mm Hm mo~.m mom we:.m 0mm ma.m stosso o 0 .mm om mmm a: :e. oeompo o o am mH mmm No hm.: seooeo o o gem mmH HmH.H How no.3 sHoooso o 0 mm mmm mHm mmH HH.: oeuouoaao o o Ha mmH :H mm om.z ::so so m H oom. saw no .H :mm mo.z sooooo mm MH «no.3 mom ~oo.m mum m~.: equaso mm m moo.H on: mso.H son mm.: ossssmz o o :HH.N mas oam HHN ~s.: nomoamss o o m~m mm :H: mm m:.: homepageaoE d a H — x — n H a p d _ ‘F'_7"—_W QHDZHBZOO lquHp MHmsa Adoananoov .A C: C.‘ JV whereby the situations could be measured. Therefore, the estimates were used for purposes of comparison, although use of the census data would simplify the determination of pepulation classes. The total farm population for 1950 could then be divided by the 1950 total number of farms for each county. This value could be multiplied by the number of farms in each category to determine the farm population for each class. This procedure will still be based on the assumption that the average number of persons per farm remained constant among the differ- ent classes of farm pooulation. , ”A \(‘g Rural Fen-Farm Population Rural villag, population. It was possible to arrive at a defi- nite value for the number of persons in this class for each county because the ponulation of each village was listed in the 1350 census reports. Rural villafie inhabitants were defined es all persons living in incorporeted villages, towns, or cities of less than twenty-five hundred inhatitants, or all persons living in unincorporated places of over one thousand and less than twenty-five hundred inhabitants. The rural village category was further divided into rurban and non-rurbsn classes. The word rurban was used because it simply ex- pressed the situation. Rurban village papulation included only those village persons who were located in areas contiguous to an urban cen- ter of twenty-five hundred and less than fifty thousand population. For Extension purposes this group of peeple is essentially the same as suburban, being in reality within an urban fringe. The difference was found in that rurban groups live outside cities of less than fift thousand pepulation while suburbanites are located outside cities of fifty thousand or more. The remaining rural village population was classified as non- rurban, including all persons living in villages of less than tw nty- five hundred, as listed by 1950 census reports. The counties having such pepulation worn listed in Table Nine, Part A, along with the vil- lages of the particular county, their penulations, and the total non- rurban village penulation. Part B of Table Nine listed similarly the rurban pepulation. 1 L; C) TejL-E IX 1950 MICHIGAN RUML NON-PAIN VILLAGE yoraanom BY COUNTI :93" IX. Non Rur'onn Village Population . ICounty Village I Pepulation County Total Alcona Harrisville hgfi 39h Lincoln hog Alwer O O Allegan Douglas uh? ”.355 Fenville 639 Hooking 31 Martin ROY Saugatuck 770 Wayland 1,591 Alnena O O Antrim Bellaire 693 3,6143 Central Lake 692 Ella Rapids 859 Ellsworth 369 Mancelona 1,000 Arenac Au Greg hug 2,782 Omer 321 Standish 1,186 Sterling nun Turner 193 Twining 196 Barqga Barnga 932 3,313 L'Anse 2,37 , Barry Freeport b; 3,233 Middleville 1,0h7 Nashville 1,37h Woodland th Bay , Auburn 869 2,092 Pinconning 1,223 Benzie Benzonla ho? u,gnl Beulah M58 Elberta 597 Frankfort 1,853 Honor 269 Lake Ann 99 Thompsonville 313 131 F! ABLE IX,CCYTIEUED 4 ~- E' (Con tinned) l» Caunty Village Pooulation County Total Berrien Baroda 3hh 11,9S9 Berrien Springs 1,761 Bridzeman 977 Coloma 1,0h1 Eau Claire M20 Galien 610 Grsnd Beach 105 Michiana 102 New Buffalo 1.565 Paw Paw Lake 1,695 Stevensville MSO Three Oaks 1,572 Watervliet 1,327 Branch Bronson 2.106 5,5R5 Quincy 1,537 Sherwood 362 Union City (part) 1,550 Calhoun Athens 768 3,059 Burlington 3F9 Homer 1,301 Tekonsha 6M7 Union City (part) 1h Cass CaSSODolis 1,527 3,517 Edwardsburg 615 Marcellus 1,01% Vandalia 360 Charlevoix Boyne Falls 236 2,015 East Jorden 1,779 Cheboygan Mackinac City (part) 605 9? Wolverine 313 Chiopewe De Tour 611 611 Clare Clare 2,uuo h,013 Farwell 69h Harrison 83h c.- Tells: Ix, C(‘zJTTIZ‘TIED lg: (Continued) —— -.>'~.-u_ -ufi---—~-----] l_¥County Village Pepuletion County Total] Clinton DeWitt ash 5,083 Eagle 1U5 Elsie 1&5 Fowler 911 Hubbardston (part) 675 Mauls Rapids 6h5 Ovid l,th Westphalia h59 Crawford Grayling 2,066 9,056 Delta Garden 399 339 Dickinson 0 O Eaton Bellevue 1,168 M,971 Dimondale 77h Mulliken hll Olivet 837 Potterville 69h Sunfield MOO Vernontville 707 Emmet Alanson 319 2,752 Harbor Springs 1,696 mackinsc Citv (part) 765 Pellston fin? Genesee Clio 1,063 7,h95 Davison flgn Flushing 2,226 Gaines 352 Linden 933 Montrose 937 Otisville 592 Otter Lake (part) 38 Gledwin Beaverton 79h 2,672 Gladwin 1,878 Gogebic O 0 Grand Traverse Fife Lake 3H7 771 Kingsley hen Gretiot Ashley hug h,19u Breckenridge 935 Ithaca 2,377 Perrinton 383 13? TABLE IX, COYTIHUED Ln (Continued) l— County Village Population County Total Hillsdale Camden 390 5,309 Jonesville 1,59h Litchfield 832 Montgomery 397 North Adams E99 Reading 1,125 Waldron M27 Houghton Copoer City 336 5,560 Buhbell 1,690 Lake Linden 1,h62 South Range 712 Trimountain—Painesiale 1,360 Huron Cqseville use 9.399 Elkton 85h Harbor Reach 2,399 Kuide 571 Owendale 307 Pigeon 1,015 Port Austin 729 Sebewaing 1,911 Ubly 7h} Ingham Dansville M33 5,725 Leslie 1,5h3 Stockbridge 1,093 Webberville 600 Williamston 2,051 Innis Clarksville 339 9,722 Hubbardston (part) 321 Lake Odessa 1,596 Lyons 6S3 Hui r 1466 Pewamo M32 Saranac 835 Iosco Eavt Tawas 2,0h0 3,933 Tawns City 1,hh1 Whittemore h52 Iron Alpha 378 2,69h Crystal Falls 2,316 Isabella Shepherd 899 - \ 1‘ Y lu"? TABLE IX, CONTINUED E- (Continued) . ] [3 County —I Village 1‘ Pooulation [ County Total] Jackson Brooklyn 862 h,125 Concrod 730 Gross Lake 873 Hanover 377 PP. ma 6‘20 Springport 59S Kalamazoo Augusta 893 9.959 Austin Lake 2.032 Climax 52h Gslesburg 1,200 Portage 1,677 Richlsnd 339 Schoolcraft 1,078 Vicksburg 2,171 Kalkaska Kalkaska 1,250 1,250 Kent Caledonia 61 619 9,505 Canovia (part) 153 Cedar Springs 1,373 Kent City 506 Lowell 506 Rockford 2,191 Sand Lake 39h Sparta 2,327 Keweenaw Ahneek 360 1,h91 Mohawk-Fulton 1,131 Lake Baldwin 83E 1,1h9 Luther 31 Lapeer Almont 1,035 5,991 Clifford 330 Columbiaville 789 Dryden h76 Imlay City 1,65h Metamora 390 North Branch 832 Otter Lake has Leelanau Empire 251 1,317 Northport 532 Suttons Bay fish *? E; L” 4 [‘1 IX, CONT ITUZD . (Coninued) - ...—n- County Village [ Population [ County Total LLenawee Aadison ugg 9,6h3 ‘ Blissfield 2,3o5 Britten 317 Clayton 67 Clinton 1,3hh Deerfield 725 Morenci 1.933 Onsted M35 Lanitou.Beach-Devils Lake 1,273 Livingston Brighton 1,361 n.022 Fowlerville l,h66 Pinckney 695 Luce 0 Ma ckina c Mackinac I sland 572 57 _ Macomb Armada 961 7,555 Memphis (part) #85 New Baltimore (part) 1,806 New Haven 1,08? Richmond ?,O?5 Utica 1,196 Manistee Bear Lake 36H 1,hOO COpenish 255 Kaleva £16 Onekama 35 Mason Custer 260 1,857 Fountain 2M7 Freesoil 208 Scottville 1,1h2 Marquette Republic 1,092 1,092 Mecosta Barryton MMS 1,359 Mecosta 05 Morley 13 tanwood 189 Monominee Dacrett 3H1 1,5b9 Powers 510 Stephenson 791 Midland Coleman 1,02h 1,02n Missaukee Lake City 709 1,295 McBain ’ 50o '1‘an I X, 051.“? IIV'UrJD E (Cont inued) I_ Ipounty [' Village l Ponulation J County TotalJ Monroe Carleton 1:039 5.593 Admore 971 Howard City 791 Lakeview 975 McBride 223 Pierson 159 Sheridan 535 Stanton 1,1?3 Montmorency Hillman hhe hhe Muskegon Casnovia (part) 159 6,233 Fruitport 63.3 Montague 1.530 Ravenna 551 Whitehall 1,819 Wolf Lake 1,591 Wewayeo Grant 636 3,333 Hesperia 330 Newaygo 1:355 White Cloud 977 Oakland Clarkstown 722 13,972 Commerce 1,075 Lake Orion 2,335 lake Orion Heights 1,075 Leonard 391 Milford 1,9214 Orchard Lake 696 Ortonville 702 Oxford 2.305 South Lyon 1,313 White Lake-Seven Harbors 1,385 Oceana Hart 2.172 5,697 Hesperia (part) M30 New Era 2H7 Pentwater 19097 Shelby 1,500 Walkerville 233 Ogemaw Prescott 281 2,895 Rose City “MS West Branch 2.093 Ontonagon Ontonagon 2,307 2,307 T "PIE IX, COl'TT 1113143 F. (Continued) l I County __I Village I Population 3' County Total] Osceola Ebert 1.578 1.575 5.309 Hershey 239 LeRoy 2h} Marlon 879 Reed City 2,241 Tueton 229 Oscoda O Otsego Gaylord 2,271 2,681 Vanderbilt hlo Ottawa COOpersville 1,371 2,h72 Hudsonville 1,101 Presque Isle Millersburg 2?1 1,976 Onaway 1,h21 Posen 27h Roscommon Roscommon 877 877 Saginaw Chesaning 2.26M 6,083 Frankenmuth 1,208 Merrill 809 Oakley 333 St. Charles 1,569 Sanilac Applegate 2hh 8,h10 Brown City 873 Carsonville h87 Cro swell 775 Deckerville 719 Forestville 12h Lexington 59h Marlette 1,U89 Melvin 20h Minden City 359 Peck firl Port Sanilac 2M7 Sandusky 1,819 Schoolcraft O O Shiawassee Bancroft 615 h,g37 Byron hxg Laingsburg 932 Morricy 501 New LothrOp M59 Perry 1,203 Vernon 673 TABLE IX, CONTINUED 0.1 —'**“"'l A. (Continued) County Village Population County Total St. Clair Capnck _ ’7 1.10h 3.5?7 Emmett 230 Memphis (part) 315 New Baltimore 237 Yale 1,6hl St. Joseph Burr Oak 81h 6.16m Centreville 879 Colon 1,000 Constantine 1,513 Kendon Shh White Pigeon 1,113 Tuscola Akron MEI 5.5?9 Cass City 1,76? Fairgrove 70 Gagetown 1 Kingston 371 kayville 583 Millington 1,0h3 Reese 632 Unionville 531 Van Buren Bangor 1.69M 10.759 Bloomindale #55 Breedsville 239 DeCB tur 1,6611: Gobles 62? Hartford 1,838 Lawrence 679 Lawton 1,206 Paw Paw 2,332 Washtenaw Dexter 1,307 n.223 Manchester 1,388 Saline 1,533 Wayne Belleville 1.722 h.697 Flat Rock 1,931 Rockwood 1,0'3 Wexford Buckley lgu 1,790 Harrietta 152 Manton 1,03 Mesick 359 Total TABLE IX, CCETIIUED E Rurban, Village Pepulation |_ County Village Penulation Countv Total Bay Winona Bench 1,295' lleéa Berrien Shoreham 391 391 Calhoun Level Park-Oak Perk 1,35h 3,300 Sunrise Heights 1,03h Verona Park 1,3M2 Dickinson East Kingsford-Skidmore 1,279 1,279 Gogebic RamseybAnvil 1,M66 1,366 Houghton Calumet 1,256 1,255 Iron Mineral Hills 333 h,h85 Stambaugh 1,969 Caspian 1,603 Gaastra 575 Jackson Broohline 1,5oh 5.367 Riverside-Killsdale Gardens 1,012 Southland-Woodland 2,u25 Woodville 1,926 Manistee East Lake 376 Midland Bullock 1,89u 1,33h Monroe South Monroe 2,275 6,802 Columbus Grove 1,013 Detroit Beech-Woodland 1,956 Patterson Gardens 1,538 anlend Bloomfield Hills l,h68 1,591 'ake Angelus 123 Ottawa Beechwood Oaklann 1,567 n.8h5 Ferrysburg 1,35% Spring Lake 1,82h Shiawassee Curunna 2,35? 2,358 St. Clair South Park 2,391 3,73h Sporlingville 1,393 Washtenaw East Ann Arbor 1,826 2,922 Packard Homesite 1,096 __ Total h5,ull ‘ .-- -1-l------e-----_n.-_.-l.------l..1.-----..----i-...L--------.. "POpulation of Michigan: Aoril l, 1950," 1950_93§§3§-gfofguulajion Series PC~8, No. 21 (Washington: Bureau of the Con- sus, October 7, 1951), pp. 3-7. Adn§n9§.Reoorts, Rural noneferu_noqj§il§@is;gg;ulation; The nunber in this poun- ow' ‘ lotion class was determined by elimination. The estimate of the total rural farm population and the total rural village pooulation were sub- tracted from the county's total rural pejuletion to obtain en estimate f the rural non—farm non-village pooulation. Included were those per- sons residing in unincorporated hamlets of less than one thousand per- sons and those persons residing in the Open country who did not re- port any sale of agricultural products in 19h9. Table Ten illustrated the method of determining the number of persons in this category. ...] r.) '— 0 TABLE ESTIMATE CF 1950 MICHIGAN RURAL FOL—FARM VON-VILLAGE POPUEATICN BY COVNTIES - ‘u—I I...“ ~u=uwuusurn I. D"-.r-‘fi-.‘I-"----7-'—’"--"-- r-‘ County b c d e a Total Rural Estimated Rural Non— Estimate of Population Total Rural Perm Village Rural Eon- from Table V Farm Popu- Pepulstion For. Hon-Vila lation (Urban and loge Popula- Non—crten) tion From Table Ix (e: b-c-d) Alcona 5,256 3.721 sen 1.2h1 Alger 5,668 2,020 o 3,6hs Allegen 35.933 21.805 ”.385 9.7h5 Alpena 9.05 “.095 0 3.959 Antrim 10.721 «3 3,6h3 2,195 Arenec 9.6hh 5.359 2.78? 1.533 Barsga 8,037 2.‘ 1 3.313 2.313 Barry 20.037 .751 3.283 7.033 Bay 32.771 11.530 .387 1h.soh Benzie 8.306 2.h55 .001 1.330 Berrien 57.320 23.106 12.350 22,03h Branch 21.603 lo.h3 5.5h5 5.631 Calhoun 38,632 13.5u3 6.859 13,130 Cass 21.6h3 9,73u 3.517 8,392 cnnrlevoix 7.752 n.2u6 2.015 l.h91 Cheboygan 8.0hu n.13o 923 2.991 Chippewa 11.29h 1.301 611 5.ss2 Clere 10,253 n.360 n.018 1,875 Clinton 2h.552 12.7u6 5.083 6.693 Crawford h.151 35o 2.0o6 1.735 Delta 12.912 5.239 399 7.22 Dickinson 6,869 2.121 1.279 3.h69 Eaton 2M.911 13.795 n.971 6.1L5 Emmet 10.066 u.36l 2.752 2.953 Genesee 69.106 17,385 7.h95 uh.226 Gladwin 9,u51 5,897 2.672 882 Gogebic 8.73n 2,3hs 1.h66 n.92o Grand Traverse 11.62h 5.195 771 5,658 Grstiot 21.7h1 13.319 n.19u n.22s Hillsdale 2u.619 1h,o37 5.30M 5.27s Hounnton 27.508 5.711 6,316 1h,981 Huron 30.176 18.358 9.309 2.509 Insham 37.585 l9.h0? 2.725 19.h58 Ionia 2h.503 11,531 .722 8,950 I°S°° 10-906 3.133 3.933 3.8uo Iron 13.6hh 2.89 7.179 3.572 Isabella 17,571 12,1'# $99 h,a?g Jackson 116,600 12,819 10,992 29,7;h ..-- _ .. .1 “.9214 09377.1er D “1...-.. .-----i..- -- a b c d e Kalamazoo h .375 12.062 9.969 21.3hh Kalkeska .c97 2.093 1.250 1.253 Kent 61.fi75 1€.015 9.505 3?.9i5 Keweenaw 2.918 115 1.391 1.311 Lake 5925? 1,775 1,1“9 29333 lepeer 29,651 13.97h 5.991 9.686 Leelanau 8.637 “.355 1.317 2.9h5 Lenawee 399hu3 179u65 9,698 12,330 Livingston 22,372 9,108 9,022 9,2h9 Luce 5.3h5 862 0 n,ug3 Mackinac 6.3h1 1.863 572 3.906 Mecomb 56.229 lu,036 7.555 3h.638 Monistee 9.882 n.2pu 1.776 3,332 sorouette 15.018 2,u89 1.092 11,h37 Meson 10.968 6,367 1.857 2.78h Mecosta 12.232 7.huo 1.352 3.hho Menominee 1h,lh8 9,212 1,542 3,29h Midland 21.377 8,16u 2.918 13.29: Missaukee 7.h58 5.07 1.225 1.15 Monroe 53,50h 16,0“6 12,h95 2h,96) Montcalm 2n.3u5 13.008 5.935 5. i2 Montmorency b.125 1,713 hh2 1,970 Muskegon 36.300 6.602 6.288 2‘.h13 Fewnygo 18.511 9.767 3.338 5,k06 Oakland 109.073 1h.853 15.563 72.657 Oceona 16.105 8.h15 5.679 2.01 Cgemaw 9.3h5 n.032 2,825 2.h38 Ontonagon 10,252 3,63% 2,327 n.3h1 Osceola 13,797 6,368 5,"9 2,620 Oscoda 3.13h 1,312 o 1.822 Otsego 6.u35 2.26M 2.631 l.hso Ottawa h2,535 16.310 7.317 18.908 Presoue Isle 8.123 n.923 1.976 1.219 Roscommon 5.916 563 877 L.h76 Saginaw 117.575 21.535 6.083 19.958 Senilac 30.837 18.900 8.hlo 3.327 Schoolcreft H.062 1,389 0 2,573 Shiawassee 26.825 13,271 7,195 6.353 St. Clair £2,333 16,013 7.311 19.009 St. Joseph 20,500 8,835 6,16h 5,501 Tuscola 32.26h 18.812 6.629 .323 Van Buren 3.555 15.56u 10.7s9 7,999 Washtenew 7,908 12,891 7,150 27,S§’ Wayne 76.332 11.532 n.597 60.103 Wexford 3,921. 2 qu‘ 1 109 2 ?J Total 1,868,662 71h,528 353.289 800.865 ] f.) 5.1 \224 Summary Tn penulation classes based on place of residence were establishe' ‘. in because each represented a separate group of peoole requiring disprooore tionate shares of Extension resources within a county. Each category was mutually exclusive because the value of each class was not deoendent directly on any other class. The total of all these clssses within a county would be the total pOpul.tion of that county. Tables Eleven and Twelve give complete summarizstion of penulation numbers of the verious classes for the entire state of Michigan based on 1950 census deta. ST’L‘“; nEY 0F 19 90 IZICE‘. I}AN URBAN PC'PlTlu‘LTICIJ“I Category Number of Penulation Per Cent of Fer Ger at of Cities ”ichiean Total Micki Urllan Popuv gen Ponula- __ lstion tion Cities 2500-h999 55 192.868 n.2s 3.02 Citiss 5000-9999 38 2C8.076 5.95 9.21 Cities 10.000-2h,999 37 579.1L2 12.86 9.09 Cities 25.000-h9,999 10 h13,5h8 9.18 5,h9 Cities 50,000-100,000 7 515.037 11.99 8.08 Cities 100.000-2h9,999 2 339.658 7.59 5.33 Cities 250 ,000-L99, 999 0 Ci ies 500. 000 999 .999 0 Cities over 1.000.000 l l.8h9.568 h1.08 29.03 Suburban lg 3M5 18 1.61 5.99 Totals 9,503,089 100.00 70.67 . lim,,mvflm_fi__hmfl,m_.-_ "Number of Inhabitants, Michigan,” 1050 Urlited_ s+:+eg Census of ”..-—.... Egnulstign, Series P-A 22 , Preorint of Volume 1, Chaoter 22 ( as}in2- tion: United States Government Printing Office, 1951), p. 10. 1+ '3',I..lll‘lr"\l I'll. - ‘I'I‘l‘ '. '1’! ‘t I 1'11" '1'. ' 'I'IP... " ‘I' it. ‘1': 0|.' 'n'-lnl 'b -.. 'Il'r‘l' I'l""'.‘l\l’- ...,zi‘liil‘i E;”i .-. ‘l‘l ‘. '1'." 5U|Ezi rill" mm.sm oo.oo~ :Hm.mm mmm.mmw.a masses Mm.mH ww.mn msm_m soapsnssom owmaafiblcoz EhliCoz Henna H~.o m:.m New HH:.m: sowpsassom ommaaflm ampsdm anmmceoz Hmsdm mw.: ms.mH mo~.m mem.~om sofipsfissom sesfiflse , amppdhleoz Shawlcoz aeusm Ho.o no.0 w mmm cofiuwafiqom seem Heeuoqp¢ Hmpsm m~.H mo.m :mm.a Hnfi.mrfl modusafimom Hush Heqpqowflmmm Hendm m~.H mw.m emm.a NHH.0HH soapsassom sash osfiatessm Hassm mo.H o~.m mmw Heo.mw ssoosH mmfiseuOmme n». at mahwrm d3 0.89800 :0 soapmaseom sham Hmuum mm.m om.mm mwo.m www.mm: ssoosH oomae uo>o no“: mesem Hewopeeeoo no nodpwafioom ehdh.aehsm .---- son» seeped - Iqasoom namfizouz tamom Hehsm new“ hpqfioo pom dean Heuoe mo peso hem use“: me #200 hem saddoom ommsmhd acapeafimom hhomcao onesqmsom nemsm zeeHmon omma mo nmsmzpm Haw mgmda 115 CHAPTER VI PROPOSED METHODS FOR ALLOCATING EXTENSION RESOURCES It was concluded in Chepter Four that the most important measure oi the Extension county load is a consideration of the population num- bers in the classes having varying importance to Extension. A.meens for determining the relative sizes of the Extension teaching loads was deemed essential to the proper allocation of funds to the counties. Two main reasons for using pepuletion class numbers were that Operating funds originate on that basis and that the scope of Extension work is primarily determined by the number of persons to be served. Two methods are proposed in this chapter for allocating the limited Extension re- sources. One method is based on the Federal legislation appropriating funds for Extension. This system can readily be Justified from a legal point of view. It also involves simple mathematical procedures. No consid- eration is given to urban population since this class is not presently included in the bases for appropriation. The other proposed method is based on Extension acts as well as the broader concepts of Extension expressed in recent policy statements.1 Some consideration is given to urban residents. All major classes are sub-divided. Either of the two methods would prove useful to Extension adminis- trators faced with the ever-present problem of spreading limited resources emoung the counties. 1 “Joint Committee Report on Extension Programs. Policies. and Goals" (Washington: United States Government Printing Office. 19h8). 117 Method Based on Federal ApprOpriations Basis of Federal apprgpriation to Michigan. The amount of Federal funds appropriated to the Michigan Extension Service in the fiscal year of 1950-1951 was listed on Table Two of Chapter Two. It was seen that 76 per cent of the total amount was based on the total rural farm popu- lation of the state. Seventeen per cent of the total funds in that year was based on special needs of the state as determined by the Secretary of Agriculture. _§rocedure. DevelOpment of this means of allocation rested on the assumption that state Extension funds coming from the Federal government were intended to be used in the manner indicated by the basis of their apprOpriation. No specification was made as to exact use of funds by the state, so the method of Federal appropriation seemed a likely guide. No consideration was made of the county portion of the total budget be- cause this part was not under direct control of state Extension admin- istration. The purpose of this system was to determine the amount of Federal and state funds to be allotted to each county based on the Federal allo- cation system. The 1951-1952 budget of the Michigan Extension Service was used in this procedure. The funds of this budget were: Federal Funds (all sources) $ 893,335.00 State Funds (all sources) liOhljl3].OO 2 Total $1.93h.h72.oo 2 The 1951-1952 Michigan Couperative Extension Budget (on file, Office of the Extension Director, Michigan State College. East Lansing, Michigan) 118 The object was to find the total amount to which each rural person and each rural farm person was entitled according to the Federal system of allocation. It was recalled that seven per cent of the Federal funds was based on special needs, having nothing to do with population numbers. To include this part to equal one hundred per cent. three per cent was added to the 17 per cent based on rural pepulation, while the remaining four per cent was added to the 76 per cent based on farm population. Therefore, the approthation was made that twenty per cent of the total state and Federal funds was appropriated on the basis of total rural population. and that eighty per cent of the total was appropriated on the basis of rural farm.p0pulation. To the nearest dollar, the prOportions of the state and Federal funds for these two categories for the year of 1951-1952 would be: Basis ofggppropriation 223_gg§£, 539223 Total rural population 20 $ 386,89h Total rural farm pepulation _§Q_ 1,5uzl5zs Total State and Federal Funds 100 $1.93M.h72 According to Table Five of Chapter Five. the total Michigan rural population was 1,868,682, and this group received $386.89h in approprian tions. Dividing the number of rural persons into the amount of funds available for them the result was: $336,891: + 1.868.682 : $0.207oh This was approximately 21 cents appropriated in the year 1951-1952 from Federal and state sources for each rural person in Michigan. From Table Eight of Chapter Five the estimate of the 1950 rural farm population was 119 found to be 71h,523. Dividing similarly to the previous method the result was: $1,5h7,573 e 71u,523 : $2.16537 Approximately $2.17 then was appropriated for each rural farm person of Michigan. In Table Thirteen these values were multiplied by the correspond- ing number of persons in each class for every county. Column a contained a list of all Michigan counties. Column b contained the 1950 rural pop- ulation for each county. Column c was the result of each county's rural population multiplied.by $0.2070h. Column d was similarly multiplied by $2.16587 which gave the result in column e. For example, Alcona County had 5,856 rural population and 3,721 rural farm pepulation. $ 0.027oh x 5.856 2.16587 I 3.721 : §&Q§2_ Total $9,271 $1,912 The $9,271 figure represented the theoretical amount of the state and Federal funds for the year l95lel952 that should have been available to Alcona County. The totals for all the administrative units of the Michigan Service were listed in the third column of Table Fourteen. These values were used to rank the 75 units from highest to lowest. The amounts for each administrative unit represent purely theoret- ical values. Actually no county received as much as was shown in Table Fourteen because the procedure did not take into account the supporting Extension activities carried on for the counties. Such activities TABLE XIII 20 AMOUNT 01‘ 1950-1952 FEDERAL AND STATE FUNDS AVAILABLE TO MICHIGAN COUNTIES DETERMINED BY BASIS OF FEDERAL ALLOCATION OF FUNDS 1‘0 MICHIGAN‘ a b c d a County 1950 Rural Funds Based Estimate of Funds based Population on 1950 Buy 1950 Rural on 1950 Rural r31 Popula- Farm Popu Farm Popular tion lation tion ($0.2070h ($2.16537 por per4gorson)_ _;person) AICOM 50856 3 10212 39721 $ 80059 Alger 5. 663 1.17% 2.020 “.375 magma 35.922 7.14140 21.805 117.227 Alpena 9.01.375 .095 11.035 Antrtn 10 .721 2.220 .883 10.576 Arenac 9 0 6m" 19 997 5 a 33-9 119 520 Baraga 8.037 1.66h 2. 1 5.200 Barry 20.087 n.159 9.751 21.119 Bay 32.771 6.735 1h.580 31.578 Benzlo 8. 306 1.720 2.h55 5.317 Borrion 57. 520 11.903 23.106 50.0ug Branch 21. 603 h.h7 “:3 22.59 Calhoun 3s. 6 2 7. 98 13. a 29.559 Cass 21. 3 h. 31 2M .73 21.083 Charlevoix 7. 72 1.605 9.1 6 Choboygan 8.0 1,665 #:130 8.935 Chippewa 11 .29h 2.338 n. 301 10.328 Clara 10 .253 2,123 h. 360 9. 3 Clinton 2n.522 5.077 12.7h6 27.606 Crawford n.151 859 350 753 Delta 12.912 2.673 5.289 11. u.u53 Dickinson 6.869 1.h22 2.121 n.59 Eaton 2u.911 5.158 1 .795 29.878 Emmet 10.066 2.08h .361 9.hh5 Gonoooo 69.106 1h.308 17. 335 37. 654 Glad'in 93351 10957 50 7 12 772 Gogobic 8.73h 1.808 2.323 5,085 Grand Traverse 11.62u 2.h0715.195 11.252 Gratiot 21.7h1 n.501.319 28.8h7 Hillsdalo 2h.619 5.097 1 .037 30.h02 Houghton 27.508 5. 6.638; 5.711 12.369 Huron 30.176 18. 58 39.761 Ingham 37.585 7.752 12. 2 26.361 Ionia 2h.503 5.073 11.531 2h.975 Iosco 10.906 2.258 3.133 6,736 121 TABLE x111. 001. 18080 a b c d 0 Iron 13.61414 2.825 2.8 $ 6.266 Isabella 17.571 3.633 12:1. 26.302 JBCKSOD 146 600 9.6118 120811‘ 279753 Kalamazoo :3” .375 8.980 12.062 26.125 Kalkaska 952 29093 “:533 Kent 12.727 19.015 M1 18 Keweenaw 62 .918 60“ 116 251 Lake 5025? 10083 10775 3934)" Lapeer 29.631 6.139 13.97“ 30.266 Leelanau 8.6 7 1.790 .335 9.997 Lenawee 39,hh3 3.156 17. 5 37.327 Livingston 22.372 ”.632 9.108 19.727 Luce 5.3h5 1.107 862 1.867 Maokinac 5.3u1 1.313 1.863 n.035 Macomb 56.229 11.6h2 1n.036 30.h00 nanlatoo 9.882 2.0h6 n.22h 9.1h9 Marquette 15.018 3.109 2.h89 5.391 Mason 10 .968 2.271 6. 67 13.790 Maconta 12. 232 2. 533 7. 16.119 Menominee 19.18 %3 9.212 19.952 Midland 21. 77 h. 8.16u 17.682 Missankee 1. 5kg 5.076 10.99h Monroe 5E.W 11.077 16.096 3h.75h Montcalm .3h5 5.0 13.008 28.17n Montmorency h. 125 8 1.713 ab .710 Muskegon 36.300 7.516 6.602 1 Newaygo 18.511 3.833 9.767 21. 15 Oakland 109.073 22.582 1h.853 32.170. Cooana 16.105 3.33h 8.h15 18.226 Ogemaw 9.3h5 1.935 n.032 8.733 Ontonagon 10.282 2.129 3.63% 7.871 0.0001a 13 g 797 2. 8 69 368 13 g 792 Oscodn 3.139 6 1.312 2.8h2 Otsego 6.h35 1.332 2.26h n.9oh Ottawa h2.535 8.806 16.310 35.325 Presque Isle 8.123 1.682 .928 10.673 Roscommon 5.916 1.225 563 1.219 Saginaw l$7.576 9.850 21.535 16.692 Ssnllao 30 837 6.33“ 18.900 "0 935 Schoolcraft n. 062 8R1 1.389 3. 008 Shiawassee 26. 825 5.55% 13.271 28.7h3 St. Clair u2.333 8.76 16.013 3h. 682 St. Joseph 20. 500 h.2 8.835 19.135 Tuscole 32.26h 6. 680 18.812 33 555 6 997 15.56“ 33 710 Yen Buren 1?? TABLE x111. 0011113020 3 ‘b e d e Washtenaw 147.908 3 9.91 12.891 $ 27.920 Wayne 76.333 15.80 11. 532 211.977 woxrord 8.203 1.698 3.9311 8.521 Totals 1.868.682 $ 386.89h 71n.528 $1.5u7.571 0’ 193 included state and district administration and maintenance of subject matter specialists at the college or within the districts. This amount might have been subtracted before, but the step would have been diffi- cult. The main reason for omitting the step was that the purpose of this method was to determine the relative amounts of Extension resources due to the administrative units within the state. standing on the assump» tion that these supplementary Extension activities were made availAbls to each county in a manner proportionate with the monies distributed. Extension units. In evaluating the present Michigan system of county classification in Chapter Three. it was stated that the four ar- bitrary classifications of counties were not advisable because more differences in Extension responsibility were seen within any one group than between the last county of one group and the first county of the succeeding group. To overcome the weakness of this system two proce- dures were developed whereby counties were not grouped arbitrarily. but were grouped according to a graduated scale of the determined theoreti- cal values. One procedure designated the lowest ranking county as one Extension teaching unit. From Table Fourteen it was observed that Dickinson Coun- ty provided this base. Dickinson County had $6,016 as its theoretical share of state and Federal funds. This value was divided into the value for every other administrative unit to determine how much more than one unit each had. The values for each administrative unit were shown in the Fourth column of Table Fourteen. On this basis Extension units ranged from one unit for Dickinson at the lowest to 10.3 units for Ber- rien County at the highest. The total number of Extension units was 321. Another means for using the Extension unit was division of the total number of professional county workers into the total state and Federal funds. At the time of this study the total number of county workers em- ployed by the Michigan Extension Service was: Type of Position Number of Eorgggs County.Agricultural Agents 75 Associate County Agricultural Agents 2 .Assistant County Agricultural Agents 10 District Horticultural Agents u County Home Demonstration Agents 56 County h-H Club Agents 53 Total 2013 The actual number of county workers being in a state of flux. two hundred agents were considered instead of 201 for facility of calculation. The total amount of Federal and state funds for 1951-1952 was $1.93h.h72, which gave a result of $9.672 when divided by two hundred. The value represented the amount of Extension funds for each worker. Then $9,672 was divided into the total amount of funds for each county or adminis- trative unit. the result of which gave the number of Extension teaching units per county. The last column of Table Fourteen depicted these re- sults. The latter means of determining teaching unit appeared to have more merit than the former means. The total number of units in the latter 3 Personnel List of the Michigan CoOperative Extension Service (on file. Office of the Extension Director. Michigan State College. East Lansing. Michigan). TABLE.XIV RANKINGS AND EXTENSION UNITS OF MICHIGAN EXTENSION'ADMINISTRATIVE UNITS DETERMINED BI'BASIS OF ALLOCATION OF FUNDS TO MICHIGAN 1 ") Administra- Total 1951-1952 tension Extension Uhits tive Unit Federal and Stat nits Us- Using Average khan: Funds Available g Low Ad- ($9672) Amount to Each.Hichigan inistra- of Funds Avail- Administrative ive Unit able for Each Unit. Sum of Col as Base Professional umns o and e of ($6016) Worker Table XIII l Berrien S 61. 5h 10.3 6.5 2 saéimw 56. 92 9. gag 3 Oakland 5h.752 9.1 .7 1“ A119an 51" 667 9.1 507 5 Kent 53.911 8.9 5.6 6 Genesee 1.962 8.6 5.” 7 Tulcola 7.M2h 7.9 3.0 8 Sanilac h7,319 7.9 .9 9 Huron ”6.009 7.6 h.8 10 Lenawee h5.993 7.6 h.8 11 Monroe )13.831 7.6 14.8 12 Ottawa .1 l 7.3 h.6 1 St. Clair M3. 7 7.2 14.3 1 Hacomb ’42 . 0‘42 70 0 he I2 Wayne 10.781 6.8 14.3 Van Buren .657 6.7 “.2 17 Bay 38.363 6.“ h.0 18 lashtenaw 37.8 9 6.3 “.0 19 Calhoun 37.35?! 6.2 3.9 20 Jackson 379 1 6.2 3.9 21 Lapeer 36.u05 6.0 3.8 22 Hillsdale 35.189 5.9 3.7 2 Kalamazoo 35.105 5-3 3.7 2 Eaton 32.236 5.8 3.7 25 Inga” 3 9 3 5.3 3.6 26 Shiawassee 3h.2g7 5.7 3.6 27 Gratiot 33.3 8 5.5 3.5 28 Montcalm 33.21% 5.3 3. 29 Clinton 32.683 5. 3.3 30 Ionia 30.0h8 5.0 3.1 31 Isabella 29.9140 3.0 3.1 32 Branch 27.068 .5 2.8 3 Case 25.56h “.2 2.7 3 Barry 2 .278 h.2 2.6 35 Reverse 2 .987 14.1 2.6 36 Livingston 214.359 14.0 2.5 TABLE XIV. CONTINUED l‘E‘b Administra- Total 1951-1952 Extension Extension Units tive Unit Federal and State Units Us- Using Average Funds Available ing Low Ad- ($9672) Amount Rank to Each.Michigan ' ministrative of Funds Avail- Administrative Unit as Base able for Each Unit. Sum of 001- ($6016) Professional umns c and e of Worker Table X111 37 so. Joseph 3 23.379 3.9 2.h 38 Menominee 22.881 3.8 2.“ 39 Midland 22.108 3.7 2.3 no Muskegon 21.815 3.6 2.3 ul Oceans 21.560 3.6 2.3 ha Osceola-Q Lake 19.115 3.2 2.0 33 Houghton-Keweenaw 18.919 3.1 2.0 Mecoeta 18.6“? 3.1 1.9 N5 Mason-Q Lake 18.527 301 1'9 #6 Missankee-Boscommon lh.982 2.3 1.6 h7 Gladwin 1u.729 2. 1.5 #8 Delta 1h.128 2.3 1.; M9 Grand Traverse 13.659 2.3 1. 50 Arenac 13.517 2.2 1.h 51 Alpena 12.910 201 1.3 52 Antrim 12.796 2.1 1.3 5 .AlconarOsceda 12.762 2.1 1.3 5 Chippewa 12.736 2.1 1.3 55 Presque Isle 12.355 2.1 1.3 56 Clare 11.566 1.9 1.2 57 Emmet 11.529 1.9 1.2 58 Leelanau 11.287 1.9 1.2 59 Manistee 11.195 1.9 1.2 60 Charlevoix 10.801 1.8 1.1 61 Montmorency-Otsego 10.800 1.8 1.1 62 Ogemaw 10.668 1.8 1.1 6 Cheboygan 10.610 1.8 1.1 6 Wexford 10.219 1.7 1.1 65 Ontonagon 10.000 1.7 1.0 66 Alger-Schoolcraft 9.398 1.6 1.0 67 Iron 9.091 1.5 .9 68 Iosco 9.0hh 1.3 .9 69 Marquette 8.500 1. .9 70 Luce-Mackinac 8.322 1.u .9 71 ‘ Crawford-Kalkaska 7.102 1.2 .7 72 Benzie 7.037 1.2 .7 73 Gogebic 6.89 1.1 .7 7h Barage 6.8 1.1 .7 75 Dickinson 6,016 1.0 36 Total $1.93h.h63 321.0 201.5 1?? instance was 201.5. or approximately the same as the number of county workers. This method could be used in allocating workers to the coun- ties. With units exnressed to the tenth. the folloving number of work- ers could be assigned in that manner: Number of County Workers Extension Uhits 5.5 o. 7.1. 5.5 to 6.h h.5 to 5.h 3.5 to h.h 2.5 to 3.u 1.5 to 2.“ P NH 41'“ mN 0.5 to 1.h This would be the only feasible method of assigning workers to the counties. unless. in case of fractions. one agent divided his time be- tween two or more counties or administrative units. This way of determining Extension units has another advantage. If funds became available which permitted an increase. for example. of fif- ty workers to the county staff. the total state and Federal budget could be divided by 250 instead of 200 to determine the amount of money con- stituting an Extension teaching unit. For this example the result would be $7.738 instead of $9.672 as was true for two hundred workers. This value could be divided into the theoretical amount of Extension funds for each county to determine the number of Extension teaching units. The same procedure would be possible if circumstances forced a reduction in the county staff. Method Based on Weighted Population Classes sanguine 1.111.3-Ieinejsifbli".2?:1*e}af_iaa£1.33 Four art tor: . were established in Cheater Four for determining factors to be utilised in measuring the teaching load of a county. It was concluded also that the best means of measuring the Extension teaching load within a county would be by the employment of population classes and their weights. sig- nifying their relative importance to Extension responsibility. Three general groups of pepulation based on place of residence were considered. these being urban. rural farm. and rural non-farm people. Just! icntion for using uzgan population, It has been cited that 76 per cent of the funds coming to Michigan from the Federal Treasury was based on the state's rural farm population. There was no apprOpria- tion specifically based on urban numbers from Federal or state sources. For this reason the first section of this chapter did not consider urban peoole. but it was thought wise to also develop a system which considered them. The Justification for considering the urban factor was based on four items. First. it was noted that urban residents are taxpayers con- tributing to the support of Extension. Second. the broad wording of the Smith-Levertnct could be interpreted to mean that service is Owed to everyone. Third. funds supplied by the state of Michigan have been more than the minimum amount required to obtain Federal funds. Fourth. an urban area in a county adds to its teaching load. It was indicated by Table Five of Chapter Five that the urban pepu~ lation of Michigan in 1350 was approximately 71 per cent of the state total. while the rural population constituted only 29 per cent of the 129 total. By confining Extension services to rural people, the madority of the peeple would be paying for service to a minority, though undoubt- edly this could be found for many government agencies. But it would seem that all persons desiring the services of public supported agencies. such as the Extension Sertice. should have that service granted. Evi- dence has been found that urban people manifested an interest in the educational service offered by the Extension Service. It would be dif- ficult for a public agency in a democratic society to deny service to people on the grounds that they happened to live in an urban area. The charter of the enabling legislation, the Smith-Lever Act, for Extension reads “that in order to aid in diffusing among the people of the United States useful and practical information on-subjects relating to agriculture and home economics . . .'. which would surely Justify work with urban peeple. Most urban peeple would probably have little need for agricultural information as compared with their need for homeleconomics information because homes have similar problems regardless of place of residence. Concerning home economics in Extension, Kelsey and Hearne stated: while home economics as taught by the Extension Service was directed originally to the rural population, there is now a growing understanding of the enormous Opportunities, and need for work among homemakers of the cities and suburbs, where the quality and quantity of the diet of consumers directly affect the liveg of multitudes of citizens as well as the markets for farm produce. h In M. Busch and H. E. Smith, 'A.Study of RuraldUrban Fringe Residents of Fort Whyne. Allen County. Indiana." Extension Studies Circular ll (Lafayette, Indiana: Agricultural Extension Service. Purdue University, Jun. 1951). P0 20 5 Lincoln D. Kelsey and Cannon C. Hearne. Eggperative Extension Work, ~‘I'. wr-..-—-.--.— (Ithaca, New York: Cometock Pub ishing Company, 19u9), p. 397. 6 Ibid.' p. 80 130 In Chapter Two it was demonstrated that the state of Michigan con- tributed kl per cent to its total Extension budget, while the Federal government contributed 2k per cent requiring offset from state funds. The state then contributed aLmost twice the amount necessary to receive Federal funds. The state has made no specification as to the use of these funds, but it might be inferred that the amount above the minimum required for offset could have been intended for some urban activities. It could be argued that even though an urban area was restricted from Extension services. its presence within the county would indirectly add to the work of the Extension program. An agent's office would usue ally be in an urban area. removed from the rural population. The larger the city, the more true this would be. .A larger number of organizations would make demands on an agent's time than would do so in strictly rural areas. In addition the urban and.urban fringe residents themselves would surely make requests of the agent. as they have done in the past. So the argument for considering urban peeple was surther supplemented. Idstribution of weights. The weighting employed by this system of measuring the Extension teaching load considered a total weighting of all pepulation classes as one hundred per cent. The total per cent was divided among the three main classes of population so that eight per cent of the weight was assigned to the urban population. 17 per cent to rural, and 75 per cent to the rural farm pepulation. Assignment of weights was based in part on the method of Federal apportionment of funds to the state. The 75 per cent weight given to the rural farm population cor- responded closely with the 76 per cent of the Federal funds which was 131 based on rural farm pepulation. Similarly the 17 per cent weight assign- ed to the rural non-farm pepulstion corresponded with the 17 per cent of Federal funds based on rural population. The remaining eight per cent was assigned to the total urban pepulation of Michigan to give this face tor some consideration in the total weighting scheme. Differentiatiop;9f_g§ights within majprppopulstion classeg, A.panel of Extension administrators helped to deve10p the distribution of weights for the major population classes and for the sub-classes. Their Opinions were based on experience and observation as Extension administrators. The differentiation of weights for all sub-classes were made on the assumption that the important group of the Extension clientele was the full~time commercial farm pepulation because they seemed to have the greatest need and use for information available from the Extension Serb vice. especially for agricultural subjects. While their home economics need might not be greater than that of other classes, it was obviously the desire of lawmakers that the group be served first, Judging from the method of Federal appropriation. Therefore. this class received the heaviest weighting. The remaining classes were correspondingly given lighter weights. The lightest weighting was given to the large metropolitan population who seemed to have the least need for Extension information. Distribution of weights within the rural farm population. The rural farm papulation was defined in Chapter Five to include all rural people living on farms reporting the sale of agricultural products in 19kg. An estimate of the 1950 Michigan rural farm population was given, and the class was further divided into four categories. These were: rural farm people living on farms reporting sale of $1,200 or more in agricultural products for l9h9. rural farm people living on farms reporting $250 to $1.199 sale of agicultural products for that year. rural farm peeple living on part-time farms. and rural farm people living on residential farms. Out of the total of 75 per cent weight assigned to the total rural farm population. peeple living on commercial farms selling over $1,200 were given a 25 per cent weighting. Another 2? per cent weight was assigned to commercial farms reporting a sale of agricultural products between $?50 and $1,199. At one time it was supposed that the lower income group had some outside income, but the agricultural census def- inition indicates that persons in this group had less income from other sources than they did from the sale of agricultural products and that the operator had worked less than a hundred days off the farm.7 It was Judged that this group must have a comparable need for Extension assist- ance. Although equal weight was given, this low income group was kept separate from the other commercial farm group because knowledge of its numbers within a county would be helpful, as the assistance required might differ in nature from that needed by a higher income group. The third category of farm papulation was the group in which the farm Operator reported an income between $250 and $1,199 and reported 7 “Farms, Farm Characteristics. Farm Products.‘I Preliminarz 1959'932532. of’AgriculturgL Series.AC 50-1 (washington: Bureau.of the Census. .—'——. September 13, 1951). 113 other income in excess of the value of farm products sold, or reported more than one hundred days of work off the farm.8 This group was some- what more removed from the full-time farm people and consequently less in need of Extension information, so it was assigned a weight of 15 per cent. Out of the total 75 per cent weight given to the rural farm pepula- tion, ten per cent remained after the three preceding assignments. This was assigned to the residential rural farm population. According to the definition given in Chapter Five, this group was comprised of those farm peeple living on farms reporting less than $250 income from the sale of agricultural products in 19h9. Their need for Extension serv- ices was considered to be the smallest, and a lighter weighting was therefore assigned. Instribution of weights within the non-farm_population. A11 rural poeple not living on farms were placed in this major class, which in- cluded three sub-groups: rurban. village, and non-village. The 17 per cent weight given to this major class was divided so that eight per cent weighting was assigned to the rural non-village inhabitants, seven per cent to the rural non-rurban village inhabitants. and two per cent to the rurban inhabitants. The heaviest weighting was assigned to the non-village group because they resided in the open country, which pre- sumably would give them some interest in agriculture, but not as great Loo. cit. 13h an interest as would be manifested by the residential farm people. The village non-rurban population was weighted slightly less because it was felt that the agricultural interests might be fewer. The rurban group, as defined in Chapter Five, included all inhabitants living in villages contiguous to cities of twentybfive hundred to fifty thousand popula- tion. It was felt that this group would be mush more urbanized than either of the other groups in this maJor class: therefore, an even light- er weighting was given. Distribution of weights within the urban population. The eight per cent weight allotted to urban papulation was distributed as follows: Urban Population Category» Per Cent Weight- Cities of 2.500 to n.999 2.2 Cities of 5,000 to 9.999 1.0 Cities of 10.000 to 2h.999 0.7 Cities of 25.000 to h9.999 0.6 Cities of 50,000 to 99.999 0.5 Cities of 100,000 to 2h9.999 o.h Cities of 250.000 to n99.999 0.} Cities of 500,000 to 999:999 0.2 Cities of 1,000,000 or more 0.1 Suburban g=g_ Total 1‘ 8.0 The heaviest weighting in this major class was assigned to cities having 2,500 to “.999 population because these small urban areas were frequent- ly located close to rural activity, often lacking much industry and 115 depending on rural support of economic enterprises. These small towns have been much used by county workers as centers of organized rural activity, They also might have more small livestock and horticultural interests than the crowded larger towns. The suburban group was weighted next heavily. The two per cent weighting was the same as that assigned to the rural non-farm non- village group because their need for Extension was thought to be similar. These urban fringe residents, although under the influence of the large cities they surround. were considered to have larger tracts of land and to desire Extension assistance with agricultural and home problems.9 The remaining city categories based on size were weighted lighter as the size of the city increased. The decreasing weights were used because it seemed that the value of Extension assistance decreased as the pepulation rose. Procedure. The final weightings for all the population classes were listed in columns c of Tables Fifteen, Sixteen, and Seventeen. The weightings were listed in decimal form instead of per cent. The weights could not be multiplied directly by the corresponding popula- tion numbers of each class for the county or state, as would have been feasible had the population been exactly the same for each class. The assigned percentage weightings being based in part on the method of Federal appropriation, care was taken that these percentages should not exceed the state total. 9 Busch and Smith, on. cit., p. 2. 5...: \24‘ CD The entire weighting scheme was reduced to a score system, thereby effecting clarity and simplicity. In order to deal with smaller num- bers the total state population was divided by one hundred: _ 6.371.766 e 100 = 63.715 The 63,718 value was considered to be the total number of points for all population classes in all the counties. A total number of points was allotted to each major category of pepulation by multiplying the weight value of the class times the 63,718 points. The results were: wor fppulation Class M}- m Urban.popu1ation 8 per cent 5,098 1 Rural farm population 75 Per cent h7,788 Rural non-farm population _11_per cent lngjg. Total population 100 per cent 63,713 The scores were calculated for each major class to be consistent wdth the assigned weight values. The manner of adjustment for these figures was illustrated in Table Fifteen. Column a listed the urban population, Column b listed the corresponding state totals, column c gave the assigned weights. and column d contained the raw products of column b multiplied by column c, which were the unadjusted scores for each value. The total for this column was 26.1h7, which was divided into the 5,098 score, giving the quotient of .195, termed the adjustment factor. The adjustment factor was multiplied times each weight value. as shown in column e of Table Fifteen. These adjusted weights were multiplied by the pepulation of 13? each sub-class to give the total number of points allotted it, shown in column f. By dividing the raw values of column b by the raw values of column f, the number of persons in the class making one point was deter- mined. These final values were listed in column g of Table Fifteen. The same procedure was used for scoring the rural farm and the rural non-farm populations. Rural farm results were listed in Table Sixteen, and rural non-farm results were listed in Table Seventeen. The necessity for adjusting the weight values was demonstrated. If the weights had not been adjusted, the total number of points would have been the totals of columns 223: soon-u .333 venom 25 non 393.88 330: 6933.: season . nowaeaom eon-6.8 sound Tao...” no ~35: no and.» eoaoohoo we on?» £32. c3335 89 ...—son 83— EEEME a: mango 229338 a: g 333: E 5.3 1‘40 3:32: guano: done you “30.3 gunner—co mmma. I www.mw o mmwéfl .232. 83.3.. Hanna 3 c2331 35.3 «9.2 u 358 x S. 0330.. mafia." 5 332m .3ch miknm I mwpépnfi H .8. ~92: www.mw 2. $3.34 :38. SH H.N.o._qw.. 368. «8.1%. . mm... 8.»..8. m: _ Acopaflaufi «gaging :3 SYN $58. $98 5. Eugen $32» gguaom man :3 .688. mom mo. 3...? 33:» Spawn u M o u o n. d 1 a. N o ...... M wan. o H P v u o p I a 333.9%." N o I a non" 32> 335.33 hovedh ldgfiom “Each one you dovoohoo pang: “.2530: 8300..” no: :63 no.3.» 28m no ~35: no 31» 23956 no 31> :3... 1.3%." 83 L8 £3.52 85.3.8qu 924 mama Damage ant—non a gag; HE H.348 + 11.11 pepulation categories for the counties were listed in column a, with the number of persons in each category listed in column b. Column c gave the adjusted weightings, and column d contained the score, with totals being given. To determine the score for each county this procedure was used. Final county scores were shown in Table Nineteen. It wasnoted that the final county scores totaled 63,721, which was three more than the 63,713 originally established. Variance probably resulted from the rounding of all scores to whole numbers. Extension units. It was cited in this chapter that the total number of county Extension workers was approximately two hundred. The total score for the state. 63,721. was divided by two hundred to find the value of the number of points for an Extension unit. The quotient of this division was 313.61. which was considered to be the value in points equaling one Extension unit. Each administrative unit's score was next divided by 313.51 to obtain the number of Extension units, and the results were listed in the last column of Table Nineteen. Using this system the Extension units ranged from a high of 7.9 for Wayne County to a low of 0.6 for Benzie County. The number of workers could be assigned according to units in the following manner. expressed in tenths: lilo 2.1181122‘32 meb or o f Cour- t y fie ri‘ers 7.5 to s.h s 6.5 to 7.h 5.5 to 6.h h.5 to 5.h 3.5 to h.u 2.5 to 3.h 1.5 to 2.u HNu-F'KJIQN 0.5 to 1.h By this method at least one worker would be allotted to an administra- tive unit with as many as eight allotted to the highest scoring counties. TABLE XVIII EXAMPLE OF SCORING PROCEDURE FOR COUNTIES (INGRAM COUNTY) ..l‘ A _— 134 ~ 3 Population Class 1950 P0pula- Corrected Score tion Weight (1 'I b X c __ _Factor a b C (1 Cities 2.500—h.999 3.5ln .oohsgo l5 "“ Cities 5.000-9.999 0 .001950 0 Cities 10,000-2u,999 20,325 .001365 23 Cities 25.000-h9.999 0 .001170 0 Cities 50,000-99.999 92.129 .000975 90 Cities 100,000—2u9.999 0 .000780 0 Cities 250.000-h99.999 0 .000585 0 Cities 500,000-999,999 0 .000390 0 Cities 1,000,000 and over 0 .000195 0 Suburban 19.388 .003900 76 Rural Farm ($1200 4) 7,967 .079300 632 Rural Farm ($250-$1.119) s 3 .079300 63 Rural Farm (Part-time) 1.9 5 .0h75so 93 Rural Farm (residential and abnormal) 1,637 .031720 52 Rural Non-fans Rurban Village 0 .0250uo 0 Rural Non-farm Non-rurban Village 5,725 .00876‘4 50 Rural Non-farm Hon-village iqlhgs .010016 135 Totals 172.9ul 1.299 T111313 II}: EATIKGS MID EXTENSION UNITS OF MICHIGAN AIMINIST‘ATIVE UNITS WHNED BI BASIS OF WEIGHTED POPULATION CLASSES Administrative Unit Score Extension units 318.61 points = 1 unit 1 Whyno 2.527 7.9 2 Oakland 2.335 7.3 3 lerrien 1.980 6.2 h Kent 1.959 6.1 5 Saginaw 1.881 5.9 6 Genesee 1.821 5.7 7 lfllegnn 1.663 5.2 8 Macomb 1.611 3.1 9 Huron 1.513 .7 lo Lenawee 1,513 u.7 ll Sanilac 1.3g8 h.7 12 Tuscola 1. 6 h.7 1 Monroe 1.393 h.h 1 St. Clair 1.383 h.3 15 Ottawa 1.371 h.3 16 Washtenaw 1,329 h.2 l7 Inghan 1.299 h.1 18 Bay 1.250 3.9 19 Calhoun 1,22h 3.3 20 Kalamagoo 1.221 3.8 21 Jackson 1.190 3.7 22 Van Buren 1.170 3.7 2 Lapeer 1.1h9 3.6 2 Eaton 1.106 3.3 25 Hillsdale 1,091 3. 26 Gratiot 1.087 3.h 27 Shiawassee 1.073 3.h 28 Clinton 1.0h2 3.3 29 Montcalm 1.023 3.2 30 Ionia 983 ‘ 3.1 31 Isabella 932 2.9 32 Branch 862 2.7 3 Muskegon 83h 2.6 3 Barry 766 2.h 35 Livingston 76h 2.u 36 Cass 73h 2.h 37 St. Joseph 7 6 2.3 38 Newayso 722 2.3 33 Menominee 695 2.2 Houghton-Keweenan 652 2.0 hi Midland 636 2.0 h2 Cessna 621 l 9 TABLE XIX. CONTINUED 1&5 Administrative Uhit I Score Extension‘Units 318.61 points 3 1 unit Osceola-§ Lake Mason-k Lake Mecosta Delta Missaukee-Roscommon Grand Traverse Gladwin Arcnac Chippewa Alpena Presque Isle Alcona~Oscoda Antrim Clare Leelanau Manistee Montmorency-Ctsego Emmet Ogemaw Marquette Charlevoix Cheboygan AlgerbSchoolcreft Wexford Ontonagon Luce-flackinac Iosco Iron Gogebic Dickinson CrawfordéKalkaeka Barega Benzie Total 58k 576 2 63 M29 1128 1102 hoe Moo 392 370 366 3 3 3E. 336 327 326 321; 322 319 300 298 293 239 282 27 25 231 226 211 197 195 63.721 rov,pria.ted under such act of May 8, 19114. or sums otherwise annually apprOpriated for cooperative agricultural extension work. Approved, May 9?, 13?5 (15 Stat. L. 711). T‘ C: ‘8‘“? *1‘81‘ITO’TPRAI'Yt Offl1~ifal‘ AN ACT To provide for roses rch into basic laws air (’1 orinci‘t~ :lee relqti ng to agriculture and to provide for tke ft rther do- velOpment of cooperative agricultural extension work and the more complete endowment and sunuort of land-grant col- leges TITIE II Be it ens.cted 1'y the Sernte and Hruso “of Pwrresent .tivgg 2£,}h9 ETnited States of Angrica in Congress aseerhleo. Sec. 21. In order to further develop the cooperative er- tension svstem as inaugurated unior the act entitled ”An act to provide for coOperative agricultural extension worc between tn griculturnl colleges in too several States receiving the bene- fits of th e act of Coneress anoroved Ju.ly 2.1362, and all acts surplementary thereto, and the United States Department of Agri- culture,” apnroved May 8. 191’ (U 3.0... title 7, secs. 331-335), there is hereby authorized to be appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise aperOpriated, for the purpose of paying the expenses of cooperative extension work in agriculture and home economics and the necessary nrint ing and diatrihution inforuat -on in connection with the some, the sum of $< ooo.ooo for the fiscal year beginning after toe date of the enactment of tiis title, and for the fiscal year following the first fiscal year for which an aopropriation is made in pursuance of the fore— voinga authorization the additional um of $1, “00,000, and for each succeeding fiscal year thereafter an additional sum of $1,000,000 until the to al anorooriations authorized by this section shall amount to $12, 000, 000 annually, the autnorizatian to continue in that amount for each succeeding fiscal year. The sums aupronriated in pursuance of this section shall be oaid to the several States and the Territory of Hawaii in toe same man- ner and subject to thee same coniitions and limi.t.ations as tr. additional sums annropriated under the act of Nev 8,1314, ex- cept that (1) $3", 000 s‘iall be paid to the several States and the Territory of Hawaii in the orooortion that the farm poo.1la- tion of each bears to the total far.n oopulat ion of toe several States and the Territory of Hawaii, as determined by the last receding decennial census, and (3) the several States and the Territory of Hawaii shall not be required to offset the allot- ments authorized in this section. The sums aporopriated pur- Suant to this section shall be in addition to, and not in sub- stitution for. some appropriated under such act of May 8, 191M, as amended and supplemented. or sums otherwise anorooriated for agricultural extension work. Allotments to any State or the 3 Ib 35.. 9 pp. h01hh05. s-I g! Territory of Hawaii for any fiscal year from the appropriations herein authorized shall be available for payment to such State or the Territory of Hawaii only if such State or the Territory of Hawaii complies, for such fiscal year. with the provisions with reference to offset of anprooriations (other than appropria- tions under this section) for agricultural extension work. Sec. 22. In order to provide for the more complete endow- ment and supp rt of the colleges in the several States and the Territory of Hawaii entitled to the benefits of the act entitled ”An act donating public lands to the several States and Terri- tories which way provide colleges for the benefit of agriculture and the mechanic arts.” approved July ?, 156?. as amended and sunolemented (U.S.C.. title 7. secs. 301—}?3: Supp. Vii, sec. 30%), there are hereby authorized to be apprOpriated annually, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the following amounts: (a) For the fiscal year beginning after the date of the enactment of this act. and for each fiscal year thereafter. $939,000: and (b) For the fiscal year following the first fiscal year for which an appropriation is made in pursuance of paragraph (a) $500,900, and for each of the two fiscal years thereafter $500,000 more than the amount authorized to be appropriated for the preceding fiscal year, and for each fiscal year thereafter $1,500,900. The sums appropriated in pursuance of paragraph (b) shall be in addition to some apprOpriated in pursuance of cars- graph (a) and shall be allotted and paid annually to each of the several States and the Territory of Hawaii in the proportion hich the total population of each such State and the Territory of Hawaii bears to the total population of all the States and the Territory of Hawaii. as determined by the last preceding de- cennial census. Sums appropriated in pursuance of this section hell be in addition to sums approuriated or authorized under such act of July 2. 1362, as amended and supplemented, and shall be applied only for the purposes of the colleges defined in such act. as amended and supplemented. The provisions of law appli- cable to the use and payment of sums under the act entitled "An act to apply a portion of the proceeds of the public lands to the more complete endowment and support of the colleges for the benefit of agriculture and the mechanic arts established under the provisions of an act of Congress approved July second, eight- sen hundred and sixty-two,“ approved August 30. 1890. as amended and supplemented, shall apply to the use and payment of sums apprOpriated in pursuance of this section. Approved. June ?9. 1935. '“r 1,, 9 ”TL" PA :13“, J 93:13 ..Flmenngan £13.95 Of 11?:‘;_0 AN ACT To provide for the further development of coonerative agricultural extension work Peg it a? art‘s-1 F" +trvie 5"“‘fi‘e g-zs,‘ craving.” of D,,“..,H q!‘."-'i’i'."r"3 cf twalritwl‘He::*jETZ;:aca in(:x raq'H?;{jf§?”}J£7" titfelffm of the Act entitled "An Act to provii e for reseirch into basic laxvs and principles relating to a “riciltnre an! to provide for the further development of cooperative agri cult rnl extension work and the more complete endowment an.w support of land-grant colleges.” approved June 29, 1°55 (the Bankhead~Jones Act). is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new section: “Sec. ?3. (a) In order to further develop the cooperative extension system as inaugu‘ated under the Act entitled 'An Act to orovide for coo oerative agricultural extension work between the aoriculturel colleges in the several States r ceivirg the benefits of the Act of CORPPGBS, apnroved July 9. 180?, and all Acts woolementary thereto. ani t.e United States Departnent of Agri ult.L e,' approved May 8, 1919 (U.S.C., title 7. secs. 391- 34}, 344—333), particularly for the further develooment of county extension work, there are hereby authorized to be aoprcgriated. out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise aonropr iated, for the nnrpos~ e of paying the exnenses of cooperative ext ension work in agriculture and home ecotomics, including technical and sau- cational assistance to farm people in improving their standerfio of living, in develOping individual farm and home plans, better marketing and distribution of farm products, work with rural youth in u-s Clubs and older out—of-school vouth. guiience of farm people in improving farm and home building ;s, developrezxt of effective oregrams in canning. food preservation, and nitrition. and for the necessary printing and distribution of in‘ormation in connection with tne foregoing. the ‘olloring sure: "(1) $4. 500. 000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, lghé. and each albseonent fiecal year: “(? ) An adiiti onal $4, 000, O-)O for the fie gal vear ending June 30,19h7. and each subsequent fiscal veer; and (3) An ad ;itional $4. 000. one for the fiscal year eneing June 50, 1993, and each subsequent fiscal year. "(b) The sums anoropriated purslant to this sec- tion shall be paid to the several States and the Te? ritorv of Hawaii in the same manner and szbject to tile some conditions and limite.tions as the adiitional suns anpropria.ted under such Act of Rev 8.1919 (the Smith-Lever At t), etcept that - E" Ihir.. hos-hog 177; H "(1) not more than r oer centum of the sum asprerriated pursuant to tnis section for each fiscal year shall be available for paying eznenses of the Extension Service in the United States Department of Agriculture: "(2) $503,000 of the sum so anorOpriated for each fiscal year shall be allotted among the States and the Territory of Hawaii by the SecretAry of Agriculture on the basis of scecial needs due to penulation characteristics, area in re- lation to farm population, or other snecial problems, as determined by such Secretary: Ergzigeg, That not to exceed 10 per centum shall be allotted unéer this snbnaragranh to any one State or tne Territory of Hawaii for any fiscal year: Erqziggimgnrther. That these funds shall be matched by the State or Territory receiving them, on the same basis as other funds under this Act: and “(3) the remainder of the sun so aporopriated for each fiscal year shall be paid to the several States and the Ter- ritory of Hawaii in the nrcportion that the farm population of each bears to the total farm population of the several States and Territory of Hawaii, as determined by the census of lame. "(c) The sums apnrepriated pursuant to this sec- tion shall be in addition to and not in substitution for sums anerOpriated under such Act of May S, 1913, as amended and sun- plenented. or sums otherwise approoriated for agricultural ex- tension work. Allotments to any State or the Territory of Hawaii for any fiscal year from the annrocriations herein authorized shall be available for payment to such State or the Territory of Hawaii only if such State or the Territory of Hawaii comnlies. for such fiscal year, with the provisions with reference to off« set of aepropriations (other than apnropriations under this sec- tion and section 21 of this title) for agricultural extension work." Sec. 2. Section 21 of such Act of June 99. 1935, is amendel by striking out "(other than apprOpriations under this section)“ and inserting in lieu thereof "(other than aepropriations under this section and section 23 of this title).' Aeproved, June 6, 1335 (59 Stat. L. 231)- APPENDIX B MZVEFRS of Joint Committee Which Reported on Extension Programs Policies and Goals. Appointed bv ttie Depar ment: E,mund do S. Brunner, Professor of Rural Sociology, Columbia University, New York. P. V. Cordon. Snocial Assistant to the Chief. Bureau of Plant Industry. Soils. and Agricultural Engineering. United State: Pepertment of Agriculture. David Meeker. Director of Education. Dearborn Motors Coroora- tion. Detroit, Michigan. W. A. Minor, Assistant to the Secretary, United States Deoart- men.t of A3xiculturo. Tromee E. Wilson. Chairman of the Board, Wilson & 00.. Chi 3330. Illinois. Appointed by the land-grant colleges and universities: Walter C. Coffey. President Emeritus. University of Minnesota. Herman L. Donovan. President. University of Kentucky. Roy M. Green, President. Colorado Agricultural and Mechanical College. John A. Hannah, President. Michigan State Colle3e. John R. Hutcheson, Chancellor. Virg ginia Polytechnic Institute. H. P. Bunk, Dean and Di rector. College of Agricultzre. Univer- sity of Illinois. 6 "Joint Committee Report on Extension Program, Policies. and Goals,” (Washington: United States Government Printing Office. 19kg). p. III. M’FEIIDL X C DevelOpment of Weightings Ueed in Prooosed Method Pnsed on Weighted Population Classes In the section describing the second pronosed method for allocatinr resources in Chanter Six. reference was maie that the final weightinee were developed with the advice of a panel of Erteneion Administrators and with consideration of the way Federal Monies are annropriated to the states. The Opinions of the administrators. felt moat cemnetent to ones Judgement. were obtained by asking them individually to indicate the relative imnortance of the population classes to Extension. They wer askei to use the rooulation classes deVelouefi in Chapter Five and to distribute a total weighting of one hunired per cent amona the classes. They were requested that this eh mid he done according to the way th,' believed the Extension Service should spend its limited resources to fulfill its responsibility to the people of the state. The following state administrative personnel particioated: Exten- sion Specialist in Training; the State h—H Club Lender and four Assist- ant State Club Leaders: the State Home Demonstration Leader and four assistant State Home Demonstration Leaders: the State Leaner of Agricul— tural Programs and three Instrict Supervisors. The results of their in- dividual judgements as to the weights were compiled and averaged. These final compiled weights were those listed in tables Fifteen, Sixteen. and Seventeen. The State Extension Administrative Staff reviewed these weight— ings and as a group they agreed that the weightings expressed the object- ives of the Administrative Staff. b-" ~. I PCS"! USE 03341."! . "I7'1!lllll'l'llfilllllr