1...] .., -.§...m§§% . . x... .( 5 N 1‘ . . . Klan. . n 5. .9 . ,..v% a . \ru . . . .. . .. $4.5. 9R4}; fiflsbuflhw. v: J... . .....,...; a .. . . . . , r ... \ . 0.3.x , r ‘ .5 . . . . if 5.59. 11.25 ‘ \ ill. if! :ahfirvfi? :13... 3h... .. 8141132... I C tug \ ‘0 3“ 3...... s - 3.... .4 5.7;: Xvi. hil- ‘ ¢ . .wTi.M?m.l.u.. z... 2.3... n- i , g S .1 9V... . It’ll}. I: I155 31).." Jill . . a? VI)! . .v. S i .. 1.. 41 5 .x \ kin E , 25$”... 3.. f3! Rafi-37 \élv 1: u 511.06....»qu .4,» . -wizw.zw.mwmmui -afi...:#.mu.ttt1 . EL ? gl‘.‘xv’ I f 5!. ~ woman.“ gévzhkmhg hang-u t)... :23... 5.4 flfi .21, filial... . {A \ . )‘kr 1.. 1.423.)?“ fixwonfl. )Hab... . x 31! 1159M“. :- 31... «1%... 22-97.31.596... $33.28.... Jinan... -.R®numz§..8fia¢.§w§ .25... :. . .2. . {infli it}; 1 lko , 1 {$143!};- ~ \ gill. . , 3.1%..)[16‘ p17... Jauyg if!» . if: g , .- I‘t ‘53))! "“34. 3244‘ 7) . 1.? . 4.11.!!! ARM... huh... fii\P .. ((29.3 \luulv .uv. Wt.%?fi {untrtfuucothflumh . 14.. . $2.? . . . iii-15.5.... r. c 1.0 I. . A! (130?. 5‘5... rlurflrlfil .Jl. A I vilf‘t. (tiara... .I...’ $311111; . Illlmlxlb’lltrfl‘fllct’t zjl’hég ’« u . . 91%!‘lrlr A; v 312.. . f)" n Iii). ........ t:}f..hs$ittl..(. II. . . J25: ,v.....‘.1\.ll.. ..... sf J . ., ,. 2 hlihuald .453»? .01\.(AA’ . . . J'unuunnul‘r. .\ . a 3.”.thgfi41ué. ... . FI‘YWEUWU 7.11.15.4(3. £2! (aft? gig {gratify 7N1? . .11.: f , l-k v... [\ . . I L . 1.- . . .t . . .. . €71. . . . .15. . .u .. i . .. . . . . 55.2.1.3! ~ . . I. . L .. . 3.. .1 . ..If(L..v...\(; .. . . m .. .. r . - . . .2... r l. . .. , . . u 2;. ,1. . .. . If... 4. .. .1 . . - 5..., . . . .. ”.2... t, {finf-{L}. 4;] yttrium... . . a , . ttx‘.ttrltt.§. . gzifi .AIA...¢1..A . v .1. 1171!). .- .15.]; OLuufré I .L,}l..I!-..l 1+. . III)... infahI... .1 i‘IJNhnUtJ, (furrr .rl.l..vt~7.lx . .. n n v .‘rrstl 5...?! .6 O *2. :1 tog-i .. . . till}! .8 .ablxra.‘.l.w..t. 1.....1- {it}... .3. In I .1 lull . . ~72th . Art... I pit-IKE“, \u' I»; h t? I... . . ‘ “2.17.1.3 g 9.70. l r... .. A 331-11.! (a... fifty... . w ...,..:.......Jw.va_ I'll/II!!!”12!";II‘LJIIIII111L131!!!Elli"!”11112111111!lew r’ . ,. R v “"9 Michigan State University This is to certify that the thesis entitled THE RESPONSE OF THE COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE TO THE GREAT DEPRESSION IN MICHIGAN 1929-1938 presented by NORRIS C . BRYSON has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. . Education degree 1n Major gofessor Date 10/ 4 / 7 9 0-7639 OVERDUE FINES ARE 25¢ PER DAY PER ITEM Return to book drop to remove this checkout from your record. m...— we: W; f 3: if??? I9 A ' .JMGSZM “W 89% Wélilmowz 1___7_ 121 ' a, WWW {ocji 4 In” Twifib‘ ...02M05 E! g rig.“- 0/71. ,, f 0012(2095 :- .fl10505"“ _ who”?! 2 ’ \ [$031 938- INFORMATION TO USERS This was produced from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction. .— .The sign or “target“ for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is “Missing Page(s)". if it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section. they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure you of complete continuity. .N When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark it is an indication that the film inspector noticed either blurred copy because of movement during exposure. or duplicate copy. Unless we meant to delete copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed, you will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. 0.) . When a map. drawing or chart. etc., is part of the material being photo- graphed the photographer has followed a definite method in “sectioning” the material. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again—beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. A .For any illustrations that cannot be reproduced satisfactorily by xerography, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and tipped into your xerographic copy. Requests can be made to our Dissertations Customer Services Department. U] .Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases we have filmed the best available copy. ni ' Wiggins International 3th N /EEB ROAD, ANN ARBOR, Ml 118106 18 Bl'DFORD ROW, LONDON WC1R AEJ, ENGLAND THE RESPONSE OF THE COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE TO THE GREAT DEPRESSION IN MICHIGAN, 1929-38 By Norris Clark Bryson A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Secondary Education and Curriculum 1979 ABSTRACT THE RESPONSE OF THE COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE TO THE GREAT DEPRESSION IN MICHIGAN, 1929—38 By Norris Clark Bryson From its enactment into federal law in 1914, the Cooperative Exten- sion Service has been concerned with the welfare of rural people on the farm and in the home. The role of the Extension Service was primarily educational and emphasized the dissemination of scientific agricultural information, adoption of modern nutritional and home improvement prac- tices, 4-H youth work and technological advancements through knowledge generated at land-grant institutions. In Michigan, Michigan Agricultural College (later Michigan State College and subsequently Michigan State University) was the designated land-grant institution and through county agricultural agents served as the educational linkage between the United States Department of Agriculture and rural areas of the State. The economic imperatives of the Great Depression, 1929-1938, brought many fundamental changes to the Michigan Extension Service. The most important of these was the introduction of the federal government into agricultural economic planning in an unprecedented manner. County agents played a key administrative role in federal efforts to relieve the eco- nomic crisis of the American farmer around the United States and in Michigan. For example, county agents were responsible for administering Norris Clark Bryson the legislative provisions of the Agricultural Adjustment Act in their counties. Cooperation between other federal farm programs and the Ex- tension Service was also very close. The Farm Credit Administration, the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act, the Rural Resettle- ment Administration, and Rural Electrification programs were all sup- ported by the Extension Service. The Depression also caused significant changes in the educational program planning of Michigan county agents, home economists, 4-H leaders, and extension specialists. Economical methods of agricultural production and home-produced foods and clothing were emphasized in order to maxi- mize farm profit and minimize expenditures. Budgets and personnel poli- cies also changed because of the financial constraints placed on higher education by Depression economic conditions. In Michigan, the initial response of the Cooperative Extension Ser- vice to the Great Depression was to intensify statewide educational ef- forts in promoting more efficient agriculture, farm management and home economics in order to increase farm profit and reduce cash expenditures; however, as Depression conditions continued unabated and New Deal farm remedies were inaugurated, the role of the Extension Service was altered to reflect federal relief priorities. This change represented a clear departure from the traditional, educational role of the Extension Ser- vice and, although initially well-received, put it foursquare into the political arena. Later New Deal farm programs were not administered by the Extension Service, which relieved county agents of considerable administrative burdens and enabled them to continue the educational work that originally earmarked the beginning of extension programs. Norris Clark Bryson It is not within the scope of this study to provide a general his- tory of the Extension Service’s activities in Michigan from 1929 to 1938. This dissertation is, however, an examination of the programs, personnel and budget priorities of the Michigan C00perative Extension Service dur- ing a time of national economic crisis. The unique funding of the Co- operative Extension Service made it responsive to both local and nation- al needs. The historical documents used for this study were the Cooperative Extension archival records located in the Michigan State University Archives and Historical Collections. The annual reports of the director of extension, state county agent leaders, agricultural agents in selec- ted Michigan counties, and major project areas were reviewed from 1929- 38. In addition, eight former Extension employees were interviewed as well as persons associated with the Farm Bureau, Federal Emergency Re- lief Administration, and Agricultural Adjustment Administration. These records and interviews provided insight into activities of the Coopera- tive Extension Service during the Great Depression. TO MY MOTHER AND FATHER JEAN AND NORRIS BRYSON ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This dissertation would not be complete without appropriate acknowl- edgement of those who have been helpful in formulating the study and its preparation. I would like to initially thank Dr. Sheldon Cherney, Professor, College of Education, and Dr. Carroll Wamhoff, Director, Educational Institute, College of Agriculture, for introducing me to the possibility of doing historical research on the activities of the Michigan C00pera— tive Extension Service. I would also like to acknowledge Dr. Madison Kuhn, whose course in Recent American History and book, Michigan State: The First Hundred Years, helped to shape my views of the Depression years and their effect on the College. Appreciation must be extended to Dr. Frederick Honhart, Director, University Archives and Historical Collections, to the late Dr. William Combs, former Director of the University Archives, and to the Archives staff for their willing assistance in locating materials relevant to this study. Gratitude is also due Dr. Charles Gliozzo, Director, Office of Overseas Study, for his willingness to grant me a leave of absence from the Office to do archival research during the summer of 1977. Warm appreciation is extended to Dr. Carl Gross, Professor Emeritus, College of Education, for his guidance as a doctoral chairman and dis- sertation director. Dr. Gross' clear advice, encouragement, and high iii standards are deeply valued. Recognition is also due members of my doctoral committee, Dr. David Heenan, Dr. J. G. Moore, Dr. Samuel Moore, and Dr. Paul Varg, for their attentive reading of the manuscript. Dr. Heenan's thorough editorial comments were especially helpful in finalizing the manuscript. Mrs. Diana Stetson's timely preparation of chapter drafts and final manuscript was an important factor in completing the dissertation in time for fall commencement. Finally, and most of all, I would like to extend appreciation to my wife, Carol Coffman Bryson, for her constant willingness to put my writing of the dissertation before her own personal interests and for her valuable typing and editorial assistance. Norris Clark Bryson East Lansing, Michigan iv Chapter I. II. III. IV. VI. APPENDICES A. F. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION . THE MICHIGAN COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE IN 1929 . DIFFICULT TIMES, 1929-32 THE CRITICAL YEARS, 1933-35 RECOVERY AND LONG-TERM PLANNING, 1936-38 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Summary of Funding Sources and Levels for the C00perative Extension Service in Michigan, 1929-39 Project Budgets for the Cooperative Extension Service in Michigan 1929-35 Personnel Trends of the Cooperative Extension Service in Michigan, 1929-39 Personnel Trends of Campus-Based Specialists Employed by the C00perative Extension Service in Michigan, 1929-39 Statistical Summaries of Annual Reports of County Extension Workers, 1929-38 4-H Enrollments in Michigan, 1929-38 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . 13 . 34 . 68 .109 .137 .151 .152 .153 .154 .155 .156 .157 INTRODUCTION From its enactment into federal law in 1914, the Cooperative Exten- sion Service has been concerned with the welfare of rural people on the farm and in the home. The early role of the Extension Service was pri- marily educational and emphasized the dissemination of scientific ag- ricultural information through county agents, the adoption of modern nu- trition and home improvement practices through home economics agents, 4-H youth work and technological advancement through knowledge generated at land-grant colleges and represented by subject-matter specialists, who were campus-based. In Michigan, Michigan Agricultural College (later Michigan State College and subsequently Michigan State University) was the designated land-grant institution and served as the educational link- age between the United States Department of Agriculture and rural areas of the State. The educational efforts of county agents and the exten- sion specialists were, as is the case today, nonformal in nature. Teach— ing techniques varied from itinerant instruction by agents and extension specialists to the use of local volunteer leaders, demonstrations, ex- perimental plots and learner participation. Whatever the subject matter or method used, the topic in some way addressed the practical needs of the Cooperative Extension Service's rural constituency. Differing from the Extension Service of the 1970's, its clientele during the early years of extension work was clearly the farmer and rural homemaker. This dissertation is an investigation of the programmatic, person- nel and budgetary response of the Cooperative Extension Service to the Great Depression in Michigan, 1929-38. Following is a brief descrip- tion of the topic, its significance and the secondary and primary sources used as well as an overview of the dissertation chapters. The Extension Service was an ideal organization to study. Geared to technological, economic and social needs of farmers and rural house- holds, the curriculum or educational projects of the Extension Service reacted swiftly to changes in the economy. Unlike the collegiate cur- riculum, program adaptations quickly met changing conditions. The Ex- tension Service was also integrally linked by public legislation to the welfare of farmers and rural residents. These persons constituted a well-defined clientele, whose welfare could be specifically related to extension projects. Too, the Extension Service was unique in terms of its distinct funding and programmatic relationship to county, state and local governments. At the same time, its concerns were both local and national in scope, which made economic trends easily discernable. Michigan was a worthwhile state to investigate as it was severely affected by the Depression. In 1933, banks closed first in Detroit, industrial unemployment far exceeded the national average, and farm prices dropped 50%. As unemployment and farm prices reacted to eco- nomic change, the historic relationship between the auto industry in Detroit and the State's overall economy was readily demonstrable. Com- pared to states in the tobacco, cotton and wheat belts of the country, Michigan’s diverse agriculture did not lend itself to widespread participation in the agricultural adjustment program of the Roosevelt Administration. In turn, high reliance was placed on the short- and long-term financing programs of the Farm Credit Administration to ameliorate the negative, economic effects of the Depression. The economic imperatives of the Great Depression, 1929-1938, brought many fundamental changes to the Michigan Extension Service. The most important of these was the introduction of the federal government into agricultural economic planning in an unprecedented manner. County agents played a key administrative role in federal efforts to relieve the economic crisis of the American farmer around the United States and in Michigan. For example, county agents were responsible for ad- ministering the legislative provisions of the Agricultural Adjustment Act in their counties. C00peration between other federal farm programs and the Extension Service was also very close. The Farm Credit Admini- stration, the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act, the Rural Resettlement Administration, and Rural Electrification Administration were all supported by the Extension Service. The Depression also caused significant changes in normal program planning of Michigan county agents, home economists, 4-H leaders, and extension specialists. Economical methods of agricultural production and home produced foods and clothing were emphasized in order to maxi- mize farm profit and minimize expenditures. Budgets and personnel policies also changed because of the financial constraints placed on higher education by Depression economic conditions. In Michigan, the initial response of the Cooperative Extension Ser- vice to the Great Depression was to intensify statewide educational ef- forts in promoting more efficient agriculture, farm management and home economics in order to increase farm profit and reduce cash expend- itures; however, as Depression conditions continued unabated and New Deal farm remedies were inaugurated, the role of the Extension Service was altered to reflect federal relief priorities. This change repre— sented a clear departure from the traditional educational role of the Extension Service and, although initially well received, put it four- square into the political arena. Later New Deal farm programs were not administered by the Extension Service, which relieved county agents of considerable administrative burdens and enabled them to continue the educational work that originally earmarked the beginning of extension programs. It is not within the scope of this study to provide a general his- tory of Extension activities in Michigan from 1929 to 1938. This dis- sertation is limited to an examination of the programs, personnel and budget priorities of the Michigan Cooperative Extension Service during a time of national economic crisis. The unique funding pattern of the Cooperative Extension Service made the organization responsive to both local and national needs, which provided a blend of national and local policy concerns. There has been practically no research done on the Cooperative Ex- tension Service in Michigan during the Depression. Almost all materials associated with the study are primary sources. One extension bulletin, #229, reviews the contribution of extension work in Michigan from 1914- 1929; however, the content is only a general record of activity and makes little attempt to associate social conditions with programs or analyze their effects on the Extension Service. Since most secondary sources on the period do not acknowledge the Extension Service as an important contributor to economic relief during the Depression, this dissertation should make a contribution to the literature in the field. One secondary source which provided useful background information for this study was Gladys Baker's The County Agent. This book, the by- product of a doctoral dissertation at the University of Chicago, studied the county agent as a public administrator during the Depression years. Her research was based on interviews in Iowa, New York, and Alabama and provided valuable, comparative insights into how federal emergency farm programs were viewed and handled in other states. In 1939, Dr. Baker concluded that the ultimate justification for the Extension Service could no longer be the dissemination of scientific agriculture—-for suc- cess had already been achieved—-or the availability of trained manpower to deal with national emergencies, but long-range social and economic planning, Three other secondary sources on Michigan were also helpful in pro- viding background for this study. First, Madison Kuhn's Michigan State: The First Hundred Years produced a general history of the College from 1855 to 1955 and gave insight into the effects of the Depression on the College. Second, Louise V. Armstrong's book, We, Too, Are the People supplied an enlightened view of the problems confronted by the first Federal Emergency Relief Administration county supervisors in Michigan, and a skillfully written set of anecdotes about life in Manistee County during the critical years of the initial Roosevelt Administration. Third, the First and Second Report of the State Emergency Welfare Re- lief Commission on Unemployment, Relief and Economic Security were sub- stantive reviews of the socio-economic conditions in Michigan which preceded the Depression and a clear statement of the social welfare measures taken to remedy them. The major research documents used for this dissertation were the C00perative Extension Service archival records located in the Michigan State University Archives and Historical Collections. Productivity of the Extension Service was readily assessed through these documents. Services and educational programs were recorded and showed a continual trend toward growth, with the exception of the most difficult years of the Depression. Required federal reporting put a priority on accurate accounting of extension contacts and cited man-days spent on regular extension projects, Triple A, and other emergency farm programs and wel- fare activities. The following extension documents were available through the Michi— gan State University Archives and Historical Collections for the period 1929-1938: 1. Director of Extension Annual Reports summarized all extension activities within Michigan during each calendar year. Budget sources for the fiscal year were included along with a complete list of personnel. Generally, the report consisted of a preface noting major extension programs and changes from the past year, comments on the work and number of county agricultural agents in Michigan and highlights of all major project activities including numbers of farmers and rural residents served. These reports were published as part of the Annual Report of the Secretary of the State Board of Agriculture of the State of Michigan under the title: "Report of the Division of Extension Work" and are also available in the MSU library. 2. State County Agent Leaders Annual Reports summarized the acti- vities of county agents in Michigan,vdum1they supervised. Personnel trends, federal, state and county funding patterns, county boards of supervisors voting records on extension support, management goals and objectives, excerpts from agent reports and comments on federal emer- gency farm programs were included. There were two state county agent leaders in the Lower Peninsula during most of the Depression. A sepa- rate report was usually filed by the state county agent leader in the Upper Peninsula. These reports gave insights into county financial problems and extension efforts to keep agents in as many Michigan counties as pos- sible. They also provided insight into the management priorities of the Extension Service and ways in which federal emergency farm programs such as the Agricultural Adjustment Act. affected the ongoing educational program of the Extension Service. 3. Annual Reports of Extension Projects were individual summaries of the major extension projects throughout Michigan. They were titled: Agricultural Economics, Agricultural Engineering, Animal and Disease Control, Animal Husbandry, Boys' and Girls' Clubs, Clothing and Textiles, Dairy Husbandry, Entomology, Farm Crops, Farm Management, Foods and Nu- trition, Forestry, Home Demonstration, Home Economics, Home Furnishings, Home Management, Horticulture, Landscape Architecture, Parent Education, Poultry Husbandry, and Soil Science. Project reports made brief note of the economic or agricultural conditions which projects were designed to remedy, counties in which projects were held, allocation of depart- mental specialists to projects, project results and numbers of farmers or rural residents assisted. The following reports were most pertinent to the topic of this dissertation as they clearly described economic change and adjustment in rural areas of the State: Farm Management, Agricultural Economics, 4-H, Home Demonstration, Clothing and Textiles, Food and Nutrition, Child Care and Home Management. 4. County Agricultural Agent Annual Reports summarized extension activities in Michigan counties that had agents. These reports gave brief overviews of the type of agriculture practiced in the county, economic problems faced and major extension projects offered including 4-H and home economics. They also included a statement on community activities, which often noted cooperative work with county welfare com- missions, county farms and the Federal Emergency Relief Administration. The outline of most reports followed this format: A. Organization of the county extension program (1) Recent changes and developments (2) The function of local people, committees and project leaders (3) Relationships to other public and private organizations B. Program of work, listing annual educational goals, methods employed, and results achieved (1) Factors considered in determining the program of work (2) Project activities and results C. Agricultural outlook and recommendations, in- cluding program suggestions for the following year D. Summary of activities and accomplishments Narrative reports reviewed for this study were from Berrien, Cass, Charlevoix, Cheboygan, Chippewa, Huron, Ingham, Kent, Lenawee and Wayne Counties. These counties were selected with the help of Mr. George McIntyre, retired Director of the Michigan Cooperative Extension Service, on the basis of their geographic and agricultural significance in the State. In addition, Ingham, Kent and Wayne counties were selected because they represented the major population centers of the State during the 1930's and had sufficient tax bases to afford agricultural, 4-H and home economics agents throughout most of the Depression. 5. Home Economics County Agent Reports were filed in those counties that had home economics agents or shared them with other counties on a part-time basis. These reports gave insight into the educational pro- grams geared to producing low cost, homemade clothing, household furni- ture and home-grown and preserved foods to combat Depression economic conditions. The home extension agent's report was usually filed sepa- rately from the county agricultural agent's report. 10 6. 4-H County Agent Annual Reports were frequently cited as part of the county agent's narrative report. They cited 4-H enrollments and projects throughout the country, which often changed to meet the economic conditions of the Depression. 7. A statistical summary of each agent's activities was filed an- nually with the State and Federal Extension Offices. The "Annual Report of County Extension Workers" provided a detailed summary and analysis by project area of extension activities in a given county as performed by the country agricultural agent, 4-H agent, home economics agent and campus-based specialists. The statistical summary was of great value in showing progress made during a given calendar year and used as a basis for future plans, legislation and financial support of extension work. The Michigan Extension Service also tabulated a State statistical summary using the same form, which was filed with the director's an- nual narrative report. This report plotted annual changes in extension project enrollments and man-days devoted to federal emergency farm and relief activities. As part of this study, the author interviewed eight former extension workers who were employed by the Michigan Ex- tension Service or Michigan State College during the Depression. They were: 1. Mr. E. B. Hill, one of the first county agents in Michigan and former Chairman of the Farm Management Department 2. Mr. George McIntyre. former Cass County Agent; Director, De- partment of Agriculture, State of Michigan; and Director, C00perative Extension Service 11 '1 (N Mr. Kenneth Ousterhout, former Antrim County Agent, Farm Management Specialist and 4-H Program Leader 4. Mrs. Olga Byrd Nickle, former 4-H Club Agent for the Upper Peninsula 5. Miss Marjorie Eastman, former Extension Clothing Specialist 6. Mr. Per Lundin, former 4-H Program Leader 7. Mr. Orion Ulrey, Associate Professor Emeritus, Department of Agricultural Economics 8. Ms. Mary Woodward, former Secretary to the Director of the ‘l: Extension Service, Home Demonstration Agent and 4-H Program Specialist These interviews confirmed overall program and project trends identified in the archival records and provided personal insights into the Depression experience in various parts of the State. The author also interviewed Mr. Benjamin Hennink, founder of the junior Farm Bureau in Michigan, Mr. Barrett Lyons, former Federal Emer- gency Relief Administration supervisor in Cheboygan County, and Mr. Ross Cartwright, former AAA Committeeman and Michigan farmer. These gentle- men provided information on the Depression experience in Michigan and outside views of the Extension Service. This dissertation includes an introduction, a general background chapter on the Michigan Extension Service, three chronological chapters covering 1929-32, 1933-35, and 1936—38, and a summary. The general background chapter provides essential information on how the Michigan Cooperative Extension Service operated in the late Twenties. The en- abling federal legislation—-the Smith-Lever Act of l914--responsibilities 12 of extension leadership, relations with counties, major project areas, personnel trends and funding sources are discussed. The first chrono- logical chapter reviews the critical downward slide of the Michigan farm economy and the response of extension programs to those changes from 1929-32. Project personnel and budget changes are examined. The second chronological chapter focuses on the economic changes brought on by the federal farm programs of the first Roosevelt Administration, the Extension Service's role in working with these programs and further shifts in extension projects, personnel and budgets. The third chrono- logical chapter reviews the farm recovery made during 1936-38, shifts in extension priorities from the administration of the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act (successor to the Agricultural Adjustment Act) to a complete return to educational activities. Economic recovery is demonstrated through changes in extension programs and increased federal funding to bring more county, 4-H and home economics agents into Michigan. The summary chapter is a review of the response of the Michigan Extension Service to the Great Depression in Michigan and major conclusions drawn from the study. THE MICHIGAN COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE IN 1929 The purpose of this chapter is to describe the Michigan Cooperative Extension Service as it existed in 1929. Highlights regarding historical development, administrative structure, personnel, budget, relations with counties, and projects are included. By setting the Extension Service in this context, a basis will be developed for understanding how Exten- sion programs operated in Michigan just prior to the Great Depression and for measuring the changes that resulted from the economic hardships of the times. By 1929, the Cooperative Extension Service had become a permanent feature of the rural landscape in Michigan. Almost entirely gone were the early days of uninformed opposition to extension and lack of a Specific plan of work.1 Arguments against extension, like the follow- ing letter to the editor in the Pontiac Press Gazette, were only humor- ous reminders of the past: To the Editor: December 14, 1912 Some farmers have already trained their dogs to watch out for this farm expert. Has not the farmer by years of toil and study become an ex- pert? Would this $4 a day college expert Show us how to pitch hay or dig potatoes? Why this show- ing how to raise big crops when you cannot get help to harvest them? This is an old scheme to make a fat job for someone. All farmers under- stand what their soil requires to grow a bumper crOp. Some have more finances to produce that crop than others, hence the difference in farmers. What would the business man say if the farmer wanted to send him a man just out of college to show him how to run his business? 13 14 Don't send this expert. Send someone willing to work at fair wages. We have sent our sons to help your businessmen because you give them shorter hours and greater pay and the old farm is growing to weeds while you holler about the scarcity of farm produce and are going to remedy it by sending us a farm expert. Don't send this expert. We are too busy with the corn crop to talk with him. A.B. 2 The first extension agents not only had to overcome skepticism, but also had to devise a plan of work where no county-by-county plan had existed before. The forerunner of extension work--farmers' institutes-~were not organized on a year-round basis and lacked the permanent quality of having agricultural agents resident in the counties. E. B. Hill, who was one of the first county agents in Michigan, reported that he spent his first months on the job traveling around the county, intro- ducing himself to farmers and asking what their problems were. Another significant problem for early agents was the lack of volun- teers. 4—H club, home economics, and farm demonstration activities had to be solely planned and coordinated by the agent. As the Extension Service develOped, it relied heavily on the voluntary cooperation of farmers, rural homemakers and agricultural organizations to help dis— seminate information about scientific agriculture and home economics. The ultimate responsibility of the Cooperative Extension Service was to develop strong rural leadership that could effectively address the ongoing problems of agriculture and rural life. From the beginning, the Cooperative Extension Service served as an educational linkage between the ongoing research of the Michigan State College and rural residents of the state. Michigan Extension 15 Director, Robert Baldwin summarized the rationale for extension work as follows: Comparatively few rural people can come to MSC (Michigan State College) and benefit from re- search at the Experiment Station and USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) al- though farm people contribute materially to the support of the college. It is the func- tion of the Extension Service to fill this gap by making the services and information of the College and the Experiment Station available to rural people on their own farms and in their own homes.4 Soil fertility, crop and livestock improvement, plant and animal diseases, pests, farm management, and the organization of farm cooperatives for the buying, selling, and marketing of agricultural commodities were viewed as problems too large for the farmer to solve on his own.5 Suc- cinctly put, "the unwritten goal of the extension program was to make farming a profitable enterprise and provide a means for people to live comfortably on the land.”6 Conceived in this spirit, the Smith-Lever Act of 1914 was the en- abling federal legislation of the Cooperative Extension Service and provided a national policy for extension education. It designated the land-grant colleges responsible for administering extension work and initiating programs in each state. As a part of the United States Department of Agriculture, the Extension Service provided for coopera- tion between the federal government and the land-grant colleges to bring current information to farmers regarding scientific agriculture and home economics. Instruction was focused on persons not resident on college campuses, and practical demonstrations were the medium of . . 7 . instruction rather than classrooms and textbooks. The Federal Exten51on 16 Office in Washington was charged with general supervision and approval of plans and expenditures; however, considerable latitude was given to each state to develop a program that fit local agricultural and economic conditions.8 All extension funds were administered by the state col- leges. In 1915, the Michigan Legislature accepted the State's responsi- bility for implementing Smith-Lever, which opened the way for legis- lative county funding of the Extension Service and the cooperation of Michigan State College and the counties in determining farm and home programs.9 Key to the success and continuity of the extension program was the plan of work. As provided for in the Smith-Lever Act, each state was responsible for submitting a plan of work to the federal office for ap- proval and funding. In practice, federal approval was p:9_fgrma, The director of extension and his staff developed county and statewide plans of work, which took into consideration state and local conditions, needs for personnel, materials and expenses. Due to the cooperative nature of the Extension Service, state and local matching funds were required to obtain federal assistance. Federal funds were allotted on the basis of a state's rural pOpulation and in relation to the total rural population of all states.10 Year-end narrative and statistical reports were required at all levels and served as useful checks on the achievement of projected goals and projects. The organizational structure of the Michigan Cooperative Exten- sion Service was based on function and to some extent geography. With only one administrative layer between the county agents in the field l7 and the resident extension director on the Michigan State College campus, the structure was both simple and responsive. Following is an organiza- tional chart. President of Michigan State College11 Dean, Division of Agriculture Director of Extension Departments Assistant Director Specialists of Extension . I T State 4—H Club State County Agent State Home Demon- Leaders Leaders stration Leaders County or District County Agricultural County or District 4-H Agents Agents Home Demonstration 4Agents Besides overall direction of the extension program and budget, the director of extension was responsible for relating to the Federal Exten- sion Office in Washington, federal farm programs and farm groups that supported agriculture. Delineation of responsibility to other staff was on a functional basis. County 4—H agents reported to the state 4-H leaders, county agricultural agents to the state county agent leaders, and home demonstration agents to the state home demonstration leaders. Extension work in the counties was coordinated through the county agents. This responsibility demonstrated the fundamental importance of the county agent to the success of the extension program and why the Michigan 18 Cooperative Extension Service worked so hard to increase the number of counties with resident agricultural agents. It also explained the un- usually long work days of county agents, who routinely worked from sunup to sundown Monday through Friday, held meetings in the evenings and met with farmers in their offices on Saturday morning. Sundays provided their only time off. Much of the Extension Service's success was due to the high level of education and experience most agents had. Fifty-one of 65 agents in 1929 had four or more years of college education. Only three had no college training. Most agents were between 25-28 years of age, and many of them had spent some time in the field as cow testers or seed inspectors for grain and potatoes. Ten agents had served ten or more years, and over half of them had three or more years of service.12 By 1929, the College's Division of Agriculture had developed a course on extension which served as an effective orientation and recruitment de- vice for new agents.13 Agent salaries were good, and the increasing permanence of extension work attracted well qualified personnel. At a time when Michigan farmers were lucky to make $1339 annually, county agents made $1800 - $2400.14 Nationwide, county agent salaries were also higher than junior faculty salaries.15 County agents were supervised by two county agent leaders who divided the Lower Peninsula in half. The Upper Peninsula was geographic- ally isolated and had its own county agent leader located in Marquette. The Upper Peninsula also had its own resident, subject matter specialists 19 responsible to the county agent leader as well as assistant state leaders for home economics and 4-H club work. The isolation of the Upper Peninsula provided special communication problems for extension leadership in East Lansing and Marquette. During the winter months, most face-to-face meetings were held in Chicago, the only place that railheads conveniently converged. Of course, Mackinaw City was used in the summer when the ferry was running across the Straits of Mackinaw. Frequently, rapid communication was through Western Union in lieu of inexpensive telephone service. 6.“ 3 With the exception of the Upper Peninsula, departmental specialists were campus-based and assigned to their respective departments. They were experts in their own right and knowledgeable of ongoing college research in agriculture and home economics. County agents were pre- pared to carry out day-to-day county programs and were assigned accord- ing to their agricultural skills; however, when expert assistance was required, specialists worked directly with agents furnishing subject- matter plans, illustrations and printed materials, and assistance in organizing and conducting campaigns, tours, and demonstrations. Al- though specialists tended to work through the county agents, they often worked with agricultural organizations such as the Dairy Herd Improve- ment Association and commodity marketing associations. These groups lobbied effectively with the dean of agriculture or the State Legisla- ture to add specialists to the extension staff in order to promote more efficient production or marketing of agricultural commodities. 20 During the late 1920's, the Extension Service capitalized on an improved economic outlook for farmers and an increased demand for ex- tension programs. In 1929, 63 of 83 Michigan counties appropriated funds for extension, an increase of 12 counties in four years. Nine counties supported home economics agents and county 4eH agents grew by four.18 District agents were used when counties could not afford an agent on their own. Ironically, it was the counties with urban centers that could afford to have resident home economics agents. Kent, Wayne, Ingham, Jackson, Lenawee, Marquette, Oakland, Oceana, and Ottawa had their own home economics agents.19 By the end of 1929, 66 county boards of supervisors had appropri- ated funds to support county agricultural agents in Michigan for the following year. This represented an increase of 25 counties over eight years with a commensurate increase in funding from the counties. The goal of the state county agent leaders was to add two or three county agents a year until 72 counties were covered.21 The rest of Michigan's 83 counties were considered non-agricultural or marginally agricultural. As the decade of the 1920's ended, extension leaders were euphoric about the potential for continued growth. They were on the brink of having extension work successfully spread across the state. Mr. Clinton Ballard, State County Agent Leader, projected: ”The outlook for the future is good. There is increasing demand for Extension Service of all kinds. This indicates to us that our activi- 7 ties meet the approval of farm folks. .”2“ 21 Consistent with increases in staff and activities, the Extension Service budget grew in the late 1920's. The postwar farm depression which precluded continued growth had passed. Federal, state, and county board appropriations increased significantly. In 1929, the total appropriation from all sources was $775,192.58.23 Personnel ex- pansion received an added boost from the Capper-Ketchum legislation of 1928. Seven county agents, three home demonstration agents, three 4-H club agents, and two subject-matter specialists were supported through these funds.24 This would be repeated in 1935, when Bankhead- Jones legislation provided funds to hire county, home economics and 4-H agents after a period of economic austerity. The Farm Bureau, too, was influential in funding and shaping the Extension Service. Both organizations were interested in encouraging the develOpment of scientific agriculture for the economic benefit of the farmer. From 1918-1933, the Farm Bureau supported the Extension Service through membership dues.25 At times, this led to a conflict of interest for the Extension Service as Farm Bureau members often felt justified in demanding services from county agents ahead of the public. By the mid-1920's, the Michigan Farm Bureau had turned to political and economic activities in support of the farmer, and it became readily apparent to both the Farm Bureau and the Extension Service that educa— tion and politics did not mix. The integrity of the Extension Service, as a publicly supported and dedicated organization, was compromised by its financial association with the Farm Bureau. Amicably, the two or- ganizations parted ways.26 To the good fortune of the Extension Service, 22 Clark Brody was the executive secretary of the Michigan Farm Bureau. He had been one of the early county agents in Michigan and realized that the Extension Service and the Farm Bureau had different roles to play in support of agriculture. His leadership was a positive force in directing the Michigan Farm Bureau and Michigan State College, as a member of the State Board of Agriculture. By 1924, the Michigan Farm Bureau's support of the Michigan Co- operative Extension Service dropped significantly, although some finan- cial support was still forthcoming at the option of local bureaus. As a result, extension leaders put more effort into obtaining public funds from county boards of supervisors. Funding from this source doubled from 1922-1929.27 By the end of the decade, 55 of 66 Michigan counties totally supported the Operating costs of county agent offices.28 County appropriations were necessary to provide office maintenance, travel and stenographic help. Agents were paid three cents a mile for the use of their car and given around $800 annually to provide secre- tarial support. Since the agent's office was usually located in the county courthouse, rent, heat, and light were eliminated from the budget.29 County agent salaries were mainly supported by Smith-Lever funds. The Federal government provided $1800 annually to each county that sup- ported an agent.30 This amount was intended to cover all or part of the agent's salary. If counties wanted experienced agents, they had to pay more from their own funds, In order to assist poor counties in the northern part of Michigan, the State Board of Agriculture voted a state and federal subsidy of $2400 to support agricultural agents.31 This aided counties with limited population and tax revenues to afford ex- perienced agents. By 1929, fourteen counties had been funded in this manner,32 As the Depression continued, other counties in the State were funded similarly. Selection of extension programs was done at the county level. Individual counties selected extension programs through consultation with the county agents and the county board of supervisors. In most cases, the county boards of supervisors had sub-committees charged with overseeing extension work.3:5 These committees were generally referred to as the county agricultural committee and usually had representation from farmers, home economics group members, 4—H club leaders, the local Farm Bureau, Grange, c00peratives and bankers. As a rule, these groups operated on a consensus basis. The county agent usually coordinated the review of past and future work in his county and made the formal request for assistance from the Michigan State College Extension Office in East Lansing. Given a limited specialists staff on the MSC campus, all counties could not be satisfied in their demands for programs. This was especially true in home economics and led to the development of a series of programs in clothing and nutrition that covered the State on a rotational basis year after year. Extension agents shunned partisan politics to avoid putting their programs and themselves in politically damaging positions with county boards of supervisors. George McIntyre reported that he was only given one piece of advice by Rosswell Carr, State County Agent leader, before going to Cass County and that was: "Don't get involved in politics! Some day your friends will be out and so will you.”34 24 M ,nvw-r --j Commercial endorsement also posed a difficult political problem for the Extension Service. Given the influential position of county agents, agricultural manufacturers would have gained considerable ad- vantage with the Extension Service's endorsement. Continually, the Extension Service had to guard against the appearance of endorsement and still maintain an active relationship with a variety of commercial interests. The level and methods of instruction employed by the Extension Service varied. Demonstrations were the most salient form of instruc- tion. Soil testing, sheep dipping to prevent parasites, chicken worm- ing, canning and dressmaking were good examples of this type of instruc- tion. Demonstration and training meetings for farmers and homemakers were held on farms and at railheads and other convenient locations. Publicity for these meetings varied from county newspaper articles to special mailings supported by the federal franking privileges of the Extension Service. In some counties the radio was used if such com- munication facilities existed. The philosophy of extension work was to teach through observation and experience. Dr. Seamen Knapp, founder of the American extension movement, articulated this point of view in his famous quotation: ”What a man hears he may doubt, what he sees he may possibly doubt, but what a man does himself he cannot doubt.”35 The term "education" in exten— sion usage usually meant the passing on of information rather than the intellectual give and take of a student/teacher relationship; Corres- pondingly, the level of extension instruction was often below collegiate 25 level but well—suited to its clientele and drew on research and knowl- edge produced at Michigan State College. Skits were occasionally used as another teaching technique. A colorful example was a nutrition skit called "The Operation,” which was designed to show the relationship between weight and proper diet. In the plot, an overweight woman consulted her physician. The doctor ad- vised an operation, during which ”cakes, pies, candy, macaroni, white bread, and other foods high in carbohydrates were removed [and subse- quently] replaced with fruits, raw and green leafy vegetables and whole grain cereals."36 Although the plot was simple, the audience saw the results of an inadequate diet while the advantages of a nutritional diet were extolled. 4-H agents often taught by example. Olga Byrd Nickle, 4-H Club Leader in the Upper Peninsula, related the following story about the 4-H clothing projects which were stressed in northern counties because of the general lack of discretionary income during the Depression. To stimulate interest in the clothing projects, Mrs. Nickle always wore a different dress when she visited a school for a second or third time. Children were fascinated by her outfits and often came up to her, touch- ing and examining the material.37 In that sense, extension agents were revered in their counties and had comparable status to school teachers and ministers. The relay system was adopted by the home economics staff during the winter of 192438 and disseminated information through volunteers to persons who could not attend training meetings. Women achieved con- siderable success through this method. Essentially, each trained 26 woman was obliged to enroll other women in the project and conduct lessons. Project enrollees, in turn, were obliged to teach at least two other women what they had learned, thereby relaying the project information further. Widespread spinoff from a single training meet- ing could be achieved, especially when every effort was made to have representation from all county townships. The responsibility for local training meetings, site selection, and attendance was shifted to local leaders as fast as they would accept the responsibility, which pointed out the importance of volunteers in disseminating information to a wider range of persons than professional staff could accomplish on their own.39 The relay system also had several drawbacks. No matter how eco- nomical, it could not be relied upon to serve the nutritional, clothing, and home management needs of the entire Michigan rural population. This was especially true in times of economic distress, when need far exceeded manpower and resources. In addition, this technique was not very effective with men.40 Open meetings, actual demonstrations and individual contacts were the best methods of disseminating scientific agriculture to farmers. Michigan's farms and soil conditions were unusually diverse. The north-south boundaries of the State and the two Great Lakes surround- ing the Lower Peninsula produced a wide range of soil and climatic conditions, which sustained corn and hogs in the southern counties, fruit on the western shore, potatoes in the north, and beans and beets 27 in the ”Thumb."4l In turn, Michigan's agricultural diversity produced an equally diverse group of extension projects. Project areas were: Agricultural Economics, Agricultural Engineering, Animal and Disease Control, Animal Husbandry, Boys' and Girls' Clubs, Clothing and Textiles, Dairy Husbandry, Entomology, Farm Crops, Farm Management, Foods and Nutrition, Forestry, Home Demonstration, Home Economics, Home Furnish- ings, Home Management, Horticulture, Landscape Architecture, Parent Education, Poultry Husbandry, and Soil Science.42 Although twenty-one principal extension projects existed in 1929 and Operated throughout the State, major project emphasis was on the correction of soil acidity, the improvement of dairy herds by the elimination of parasitic disease and low-producing cows, the culling of poultry flocks, the introduction of field crops best adapted to climate and soil conditions, and the sup- port of patronage cooperatives that bought and sold farm produce at prices advantageous to the farmer. The emphasis on dairy herds and poultry flocks may seem unusual in a state that has often been remembered for its fruit production, bean crops and potatoes; however, the State's largest cash crops were dairy and poultry products. The dairy cow was the single most important source of income for Michigan farmers and a significant source of farm family food.43 Extension work with cooperatives in the 1920's and later the Farm Management Account Program in the 1930's helped farmers understand the economic conditions that seemed to manipulate prices beyond their con- trol and diminish profits. Michigan was one of the first states to initiate a farm account program along with Illinois, Indiana, Iowa and 4 Ohio.4 E. B. Hill, former chairman of the Department of Farm Management, .. I!" . ,l"n. W“ 28 stated that there were many people, including Michigan State College administrators, who believed that farming was an unprofitable business.45 The agricultural economics and farm management projects were an effort to show that farmers could make a profit if they managed their farms and sold their crops properly. They also provided the Extension Service with accurate information on the economic conditions of various regions of the State. At times, county agents or agricultural economics special- ists would serve as on-site advisors to cooperatives and as executive secretaries of their financial matters. This activist role would later serve as a precedent for justifying the executive secretary positions that county agents assumed in support of the Agricultural Adjustment Administration program of the Roosevelt Administration. Of all the extension projects, the home economics and 4-H club programs were most widely received and served as a positive force for public support of extension.46 The Extension Service saw 4-H programs for boys and girls as the back door to improvement of family farming practices and home living. This was especially true in the Upper Peninsula, where large numbers of immigrants had settled. Language and cultural barriers were a problem in working with many of these groups, and junior programs were emphasized with a view toward the future. Enrollments in both 4-H and home economics increased sub— stantially throughout the 1920's, as did volunteer support, and moved the extension leadership to seek wider employment of home demonstration and 4-H club agents to meet public demand. 29 Strong public support and economic growth infected extension leaders with the same expansionist psychology that was so characteristic of the entire decade. This euphoria would turn to despair in a few short years but was indicative of the growth mentality that permeated the organiza- tion in the late 1920's. Economic growth or decline was critical to the Extension Service and formed the basis for changes in projects offered to farmers and rural homemakers. The economic imperatives of 1929-32 resulted in significant changes in the Michigan Extension Ser- . . 47 v1ce's programs and a shift to emergency work. 30 l . . The term ”plan of work" referred to a prOJected plan of exten51on activities for one year. A plan of work was goal oriented and could be written for a state or county. 2Cited in R. E. Decker, ”History of County Agricultural Agent Work in Michigan 1914-1939,” Cooperative Extension Service Collection 16:34, Michigan State University Archives and Historical Collections, East Lansing, Michigan (Typewritten), p. 33. 3Interview with E. B. Hill, former extension agent and chairman of the Farm Management Department, in his home, East Lansing, Michigan, September, 1977. 4R. J. Baldwin, ”Report of the Division of Extension Work," Sixty- eighth Annual Report of the Secretary of the State Board of Agriculture of the State of Michigan and the Forty-fifth Annual Report of the Experi- ment Station July 1, 1929 - June 30, 1929, Michigan State College, East Lansing, Michigan, p. 207. S R. J. Baldwin, ”Report of the Division of Extension Work,” Seventieth Annual Report of the Secretary of the State Board of Agri- culture of the State of Michigan and the Forty-seventh Annual Report of the Experiment Station July 1, 1930 - June 30, 1931, Michigan State College, East Lansing, Michigan, p. 299. 6Interview with E. B. Hill. /U. 5. Congress, An Act to Provide for Cooperative Agricultural Extension Work Between the Agricultural Colleges in the Several States Receiving the Benefits of an Act of Congress Approved July Second, Eighteen Hundred and Sixty-two, and of Acts Supplementary Thereto and the United States Department of Agriculture, H.R. 7951, 63rd 2nd Ses- sion 1914. 8Interview with George McIntyre, former Cass County Agent and Direc- tor, Cooperative Extension Service. Interview held in the office of Mr. Norris Bryson, East Lansing, Michigan, September 1977. 9History of Cooperative Extension Work in Michigan 1914-1939, (East Lansing, Michigan: Extension Bulletin 229, June 1941), p. 7. 10U.S. Congress, An Act to Provide for C00perative Agricultural Extension Work Between the Agricultural Colleges in the Several States Receiving the Benefits of an Act of Congress Approved July Second, Eighteen Hundred and Sixty-two, and of Acts Supplementary Thereto and the United States Department of Agriculture, H.R. 7951, 63rd'2nd Ses- sion 1914. 31 11George Harold Axinn, "The Relationship of Personnel Selection and Salary Administration to Organizational Effectiveness in the Cooperative Extension Service in Michigan” (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin, 1957), p. 24. 12C. V. Ballard and Rosswell G. Carr, "Report of State Supervisors of County, Agricultural Agents, December l928-November 1929," Coopera- tive Extension Service Collection 16.34, Michigan State University Ar- chives and Historical Collections, East Lansing, Michigan, (Typewritten), pp. 23, 107. 13Ibid., p. 23. 14$13.39 was the net income reported for 1929 for Michigan farmers in the ”Summary of Annual Farm Business Analysis Reports for 1934, (Six Year Comparison Financial Returns for Michigan Farmers) Michigan,” Cooperative Extension Collection 16.34, Michigan State University Ar- chives and Historical Collections, East Lansing, Michigan. (Type- written). 31800-2400 was the range of federal salary subsidy for county agents. C. V. Ballard and Rosswell C. Carr, ”Report of State Supervisor of County, Agricultural Agents, December 1928-November 1929,” p. 3. 15Gladys Baker, The County Agent (Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press, 1939), p. 175-176. l6Axinn, ”The Relationship of Personnel Selection and Salary Ad- ministration to Organizational Effectiveness in the Cooperative Exten- sion Service in Michigan,” p. 22. 17Ballard and Carr, "Report of State Supervisors of County, Agri- cultural Agents, 1928-1929,” p, 5. 18See Appendix,Personnel Trends of the Cooperative Extension Service in Michigan, 1929—39. 19 p. 21. 20R. J. Baldwin, ”Report of the Division of Extension Work," Sixty— ninth Annual Report of the Secretary of the State Board of Agriculture of the State of Michigan and Forty—sixth Annual Report of the Experiment Station July 1, 1929 - June 30, 1930, Michigan State College, East Lans- ing, Michigan, p. 238. 21Baldwin, ”Report of the Division of Extension Work,” Report of the Secretary l928-29, p. 207. 22Ballard and Carr, "Report of State Supervisors of County, Agri- cultural Agents, 1928-1929," p, 105. ”Faculty and Other Officers," Report of the Secretary l928-29, 32 2‘DSee Appendix, Summary of Funding Sources and Levels for the C00perative Extension Service in Michigan 1929-39. 24Baldwin, "Report of the Division of Extension Work," Report of the Secretary l928-29, pp. 208-209. 25 p. 123. History of Cooperative Extension Work in Michigan 1914-1939, 26Madison Kuhn, Michigan State The First Hundred Years (East Lans- ing, Michigan: Michigan State University Press, 1955), p. 286. 27Ballard and Carr, ”Report of State Supervisors of County, Agri- cultural Agents, 1928-1929,” p. 5. 281bid. 29History of Cooperative Extension Work in Michigan 1914-1939, p. 29. w 00Ballard and Carr, ”Report of State Supervisors of County, Agri- cultural Agents, 1928-1929,” p. 3. Ollbid. Dzlbid, o°lbid., p. 8. 34Interview with George McIntyre. '7 35Joseph Bailey, Seaman Knapp - Schoolmaster of American Agricul- ture (New York: Columbia University Press, 1945), p. 155. 36Myrtle Van Horne, ”Annual Report of the Home Demonstration Agent 1929-30, lngham County, Michigan,” Cooperative Extension Service Colloc- tion 16.34, Michigan State University Archives and Historical Collections, East Lansing, Michigan, (Typewritten). 37Interview with Olga Byrd Nickle, former 4-H Club Leader in the Upper Peninsula, in her home, East Lansing, Michigan, November, 1977. J8Kuhn, Michigan State The First Hundred Years, p. 313. 39Ballard and Carr, "Report of State Supervisors of County Agri- cultural Agents, 1928—1929,” p. 12. 4OBaldwin, "Report of the Division of Extension Work," Report of the Secretary 1930-31, p. 303. 4llbid., p. 299. 421bid. 43Baldwin, "Report of the Division of Extension Work," Report of the Secretary l928-29, p. 215. 4Interview with E. B. Hill. 4Slbid. 6Interview with George McIntyre. 47 _ - - The term ”emergency work” was used in exten51on reports and ap- pears throughout this dissertation. It refers to extension activities which were intended to relieve the precarious economic conditions of the Depression as they affected farmers. Historically, the term "emer- gency work" has also referred to extension wartime activities, and those programs developed to address such timely problems as drought, animal disease and insect blight. DIFFICULT TIMES, 1929-32 Few periods of American history have engendered greater despair for most Americans than the years 1929-1932. This was especially true for farmers. By 1932, the gradual farm recovery of the late 1920's was re— placed by alarming national conditions: the prices of farm products dropped one-half;l anxious creditors protected themselves by calling in old loans and denying new ones; and farm foreclosures became common oc- currences. Although general deflation had set in, it did not seriously affect prices farmers paid for machinery and other equipment used in agricultural production. The parity ratio--prices received by farmers compared to prices paid-~slipped dramatically from 92 in 1929 to 58 in 1932.2 The farm to retail price spread also dropped from 42% in 1929 to 31% in 1932.3 Nationally, production far exceeded demand as the United States lost its export grain market through the general economic collapse at home and abroad. Farming, as an industry, was fast becom- ing the last vestige of individual entrepreneurship, and the farmer's inability to influence the market place was obvious by his lack of ef- fective production controls. In Michigan, the situation was somewhat similar. By 1932, farm prices dropped 25-30% from their 1931 levels, and the Michigan Farm Purchasing Power Index was 62.4 Production in 1932 increased 7% over 1931.5 The average net cash income for Michigan farmers in 1932 was 35 $717 compared to $1339 in 1929, a reduction of approximately 50%. Alp though this drOp was dramatic, a similar situation prevailed in other midwestern states. Illinois had a net cash income of $932, and Iowa had a net cash income of $530. Nationwide, the net cash income was $257, which was the lowest in eleven years.6 These figures, however, only partially explain the plight of the Michigan farmer. While a $717 net cash income seems advantageous in comparison to the national situa- tion, it did not completely illustrate the difficult economic position of Wolverine farmers. Net farm income-~not net cash income--was considered the best financial indicator of farm profitability by the Michigan State College Extension Service and Department of Farm Management. In 1932, the net farm income in Michigan was $54 after adjustments were made for decreases in inventory, land value deflation of 25%, equipment depreciation, cost of room, board and wages for hired help, and pay for family labor other than the owner. When a wage for the owner was taken into consideration, Michigan farms showed a negative return on investment of -2.84% with a wage of -$369. Only 12.88% of farm owners in Michigan showed a profit in 1932, while 87.12% did not have sufficient income to cover their mortgage interest. In contrast, only 23.3% were ”in the red" in 1929.7 As Clark Brody, Secretary of the Michigan Farm Bureau, declared: "Life had reduced itself to its most basic element, survival."8 Michigan agriculture began to show signs of depression as early as 1929 and 1930. The Benton Harbor farmers' market was down 30% in cash receipts from 1930—1931,9 Even by 1929, the real estate boom in the 36 Detroit area--precipitated by rural migration to that city to work in the growing auto industry--was over and farm areas that were bought up for residential purposes were again being worked. In the Upper Penin- sula, difficult economic conditions existed prior to the early Thirties. The Extension Service emphasized depression remedies as standard prac- tice for the 14,500 farms in the Upper Peninsula long before they were suggested in southern Michigan. Good farmland was available, but the Extension Service did not advocate development of the land because of the national agricultural situation. No effort was made to expand dairy programs because local markets would not support them, although this was not the case with poultry. Home extension agents encouraged the develOpment of home industries in rag rugs, balsam pillows, thimble- berry and huckleberry jam.lO Such thinking was not prevalent in southern Michigan until 1932. By that time, the county agricultural agent in Berrien County, Harry Larkins, reported, ”We are all beginning to realize that we must get used to the depression rather than get over it." The condition of the soil was seen as Michigan's fundamental agri- cultural problem in 1929.12 By 1932, the general problem of soil condi— tions and the encouragement of scientifically improved agricultural practices would be overshadowed by the larger economic emergency of the times; however, the interrelationship of the land and how it could be most efficiently worked was considered an important aspect of the educational program directed by the Michigan State College Extension Service. High priority was given to the improvement of farm profit margins in a period of economic scarcity. 37 Population migration during the 1920's had a significant impact on Michigan agriculture. Throughout the 1920's, 8.2% of Michigan's rural population moved to urban areas primarily to work in the auto industry.13 By 1930, only 16% of Michigan's population was classified as farm popu— lation, compared to 25% for the United States as a whole.14 In addi- tion, there were fewer farms in Michigan and fewer acres in production than in 1920.15 This drift to the cities was seen by the Extension Ser- vice as a positive windfall for Michigan farming for two reasons. First, unprofitable land was being taken out of production, and second, the per- centage of the State's population dependent upon local agricultural pro- duction for food increased. Detroit and other southern Michigan cities were continuously viewed as an ever-increasing source of markets for Michigan's agricultural production, Extension Director Robert Baldwin noted this trend in his 1931 annual report: ”The presence of this larger urban population within an agricultural state will ultimately prove to be an advantage to the growers of food and textile products who adapt their program [production] to home market requirements.”16 By the end of the Hoover Administration, Michigan's industrial un- employment rate was among the highest in the nation, and the rural-to- urban migration pattern began to show signs of reversal. High indus- trial unemployment in southern Michigan and similar distress in the lumber areas of northern Michigan and the mining regions of the Upper Peninsula drove people back to the land. 38 Tax delinquency rose to unforeseen levels and jeopardized the major source of revenue that supported state and local government, welfare re- lief and higher education, including the Extension Service. By 1932, taxpayers were in a general revolt against property taxes, which foster- ed an amendment to the Michigan constitution limiting millage to l%% of assessed value or 15 mills. In turn, the legislature passed a state in- come tax to replace dwindling property tax revenues. Such legislation was due to heavy pressure from rural legislators, whose constituents-- the farmers of the State--were hard-hit by property taxes in an era of heavily diminished or non-existent profit. More often than not, taxes exceeded the ability to pay, which prompted farmers' organizations to request the Extension Service to develop tax studies on how local and state taxes were spent, Tax concerns and the general tendency to reduce government expenditures put various public-supported organizations on trial. The Extension Service was one and weathered the storm well. Sharp drops in farm prices, overproduction of agricultural commod- ities, high unemployment and swelling relief rolls affected the educa- tional programs, budgets, personnel policies and, ultimately, the philos— ophy of the Michigan State College Extension Service. In response to these conditions, the Michigan State College Extension Service initially intensified its statewide educational efforts to promote scientific agri- culture, efficient farm management and subsistence home economics in order to increase farm profits and reduce cash expenditures. No program repre- sented this strategy better than the ”Live at Home Program.” 39 The "Live at Home Program” was a national extension activity, which state extension services adapted to local conditions. It recom- mended steps that a farmer could take to meet depression conditions, and clearly separated individual endeavor from collective private action and governmental assistance. The essence of the "Live at Home Program” was the curtailment of cash expenditures for farm or home purchases, which applied "not only to producing on the farm a greater share of the family living requirements and making greater use of homegrown feed for live— stock, but also the delaying of expenditures for permanent improvements and high-priced equipment."17 Suggested remedies included farm produc- tion of home food supplies, including fruits, vegetables and meats, rather than paying cash for these products, and the use of farm woodlots for fuel and lumber as well asfeedinglivestock with a mixture of farm and commercially-grown feed. The axiom, ”Feed only what you can grow and grow only what you can feed,”18 gained increased credibility. Most of the home economics programs in nutrition, clothing, home furnishings, and home management were modified to meet the requirements of the ”Live at Home Program” of the early Thirties. Likewise, much of the 4—H pro— gram was also geared to production of homegrown vegetables, fruits and animals. In 1931, the ”Live at Home Program" was described as the most sig- nificant project in the Upper Peninsula. It specified the size of vegetable gardens and the number of fruit trees, as well as the amount of dairy, poultry, and meat products to annually support a family. Home butchering and canning were encouraged. Although valuable to most farm 40 groups, the program only partially served the needs of the Finnish people who did not grow gardens. To overcome cultural barriers and popularize the program, two county agents started an essay contest among rural school children on the "Value of the American Vegetable Garden," which demonstrated the close cooperation among the schools and the Extension Service in the Upper Peninsula.19 The Extension Service recommended timely adjustments in acreage and production of crOps as well as the adjustment of livestock to preva- lent and prospective economic conditions. The Michigan Extension Ser- vice firmly believed that the Depression was the result of price defla- tion, not overproduction.20 Reducing the cost of production was seen as a major remedy. Methods recommended for reducing production costs per unit included increasing the volume of business per farm and adjust- ing livestock and crops to available power, equipment, buildings and labor. The last three items constituted the basic, fixed costs of farm— ing, and the most profit was shown when they were used to the fullest. Other alternatives included the culling of unproductive animals, home production of feed and fertilizer (legumes), and the use of farm business records to find methods of increasing efficiency and reducing costs. Miscellaneous suggestions for meeting the economic emergency in- cluded: production of high—quality products which were graded by size and packed to compete with out-of-state commodities at lower transporta- tion costs; organization of credit facilities for farmers; refinancing short-term debts into mortgages that could be paid over a longer period 41 of time; patronizing c00peratives that bought manufactured goods at the lowest possible price and distributed farm goods as economically as pos- sible; and, last, but not least, use of the educational services of the county agent and Michigan State College. The Extension Service viewed the promotion of scientific agricul- ture, efficient farm management, and cooperative marketing as positive forces in counteracting the dire economic conditions of Michigan and American agriculture by lowering the cost of production, decreasing prices of commodities which farmers bought, and securing for farmers a greater percentage of retail prices.21 The application of this point of view was an outgrowth of extension cooperative work in the Twenties and a timely reinforcement of the value of scientific agriculture and sound business management in the Thirties. Aside from their normal educational work, extension personnel at times actively supported the marketing of agricultural commodities grown in their counties. An example of this kind of activity and the subsequent problem of commercial endorsement occurred during the summer of 1932. The Great Atlantic and Pacific Company had just bought over 50 railroad carloads of Green Mountain Potatoes from Upper Peninsula farmers. Such a large purchase was greatly appreciated by Upper Peninsula farmers who were hard hit by the Depression and the county agents who worked hard to find markets for local produce. To express their appreciation, Mr. J. G. Wells, County Agent Leader for the Upper Peninsula, wrote a letter to the A G P Company in Detroit. The letter read: 42 I have already written you of how much we appreci- ate the way you have handled the 15-pound sacks of Green Mountain Potatoes shipped from this territory. By we, I mean the agricultural agents and other ex- tension workers for the Michigan State College. At the time none of us realized how many potatoes we could ship you. Do you realize that we have al- ready shipped 51 cars, besides the 4 cars that will be shipped shortly? You may be interested in the many compliments I have heard from business men and farmers regarding the Great Atlantic 8 Pacific Tea Company for de- veloping this excellent market for our potatoes. A 8 P stores are much closer to the hearts of our people than ever before. 22 The A 8 P Company requested permission to publish Mr. Wells' letter in their magazine "in order to bring this parent organization of ours closer to the hearts of our growers." He replied: As a representative of the U.S, Department of Agriculture, it is necessary that I, as well as any other representative, be very careful in recom- mending any particular product or business. I have just read over a copy of my letter to Mr. Flynn and do not believe there is anything in it that violates the Smith-Lever Law under which we are working. At the same time, I understand that this magazine is sent out only to employees of the Great A G P Tea Company. If this is true I see no harm in using such parts of the letter as you wish. If, however, the magazine is for general distribution to your customers, I would appreciate your not using it. The A 8 P Company ignored Mr. Wells' instructions and placed the full text of his letter in advertisements in the Michigan Farmer and some Michigan newspapers. The letter was used as an endorsement. Con- siderable embarrassment ensued for the Extension Service and forced Mr. Baldwin, the Director of Extension, to caution all agents not to endorse or recommend products or commercial companies in writing. In addition, Mr. Baldwin remarked: "We would suggest you meet the local criticism 43 [of the Extension Service] with as much tact as possible, explain our attitude and policy on such matters and attempt to correct any ill feel- ing toward extension work that has been caused by this unfortunate incident."23 Many standard extension programs were affected by Depression con- ditions. By 1930, a general decline in prices and the quest for more ef- ficient production methods made farmers attentive to extension demonstra— tion meetings in increasing numbers.24 Briefly, there was a demand in some counties for more information on horses as sources of power, as every effort was made to lower the cost of production and utilize cheap homegrown feeds instead of buying tractors and gasoline.25 But this was only a brief aberration. Agricultural engineering work, which demon- strated new building techniques, slowed or stopped altogether because farmers could not finance new construction.26 As the Depression deep- ened, farmers could no longer afford commercial fertilizers to compensate for depleted Michigan soils. In response, the Extension Services en- couraged the use of crushed lime or marl dug from limestone lake beds. Whatever the project, the emphasis was always consistent with the federal remedy--how the individual could help himself, as opposed to how the government could help the farmer. The following excerpt from an extension postcard circular advocating liming practices made this point: LIMING PRACTICES HELP PAY TAXES Was it difficult for you to send that check to the County Clerk for last year's taxes? Possibly you feel taxes are too high. Possibly you feel that farm produce is too cheap. Possibly you feel we need a higher tariff on agricultural products. We won't argue these points now. They are national problems. 44 BUT! Here is an individual problem. Are you doing your level best to produce at the lowest possible cost per unit--bushe1, ton or pound? . Why not try some lime—-or more lime-- this year? While waiting for national relief, let's help ourselves all that is possible.27 This attitude permeated extension work in the early Thirties and ac- counted for increased interest in extension activities on the part of farmers and farm homemakers,2 The most immediate needs of farm homemakers were in the areas of clothing, nutrition, home financial management and child care. Through- out the Twenties, home extension programs had been centered on improving the quality of home life in rural areas so that rural people would not feel inferior to city residents. In 1930, the state project director for clothing and textiles optimistically stated, "No longer does one easily distinguish the rural man or woman from the city folk by their dress. They shOp from the same stores and read the same magazines. Many times, the rural woman [however] has less money to put into clothing, less time to spend educating herself as a shopper and usually less con- fidence in her ability to get full value for her money."29 In recogni- tion of this need, 43 counties participated in the Home Sewing Made Easy Project. 33 counties in the Garment Construction Project, and 29 counties in the Well—Dressed Woman Project between 1924—1930.30 By 1932, an additional project had been added to the clothing pro- gram. As an aid to low-income homemakers, the Clothing Thrift Series was developed and pOpularized “made-overs." The Thrift Series emphasized remaking wool coats for winter use, clothing clinics that demonstrated 45 garment renovation, cleaning of older clothing, and care and home repair of sewing machines. Residents of 18 counties were directly helped through clothing clinics in 1932. A total of 3,806 women participated in 1,565 neighborhood clothing meetings. Overall, 17,465 women were directly or indirectly assisted by the clothing program. Extension clothing clinics were not limited to persons traditionally associated with home economics projects. Non-farm families were also assisted. In Ingham County, the Extension Service and home economics volunteers cooperated with the Cooperative Council of Holt--civic clubs, churches and organizations-~to assist in the welfare work of Holt and Maple Grove. Clinics were held in vacant stores during the winter months largely as an emergency measure. People living in the Holt and Maple Grove area were for the most part supported by county welfare funds.32 The nutrition project also gained renewed importance as cash in- come decreased. Mr. Baldwin wrote in his 1932 annual report that ”. . . people have shown their interest in adequate diets at lowest cost and methods of conserving every available article of food.”33 The nu- trition project in 1932 consisted mainly of storing, preserving, canning, and planning food budgets. Canning demonstrations were given in 42 counties to 5,962 women. A series of six nutrition lessons was given to groups in twenty counties. Some 4,343 nutrition members reached still another 16,245 women.34 46 Nutrition specialists also participated in a statewide food pres- ervation program during the summer months of 1932-33. In Lansing, the Extension Service assisted the Lansing Cooperative Industries Cannery, which canned 5,000 cans of produce per week. The cannery paid its labor in paper script, which was redeemable for canned produce.35 Agnes Sorenson, the Home Demonstration Agent in Kent County, made a presenta- tion to rural supervisors and other agents active in giving relief en— titled: ”Foods for Health When Funds Are Low." This talk was repeated at PTA meetings around the county, and 3,000 nutrition pamphlets were distributed.36 Allied to the nutrition program was the "Thrift” or "Subsistence Garden” Project, which was the most important project during 1932 from the standpoint of numbers of people served on farms and in cities. - As many counties required welfare recipients to work gardens as a pre- requisite to collecting welfare and county boards of supervisors put agents in charge of technical supervision, welfare garden activity be- came a statewide concern for county agricultural agents. In Detroit, for instance, 6200 gardens (40' x 150') were supported by the city under the auspices of Mayor Murphy's Thrift Garden Committee. Ralph Carr, Wayne County Agricultural Agent, sat on the committee in an advisory capacity. Each garden produced approximately $50 in retail produce value and gave moral support to the unemployed who worked in the gardens.38 Livonia- Redford, Dearborn, and Oakland County supported gardens, as did many rural areas. As the home and community garden movement expanded, the following Michigan industries and municipalities requested bulletin and staff assistance from the Extension Service: Ford Motor Company, General 47 Motors, Rogers City Limestone Company, and the city welfare divisions of Battle Creek, Lansing. Kalamazoo, Pontiac and Detroit.39 The Home Management Program focused on helping farm women keep accurate accounts and budgets of household expenses. Although a modest number of women were enrolled in this project from 1931-32, an analysis of the 68 records of participating farm families provided a tentative guide to the cost of living on the farm in Michigan. The average exr penses for a family of two were $686 compared to $879 for a family of 4.1 persons. One-third of the living expenses of most families came from the farm. Items calculated for the study were food purchased, food raised (at retail prices), household Operating expenses, shelter, clothing, auto, health, recreation, education, church and gifts. Most families had annual expenses of less than $800.40 If the average net cash income of Michigan farmers was $717 in 1932, this meant that most farm families earned just enough income to exist. Edna V. Smith, state home demonstration leader, summed up the goals of the home economics extension program in economically distressing times: The long time program and goals have continued about as they were. The work on low cost diets, while maintaining food stands and remodeling and renovating of clothing, have been emphasized. Each project has been worked out with the elimin- ation of money expenditure.41 Minor programs included home furnishings and child care. The former em— phasized upkeep, repair, and wise economical replacement of home furnish- ings. Child care lectures stressed the importance of nutrition and good family morale through recreation, music, and reading. The goal of both 48 projects was "to make the rural homes in Michigan real centers for happy living and thereby counteract the disheartening influence and the stress of the present time,”42 The home furnishing project served 271 communities in 1932 and 3,596 members, who contacted 16,921 other women. The child care project involved 2,257 families who relayed in- formation to 15,922 other families.43 This represented a rather in- significant number in comparison to the need; however, it was an intelli- gent balance of staff and programming at a time when the basic components of survival--clothing and food-—deserved priority over other program considerations in serving over three-quarters of a million people living on Michigan farms. On another front, the activities of the agricultural economics program reflected the hard economic facts of the Depression. In 1930, the Agricultural Outlook Project emerged in Michigan. The purpose of the project was two-fold: One phase [was] to prepare and disseminate facts and information on the Agricultural Outlook as a guide to farmers in planning their production program. The second phase [was] to present to producers of the major farm commodities an analysis of the fundamental economic principles underlying the marketing Of farm products.44 This was accomplished through the Extension Service publication, ”Agri- cultural Outlook.” As the Depression deepened, this aspect of the agri- cultural economics program intensified. In the early Thirties, approxi- mately 20,000 c0pies of "Agricultural Outlook” were distributed annually.45 The net cash income of Michigan farmers dropped by 50% between 1929 and 1932. Crop production increased slightly while prices continued a steady decline. Accordingly, agricultural economics specialists stepped 49 up their activities with cooperative marketing organizations to help solve their organizational, financial, marketing, and membership prob- lems. Major activities in cooperative commodity marketing included: 1. Organization of sugar beet growers' associations 2. Accounting and organization service to fruit growers' associations 3. Assistance in building up the bean growers' or- ganizations 4. Continuation of assistance in reorganizing potato marketing activities 5. Assistance in organization and expansion of dairy marketing programs 6. Assistance in reorganizing cooperative pur- chasing activities 4 7. Organization of celery marketing associations Assistance in working with COOperatives varied from total involvement in a managerial capacity to advisory services. Both were considered educational in the sense that information was being imparted and manage- ment skills taught. "The Red Raspberry Deal” in Cheboygan County demonstrated how co- operative marketing of commodities served the farmer in times of economic stress, as well as the leading role played by extension staff. County agent Paul Barrett and a few leading raspberry growers organized a mar- keting cooperative, which successfully sold Cheboygan berries to produce brokers in Detroit. This prevented individual commodity buyers from pitting one grower against the other by offering different prices for the same produce. The raspberry crop was picked, graded, and packaged attractively at the suggestion of Mr. Barrett before being sent by refrigerated rail car to Detroit for sale. The growers netted 76¢ on a $2.00 case of berries, which was a handsome profit and showed that farmers could make money through collective action. 50 The agent spent 52 work days organizing the Raspberry Association, making sales connections with the cooperative directors, urging good picking techniques, distributing crates, and arranging project financing. This initial activist role was characteristic of agricultural economics activities and was a precedent for the later activist role played by county agents in the Agricultural Adjustment Administration's (AAA) com- modity and acreage reduction program. The informational activities associated with crop production loans was another agricultural economics project. Approximately 3000 seed 48 Bank failures around the loans were made in Michigan during 1932. State necessitated emergency credit in the spring. The Reconstruction Finance Corporation provided loan funds for the purchase Of feed, seed and fertilizer. The average loan was $107. Although county agents were actively involved in informing farmers about crop production loans, they did not generally participate in actual loan processing. The agent called meetings in every township and explained the loan program and commensurate obligation for repayment. Great care was taken in explain- ing the Obligatory terms of the loan and assisting borrowers in calculat- ing their ability to plant, sell, and repay their loans. For example, 15 farmers in Cheboygan County Obtained federal seed loans. True to the conservative nature of the times, the agent persuaded another 60 persons not to borrow, given poor prospects for immediate repayment. Only one- third of the loans were repaid on time.49 51 New agricultural economics projects included an analysis of farm tax statements and governmental expenditures and the formation of local agri- cultural credit unions. Tax studies were among the most interesting agricultural economics activities. Low farm prices and an increasingly heavy tax burden stimulated farm groups around the State to request the Extension Service to develop information on how tax money was being spent at the state and county levels. Although the project was statewide, many county agents prepared average farm tax expenditures for their counties. These studies were often used as ammunition for demonstrating the low cost of extension work to the individual farmer in 1931 and 1932, when many counties held referendums on the continuation of extension work. For example, farm taxes in Ingham County for a 77-acre farm, valued at $7700, were $226 86. Of these taxes, only $1.55 was used to support Michigan State College and 24¢ to support the Extension Service. Higher education as a whole required only 5.04% of the total tax bill.50 In 1932, the development of farm credit unions started on an experi- mental basis. Two credit unions, one in Imlay City and one in Niles, were started with the help of agricultural economics specialists. The St. Joe Valley Shipping Association in Niles fostered a credit union with seventeen members and assets of $335.70. Loans totaled $270,51 a pitifully small amount in relation to the total need, but consistent with national attitude toward collective private action. The 4-H program was one of the first projects to feel the negative effects Of the Depression and foreshadowed personnel cuts in other areas. County 4-H club agents in Lenawee and Clinton counties were dismissed for lack of funds, eliminating about 1000 4-H club members from the 52 Michigan program. A. G. Kettunen, State Leader for the 4aH program, felt that expectations would be exceeded if the Extension Service could maintain its 1930 program in 1931. The release of the Lenawee and Clinton County 4-H club agents was significant when one considers that only seventeen other counties had county club agents in 1930. Club agents were an important factor in increasing Michigan 4-H enrollments from 23,140 in 1929, to 25,884 in 1930.52 Further reductions in state funds during 1933 and 1934 eliminated more county club agents from the extension payroll and enrollments declined. 4-H programs also changed to meet Depression conditions. Summer programs began to emphasize home gardening, and winter programs focused on projects that would produce a cash savings for the family, i.e., food preservation, clothing construction, and modest furniture construc- tion, In the Upper Peninsula, 4-H garden club members increased from 504 in 1930 to 1130 in 1931, and canning club members went from 378 in 1930 to 444 in 1931.SS All projects were in line with the ”Live at Home Program.” As the Depression wore on, its devastating effects could be seen in budget priorities, staffing policies, and educational methods of the Michigan Extension Service. From 1929-31, the state legislature had appropriated $335,000 to the Extension Service annually, which dropped to $286,000 in 1931-32 and began a downward spiral in state funding that lasted through 1935-36.54 This resulted in an immediate reduction of the campus specialist staff, travel budgets, supplies, printing, and conferences. The same was true of local extension funds dispensed through county boards of supervisors. Funding in this category dropped substantially and posed critical problems for the Extension Service when funding was totally withdrawn, which in effect dropped a county agent's position from the personnel roster as matching local funds were required to receive state and federal aid. Individual project budgets suffered in turn. By 1931-32, expendi- tures were below l928-29 levels. 4-H and county agent supervisors seemed to take the brunt of budget reductions. 4-H had only 57% of its 1929 appropriations, and state county agent leaders retained only 39%.56 Non-technical areas such as publicity and publications also under- went reductions, as did technical projects which supported programs that had limited demand such as agricultural engineering (farm buildings and improvements) or commodities areas that had insufficient markets such as dairy and farm crops. County agricultural agent salaries dropped approximately 25%57 Although serious reductions were made in certain project budgets, the greatest reduction was made in the elimination of a substantial number of extension specialists. The number of specialists in the Extension Service rose to 64 in 1930-31 and dropped to 47 in 1932-33. Noticeable staff reductions came in areas that showed a decline in demand: agricultural engineering, dairy, farm crops and poultry.58 As the number of specialists in any one field was small--usually from one to five—-reductions of one or two staff members seriously affected work loads and available services to county agents and farm groups. Despite a general reductiOn in specialists and unavoidable budget reductions, a remarkably small number 54 of county agents were released during this time period. No more con- centrated effort was made in retaining extension personnel than in this area. Throughout the late 1920's the Extension Service aggressively pur- sued coverage of most Michigan counties by agricultural agents either through individual county assignment or districting. The Depression thwarted this goal. As a part of a general effort to canvass Michigan counties in support of extension work and improvement of relations with county boards of supervisors, a committee of eight specialists was created in August Of 1932 to assist the state county agent leaders, state 4-H club leader, and the director of extension to contact county boards of supervisors and urge them to appropriate funds for extension work. The results of this effort were not totally successful. 0f the 65 counties that had county agents in 1932, six counties--all in the Lower Peninsula--failed to appropriate funds to support the Extension . . 9 . SerV1ce for the following year.5 Seven other counties held referendums . . . . . 6O . on the continuance of extenSion funding; five carried. Some counties that failed to appropriate formed private extension associations to sup- . . 61 . . port extenSion work through voluntary funding. These organizations were mainly comprised of farmers and had the following features: 1. Any person or organization which made a fi- nancial contribution to the organization [was] deemed a member regardless of the size of the contribution. 2. The purpose of the organization [was]. to promote agricultural extension work in cooperation with the Michigan State College and the U.S.D.A. 55 3. One director [was] elected from the member- ship in each township and city. From this board, a President, Vice-President, Secre- tary and Treasurer [were] elected. 4. The business affairs of the association [were] delegated to an executive committee which [included] officers of the association. 5. Extension service [was] not confined to associ- ation membership but offered to the public as usual.62 Extension reactions to subscription associations were mixed. Mr. C. V. Ballard and Roswell G. Carr, State County Agent Leaders, commented: "We regret the necessity of subscriptions to support extension work. We know that the plan [subscription] is hard to keep going and we do not believe in the long run it is the best method of finance. It does, however, enliven and cement support. . . ."69 0n the other hand, counties that maintained public support often did so with great diffi- culty as the following examples demonstrate. In Cass County, the local Farm Bureau contributed $400 to entice the board of supervisors to pro- . . . . 6 Vlde matching funds for extenSion office expenses. 4 Leon Drake, County Agent in Otsego County, argued that food costs of welfare gardeners were reduced by 50% and ”that on food alone [the Extension Service was] saving the county. . . more than double the cost of the extension program."65 The Ingham County News earlier editorialized in favor of extension appropriations in a way newspapers did nearly a century before in sup- port of the common school. Eight hundred thousand dollars of the money Ingham County taxpayers paid was spent last year in support of the incompetent and the indigent and in protecting society against the incorrigibles. Five thousand dollars covers the entire program of the farm and home extension service. 56 Yet, the writer exclaimed, the debate goes on without recognizing the validity of this comparison. Throughout Michigan, arguments for and against extension raged around three propositions. First, there was a great debate, which went on nationally as well, over whether the current plight of agriculture was caused by overproduction and whether extension, through its pro- motion of scientific agriculture, was responsible for the commodity sur- pluses that were driving prices down. Second, extension was often seen as an expendable item which consumed tax money that could be used for tax relief. Third, proponents of extension saw the loss of services combined with the loss of matching state and federal dollars as ample reason to press for local tax support on behalf of the Extension Service. The argument charging the Extension Service with promulgating agri- cultural efficiency which resulted in surpluses was well articulated and rebuffed by B. H. Crocheron, Director of the California Extension Ser- vice: For the past five years we have had people rise up to remark that this business of getting more per pound of butterfat per cow, more eggs per hen, more peaches per acre, is only making things go from bad to worse; that efficiency has created the surplus and that the Agricultural Extension Service, by bringing increased efficiency, has brought a surplus." In response to this criticism, Mr, Crocheron offered this advice: Brains, ability, information-~those three never injured any industry. . . . The remedy for sur- plus is not ignorance. . . . Efficiency implies prOper planting plans, the adjustment of pro- duction to consumption, and the maintenance of an effective marketing system.”67 57 Michigan responses in kind formed the basis for rebutting the argument that the Extension Service was hurting the farmer rather than helping him. Extension tax studies formed the basis for refuting charges that extension work was expensive. The conspicuous nature of extension made the notion of cutting it out look like a large tax savings. In effect, it was not. When the extension program cost the farmer 24¢, it was hard to say that it was too expensive, especially in light of the matching tax funds and commensurate services that would be lost through the fed- eral and state government support. An editorial in the Tuscola County Advertizer viewed the tax situation this way, ”We all want lower taxes—- but not at the expense of the proper functioning of county and township government."68 Extension was viewed as a positive force in the county, both for the develOpment of rural youth and the scientific advancement of farming. George McIntyre, former Cass County Agent, claimed that 4-H and home economics programs did more to save extension work in Cass County than any other factor.69 Because of its work with children, 4-H was viewed as having intrinsic worth by the public and, therefore, served as a good rallying point for extension prOponents. Throughout the early Thirties, budget restrictions forced the Extension Service to abandon some of its traditional methods of reaching farmers. Campaign trains with wide scale, advance publicity were effec- tive, but expensive, means of promoting alfalfa planting and cattle breeding. Given the economics of the times, such publicity was no longer necessary. Farmers, anxious for up-tO-date information on in- creased productivity for the least expense, came to extension 58 meetings with little promoting. Specialist travel was used sparingly, which put a greater load on the county agent. Specialists would appear at one meeting per county rather than all training locations, leaving the burden of follow-through at other training sites to the county agent. As the size of the specialist staff and travel budgets diminished, more pressure was put on the agent to know his subject matter thoroughly.7O Agent in-service training also changed with the Depression. A one- week summer school was started in 1929 to up-grade the technical com- petence of Michigan county agents. It focused on soils, then the number one agricultural problem in Michigan. In 1930, the summer school and annual extension conference were cancelled. As times got worse and travel budgets were reduced, the summer school program was cut out to meet new economic conditions.71 In turn, the form of agent professional training became more expedient. With limited job mobility, few new agents were hired in the early Thirties. Businesses that normally lured extension personnel away, such as machinery, fertilizer and seed companies, were out of the market due to the Depression. As Mr. Ballard and Mr. Carr quipped: "No addi- tions--no subtractions—-no multiplication. Everybody hanging on to their [sic] jobs. Times are hard."72 In 1931, the average agent tenure was five years, which along with budget considerations, affected agent firservicetraining. The state county agent leaders cited these changes in their 1931 report: 59 We have devoted more time to checking up on existing agents to see that they are continu- ing to study in order that they may be better qualified to meet all the requirements. In— creased use of true/false tests. The few new men added in this year needed little training, as they were recent agricultural graduates and members of the extension course taught by Director Baldwin.73 Specialist-led training sessions were held at regular district meetings throughout the year with self-administered true/false tests used as a means of alerting agents to technical deficiencies. Annotated answer sheets were handed out for reference purposes with textual citations for further study. Although not an optimum means of in-service train- ing, the true/false examination served as an inexpensive way of further- ing the technical education of2miexperiencadextension staff. By the end of 1932, the Michigan Extension Service had begun to apply all its energies and manpower to the agricultural emergency at hand. Crop production loan meetings, tax studies, the Live at Home Project. welfare gardens, inexpensive entertainment, the Clothing Thrift Series, proper land utilization, home-grown feeds, and the Farm Accounting Program were all considered emergency activities to meet de- pression conditions. In line with the national remedy, the Extension Service emphasized what the individual could do for himself in distressing economic condi- tions and, like most other publicly funded organizations, braced itself to face the impending difficulties of hard times. Despite a reduced staff, the Michigan Cooperative Extension Service maintained its pro- grams with maximum outreach, as a high priority on supporting agents in 60 the field demonstrated. However, it could not begin to meet the grow- ing needs of rural America for marketing, credit, and growing welfare assistance. This was the job of government and the task set forth for the Roosevelt Administration. Mr. Ballard and Mr. Carr prophetically wondered at the end of their 1932 annual report: "Just what assistance will be desired from the Federal Extension service [sic] during 1933 cannot be determined at this time."74 Few realized the extent of fed- eral involvement that was on the horizon for “on the eve of FDR's inau- guration there was at least as much popular demand for economy as for . 7 mammoth government spending." 5 61 1U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Historical Statistics of the United States: Colonial Times to 1970, Part 1:489. 21bid. °Ibid. 4 . . . "Annual Report Agricultural Economics 1932,” Cooperative Exten- sion Service Collection 16.34, Michigan State University Archives His- torical Collections, East Lansing, Michigan, p. l. (Typewritten.) SIbid. 6”Summary of Annual Farm Business Analysis Reports for 1932," Co- operative Extension Service Collection l6.34, Michigan State University Archives and Historical Collections, East Lansing, Michigan, p. 4. (Typewritten.) During the period 1929-38, the Farm Business Analysis Reports were based on an annual average of 427-1252 reporting farms in all agricul- tural regions of Michigan. Although these samples were not random or large, they did cover the entire State and were considered sufficiently representative by the Extension Service to be an accurate guide to farm- ing conditions in Michigan. 71bid. 8Clark Brody, In the Service of the Farmer, My Life in the Michigan Farm Bureau (East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University Press, 1959), p. 81. 9H. J. Lurkins, ”Annual Report of the County Agricultural Agent 1931, Berrien County, Michigan,“ Cooperative Extension Service Collec- tion 16.34, Michigan State University Archives and Historical Collec- tions, East Lansing, Michigan, ”Summary” section. (Typewritten.) 10J. G. Wells, ”Annual Report of Assistant County Agent Leader for the Upper Peninsula 1929,” COOperative Extension Service Collection 16.34, Michigan State University Archives and Historical Collections, East Lansing, Michigan, p. 117. (Typewritten.) 11H. J. Lurkins, "Annual Report of the County Agricultural Agent 1932 Berrien County, Michigan," Cooperative Extension Service Collection 16.34, Michigan State University Archives and Historical Collections, East Lansing, Michigan, "Summary” section. (Typewritten.) 12R. J. Baldwin, Director, ”Report of the Division of Extension Work,” Sixty—Eighth Annual Report of the Secretary of the State Board of Agriculture of the State of Michigan and Forty-Second Annual Report of the Experiment Station July 1, 1928 - June 30. 1929, Michigan State College, East Lansing, Michigan, p. 219. 62 13U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Sixteenth Census of the United States, 1940: Population, 2:759. l 4U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Fifteenth Census of the United States, 1930: Population, 2:8-12. 15The number of farms in Michigan was reduced from 196,447 in 1920 to 169,372 in 1930; correspondingly, land in farms dropped from 19,032,961 acres to 17,118,951. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Sixth Census of Agriculture, The United States 1940, "Agriculture Michi- gan," First Series: 7. 16R. J. Baldwin, Director, "Report of the Division of Extension Work,” Seventieth Annual Report of the Secretary of the State Board of Agriculture of the State of Michigan and Forty-fourth Annual Report of the Experiment Station July 1. 1930 - June 30, 1931, Michigan State Col- lege, East Lansing, Michigan, p. 299. 17Michigan State College COOperative Extension Service, ”Adjust- ments to Meet Present and Prospective Economic Conditions,” reprinted from Extension Bulletin No. 122, February, 1932. Cooperative Extension Service Collection 16.34, Michigan State University Archives and Histori- cal Collections, East Lansing, Michigan. 18Interview with Ross Cartwright, Michigan farmer and former AAA Committeeman, in his farm home, Springport, Michigan, September, 1977. ng. G. Wells, ”Annual Report of Assistant County Agent Leader for the Upper Peninsula December 1, 1930 - November 1, 1931,” Cooperative Extension Service Collection 16.34, Michigan State University Archives and Historical Collections, East Lansing, Michigan, p. l. (Typewritten.) 0Michigan State College Cooperative Extension Service, ”Adjust- ments,” Extension Bulletin No. 122. 2libid. 22J. G. Wells to Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company, June 10, 1932, Cooperative Extension Service Collection 16.34, Michigan State University Archives and Historical Collections, East Lansing, Michigan. 23R. J. Baldwin to County Agricultural Agents, August 27, 1932, Cooperative Extension Service Collection 16.34, Michigan State Univer- sity Archives and Historical Collections, East Lansing, Michigan. (Mimeograph.) 4See Appendix, Statistical Summaries of Annual Reporusof County Extension Workers 1929—38. 63 25H. J. Lurkins, ”Annual Report of the County Agricultural Agent, 1931, Berrien County, Michigan." "Outlook and Recommendations" section. 26 . ’ Lynn Post, ”Annual Report of the County Agricultural Agent, 1931, Cass County, Michigan,” Cooperative Extension Service Collection 16.34, Michigan State University Archives and Historical Collections, East Lansing, Michigan, no pagination. (Typewritten.) 2/Harold H. Barnum, ”Annual Report of the County Agricultural Agent, 1931, Ingham County, Michigan," Cooperative Extension Service Collection 16.34, Michigan State University Archives and Historical Collections, East Lansing, Michigan, no pagination. (Typewritten.) 28See Appendix, Statistical Summaries of Annual Reports of County Extension Workers 1929-38. The number Of farm visits rose steadily through 1932 as did office visits, telephone calls, bulletins distri- buted and attendance at extension meetings. 29Irene Taylor, "Annual Report Clothing and Textiles 1929-30," Cooperative Extension Service Collection 16.34, Michigan State Univer- sity Archives and Historical Collections, East Lansing, Michigan, p. 1. (Typewritten.) SOIbid. 31R. J. Baldwin, Director, "Report of the Division of Extension Work," Seventnyecond Annual Report of the Secretary of the State Board of Agriculture of the State of Michigan and Forty-Sixth Annual Report of the Experiment Station July 1, 1932 - June 30, 1933, Michigan State College, East Lansing, Michigan, p. 282. 32Myrtle Van Horne, "Annual Report of the Home Demonstration Agent November 1, 1931 - July 1, 1932, Ingham County, Michigan,” Cooperative Extension Service Collection 16.34, Michigan State University Archives and Historical Collections, East Lansing, Michigan, p. 18. (Typewritten.) 33R. J. Baldwin, Director, "Report of the Division of Extension Work," Seventy-First Annual Report of the Secretary of the State Board of Agriculture of the State of Michigan and Forty-Fifth Annual Report of the Experiment Station Ju1y_l, 1931 - June 30, 1932, Michigan State College, East Lansing, Michigan, p. 273. 34R. J. Baldwin, "Report of the Division of Extension Work,” Report of the Secretary 1932-33, p. 282. 35Roberta Hershey, ”Annual Report, Nutrition, Michigan; September 1, 1932 - August 31, 1933," Cooperative Extension Service Collection 16.34, Michigan State University Archives and Historical Collections, East Lansing, Michigan, p. 7. (Typewritten.) 64 H aéAgnes Sorenson Richardson, "Annual Report, Home Demonstration Agent, Kent County, Michigan, September 1, 1931 - August 31, 1932," Cooperative Extension Service Collection 16.34, Michigan State Univer- sity Archives and Historical Collections, East Lansing, Michigan, pp. 18-19. (Typewritten.) 37R. J. Baldwin, Director, "Report of the Division of Extension Work," Report of the Secretary 1932-33, p. 276. J8C. V. Ballard and Roswell G. Carr, ”Report of State Supervisors of County, Agricultural Agents, December 1931 - November 1932," Coopera- tive Extension Service Collection 16.34, Michigan State University Ar- chives and Historical Collections, East Lansing, Michigan, p. 20. (Typewritten.) 39R. J. Baldwin, Director, "Report of the Division of Extension Work," Report of the Secretary 1932-33, p. 276. 0Evelyn Turner, ”Narrative Report in Home Management, Michigan, September 1, 1931 - August 31, 1932," Cooperative Extension Service Collection 16.34. Michigan State University Archives and Historical Collections, East Lansing, Michigan, pp. 5-10. (Typewritten.) 41Edna V. Smith, "Annual Report, Michigan State Home Demonstration Leader, September 1, 1931 - August 31, 1932," COOperative Extension Collection 16.34, Michigan State University Archives and Historical Collections, East Lansing, Michigan, p. 6. (Typewritten.) 42”Annual Report, Home Furnishing Project, Michigan, 1931-32," COOperative Extension Service Collection 16.34, Michigan State Univer- sity Archives and Historical Collections, East Lansing, Michigan, p. 12. (Typewritten.) 43R. J. Baldwin, Director, ”Report of the Division of Extension Work,” Rpport of the Secretary 1932-33, p. 284. 44"Economic Information, Annual Report 1930, Michigan,” Cooperative Extension Service Collection 16.34, Michigan State University Archives and Historical Collections, East Lansing, Michigan, p. l. (Typewritten.) 451bid. p. 2. 46"Annual Report of Extension Project in Agricultural Economics for Fiscal Year December 1, 1931 to November 30, 1932, Michigan State Col— lege, East Lansing, Michigan," Cooperative Extension Service Collection 16.34, Michigan State University Archives and Historical Collections, East Lansing, Michigan, pp. 1-2. (Typewritten.) 65 7 . . 4 Paul Barrett, "Narrative Summary, County Agricultural Agent, Cheboygan County, December 1, 1931 - December 1, 1932," Cooperative Extension Service Collection 16.34, Michigan State University Archives and Historical Collections, East Lansing, Michigan, pp. 7-9. (Type- written.) 48"Annual Report, Agricultural Economics, December 1, 1931 to November 30, 1932,” p. 16. 49Paul Barrett, "Narrative Summary, County Agricultural Agent, Cheboygan County, December 1, 1930 - December 1, 1931," COOperative Extension Service Collection 16.34, Michigan State University Archives and Historical Collections, East Lansing, Michigan, p. 15. (Typewritten.) 50"Analysis of Two Individual Farm Tax Receipts for 1931," Coopera- tive Extension Service Collection 16.34, Michigan State University Ar- chives and Historical Collections, East Lansing, Michigan, pp. 1-3. (Typewritten.) 51”Annual Report of Extension Project in Agricultural Economics, December 1, 1931 to November 30, 1932," p. 16. 52A. G. Kettunen, "Narrative Report, Annual Report of Boys' and Girls' 4-H Club Work in Agriculture and Home Economics, Michigan, 1930,” Cooperative Extension Service Collection 16.34, Michigan State Univer- sity Archives and Historical Collections, East Lansing, Michigan, pp. 95-97. (Typewritten.) 53J. G. Wells, ”Annual Report of Assistant County Agent Leaders for the Upper Peninsula 1930-31,” p. 2. 54See Appendix, Summary of Funding Sources and Levels for the Co- operative Extension Service in Michigan 1929-39. 55R. J. Baldwin, Director, “Report of the Division of Extension Work,” Report of the Secretary of the State Board of Agriculture 1931-1932, p. 269. 56See Appendix, Project Budgets for the Cooperative Extension Service in Michigan 1929-35. 57Interview with George McIntyre, former Cass County Agent and Director, Cooperative Extension Service. Interview held in the office of Mr. Norris C. Bryson, East Lansing, Michigan, September, 1977. 58See Appendix, Personnel Trends of the Cooperative Extension Service in Michigan, 1929-39. Also see Appendix, Personnel Trends of Campus-Based Specialists Employed by the Cooperative Extension Service in Michigan, 1929-39. 59Bay, Clinton, Mason, Monroe, Oceana, and Ottawa counties. 66 60 . . Votes were taken in Arenac, Branch, Gladw1n, Lapeer, Monroe, Oceana and Otsego counties. Monroe and Oceana failed. 61Bay, Clinton, Gratiot, Mason, Monroe, Oceana. Ottawa and Sanilac counties. Gratiot and Sanilac formed voluntary associations in 1931. ’) 6"C. V. Ballard and Roswell G. Carr, "Report of State Supervisors of County Agricultural Agents, December 1931 — November 1932,” p. 7. 6‘DC. V. Ballard and Roswell G. Carr, "Report of State Supervisors of County Agricultural Agents, December 1930 - November 1931," Coopera- tive Extension Service Collection 16.34, Michigan State University Ar- chives and Historical Collections, East Lansing, Michigan, p. 10. (Typewritten.) 64Interview with George McIntyre. ébC. V. Ballard and Roswell Carr, ”Report of State Supervisors of County Agricultural Agents, December 1931 - November 1932,” p. 19. 66Clipping found in Harold H. Barnum, "Annual Report of the County Agricultural Agent, 1930, Ingham County, Michigan,” Cooperative Exten- sion Service Collection 16.34, Michigan State University Archives and Historical Collections, East Lansing, Michigan. (Typewritten.) 67B. H. Crocheron, ”Did Efficiency Abate the Surplus," Extension Service Review, Vol. 2, No. 7, Circa 1931, COOperative Extension Service Collection 16.34, Michigan State University Archives and Historical Collections, East Lansing, Michigan, p. 106. 68"About This Tax Business,” Tuscola County Advertizer, circa 1932, Cooperative Extension Service Collection 16.34, Michigan State Univer- sity Archives and Historical Collections, East Lansing, Michigan. 9Interview with George McIntyre. 70C. V. Ballard and Roswell G. Carr, "Report of State Supervisors of County Agricultural Agents, December 1930 - November 1931,” p. 6. 7llbid., p. 7. 72C. V. Ballard and R. G. Carr, "A Review of Agricultural Extension Work and News Notes, Lower Michigan, May 1930," Cooperative Extension Service Collection 16.34, Michigan State University Archives and Histori- cal Collections, East Lansing, Michigan, p. 1. 73C. V. Ballard and Roswell G. Carr, "Report of State supervisors of County Agricultural Agents. December 1930 - November 1931," p. 22. [4C. V. Ballard and Roswell G. Carr, "Report of State Supervisors of County Agricultural Agents, December 1931 - November 1932," p. 26. 73William E. Leuchtenburg, Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal, 1932-1940 (New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1963; Harper Torch Books, 1963), p. 36. THE CRITICAL YEARS, 1933-35 The years 1933-35 provided an unparalleled transition in American politics, which brought the federal government closer to the economic needs of its citizenry than any previous time in American history. The Depression produced a mood of hopelessness and apprehension. Many people feared that the economy had permanently stagnated. "By 1933, government leaders, the new president and congressmen in both parties accepted the theory that the Depression resulted from long-term agricul- tural distress and consumption by farm families."1 This point of view shaped New Deal agricultural policies and sent a flood of new federal programs into the American countryside to save one of the last vestiges of traditional American virtue, the family—owned farm. The most im- portant programs were The Agricultural Adjustment Administration (AAA), the Farm Credit Administration (FCA) and the Rural Rehabilitation project of the Federal Emergency Relief Administration (FERA). Through these agencies, the Roosevelt Administration attempted to deliver ma- terial advantages to farmers so that they could live the lives that they had chosen. As nationwide efforts toward recovery were mobilized, farm prices began to rise. The parity ratio moved from 64 in 1933 to 88 by 1935. Ninety-two was the parity ratio in 1929,2 supposedly the last normal year. The farm-to-retail price spread also improved as the farmer's 68 69 share increased from 32% in 1933 to 38% in 1935.3 The term "recovery" in 1933 did not imply economic growth as it does today; it meant a re- turn to economic activity similar to 1929. In 1933, farm prices in Michigan rose slightly. Low yields, be- cause of drought and higher prices, combined to improve the value of Michigan's four leading field crOps: wheat, beans, potatoes, and sugar beets. Prices for these commodities were 50% higher than in 1932; how- ever, they only accounted for 17% of the cash income for Michigan farms. As a result, the average net cash income per farm was only slightly higher for 1933 than for 1932.4 Farm management studies showed a $108 increase in the average net cash income.5 This gain was also attributable to several government related ac— tions. During the first year of the Roosevelt Administration, the Agri- cultural Adjustment program in wheat reduction paid 3/4 million dollars to Michigan farmers. In addition, cash expenditures for taxes on farm real estate during 1933 were less than 1932 because of prOperty tax relief and a new reliance on the sales tax to generate state treasury revenue. Interest charges on farm indebtedness also decreased in 1933 due to the New Deal farm credit programs, which reduced lending rates and refinanced long-term mortgage obligations. By 1935, the financial conditions of Michigan farmers had improved considerably. The average cash income was $1,158, a significant in- crease over the low of $717 in 1932. The net farm income was also up to $1,390 from $54 in 1932 after adjustments for inventory, land value, equipment depreciation, cost of room, board and wages for hired help, 70 and pay for family labor other than the owner. When a wage for the owner was taken into consideration, Michigan farms showed a positive financial return on investment of 7.66%. Only 13% of Michigan farmers were "in the red”7 compared to 87.12% in 1932. Triple A, federal farm credit programs and industrial recovery helped to make these fortuitous adjustments possible. Throughout the initial phases of recovery, high unemployment posed serious difficulties for Michigan agriculture. In 1933, nearly 46% of Michigan's industrial workforce was unemployed. "The average percentage of non-agricultural unemployment from 1930 through 1933 was over 34%, while the average for the United States as a whole was 26 percent."8 Michigan was as hard hit as any state in the Union. At the heart of the problem was industrial unemployment in the fourteen cities in the southern part of the state: Detroit. Dearborn, Hamtramack, Highland Park, Battle Creek, Bay City, Flint, Grand Rapids, Jackson, Kalamazoo, Lansing, Muskegon, Pontiac and Saginaw. In 1930, these cities con- tained 52% of Michigan's total population, 56% of the state's employed pOpulation. and nearly 65% of the non—agricultural workers. Michigan's industrial collapse sent people back to the land, where they often found marginal conditions. Around Detroit, agricultural land that had been developed for subdivisions was again being sold as small farms. These farms were worked by men who had factory jobs, and when industrial unemployment rose, found themselves trying to survive as part-time farmers. As a result, urban farming jumped 48.6% throughout the Thirties.10 Henry Ford's dream of a wedding of agricplture and in— dustry through men employed in both vocations turned out to be just that, a dream. 71 By 1935, Michigan's farm population rose to 17.5% of the total state population, an increase of 1.2% in five years. The number of farms in Michigan also increased from 179,000 in 1930 to 197,000 in 1935: however, the total acreage in farms did not change significantly. The average farm size decreased from 101 acres in 1930 to 94 acres in 1935.11 During the mid-Thirties more people were farming but in marginal situations. Cut—over counties in northern Michigan experienced a tre- mendous resurgence of population, as the families that left unproductive land in the Twenties returned home. Not all families farmed, but the land was called upon to support a population that it could not sustain. More than twenty-two percent of the population of the cut-over counties in northern Michigan experienced relief, and in the Upper Peninsula al- 12 most 32% of the population was on relief. Welfare rolls and poor soil conditions posed a problem that the Rural Rehabilitation program at- tempted to solve with the counsel of the Extension Service. The July 2, 1934. trip report of the state rural rehabilitation director illustrated some of the economic and social problems of the northern Michigan counties along Lake Huron: 1. Population increasing. (a) Farmer residents returning from in- dustrial centers with families. (b) Squatters drifting in. (c) Birthrate high-—death rate normal. 2. Local industry hard hit. (a) D. 8 M. Railroad and shops almost at standstill. (b) Gypsom plant--25% of normal. (c) Outside employment for part—time farmers in woods and on roads gone. 72 3. Farming needs reorganization, (a) Many on impossible, light. worn out land, (b) Those on good land have too little alfalfa-~some need lime. (c) Too much livestock—-some poor quality. (d) Kinds of crops do not fit available markets--shou1d grow more berries and vegetables for tourists. 4. Reforestation. (a) Huron National Forest bought 33,000 acres in 1933. Has money to buy more --looking 350,000 acres more now [sic]. (b) Just took 125 more local men. (c) Has money for buying land but in- sufficient to employ all those bought out.13 Among the remedies for restoring those counties to a stable footing were efforts to increase the National and State Forest holdings and decrease the number of poor farms, improve management of good farm lands and develop small industries-—canning of surplus vegetables, boatmaking and rough woodworking of chairs, seats, tables, decoys directed at the tourist trade. In addition, zoning and appropriate land use was sug- gested as a means of long-range economic adjustment. Ultimately, this point of view would gain increased credibility in Michigan but not until the late Thirties. The industrial rural unemployment had a negative effect on Michi- gan agricultural markets. For years, the Extension Service and other agricultural organizations had viewed Detroit and the other industrial cities as ever-increasing markets for Michigan farm produce. In the early Thirties, vast unemployment undermined local markets and diminished the Opportunity for farmers to profit from the sale of agricultural com- modities. The fluid milk situation in Detroit was a case in point. By 1932-33, 30% of the fluid milk available in Detroit was not con- sumed.14 As dairy products were Michigan's best cash crop, this situ- ation was disastrous for Wolverine farmers. Michigan's agriculture suffered more from the industrial decline and loss of consumer purchas- ing power than from an overabundance of crops produced in the State. In a reaction to the loss of normal markets, rural communities and counties began to band together to support their own local econo— mies. The "Buy Chippewa Program" was an attempt to support local mer- chants and farmers by encouraging as many financial transactions as possible within Chippewa County.15 In Barry County, home economics club women boycotted cane sugar and demanded that local merchants furn- ish them with Michigan-raised sugar. These demands were effective as over 500 women supported the boycott.16 On a state level, the Exten- sion Service did all it could to encourage Michigan farmers to grow quality products, grade and pack them properly, and sell them within the State, thereby underpricing out-of—state growers who had to pay higher shipping costs. The Extension Service in Michigan focused its efforts on emergency work during 1933 and 1934. As with earlier Depression remedies, prece- dence was given to regular extension activities which increased or con- served cash, provided credit and helped to feed farm and rural families. For example, the agricultural engineering specialist conducted Machin- ery Repair Schools around the State. Mowing machines were taken apart, proper repair done and the machines reassembled through this program. Farmers learned how to repair machinery at very little cost.l7 Alfalfa 74 campaigns abounded throughout the state and accounted for dramatic cuts in the importation of high protein mill feed for livestock feed. In Oceana County, balancing livestock to field crop production (alfalfa balanced with corn, oats, and barley) eliminated the purchase of at least $100,000 worth of hay in one year.18 Such live-at-home activities constituted a major step toward conserving farm cash and assisting farmers in their fight against the Depression. Throughout the State, county agents played an integral part in county welfare activities. Prior to the Federal Emergency Relief Administration programs, welfare was not a national or even a statewide concern. Individual counties dispensed welfare through poor commissions, which were appointed by the county board of supervisors. Welfare funds were generated by property taxes, but as property tax revenues declined, county welfare budgets were strained to their limits. Frequently, counties which had high welfare rolls resorted to buying vegetable seeds to plant and produce food, as county funds were insufficient to buy enough food to meet welfare need. The county often provided the land, and welfare recipients provided the labor. As a rule, technical assistance was provided by the county agent. In Chippewa County, 700 families received free seed for home or community gardens. The seed was packed by relief labor in the county extension office, and the agent distributed seed and garden bulletins to indigent families.19 Such assistance was well received. The board of supervisors appreciated the savings to the county, and the recipients received food by the only means possible. In some counties, garden labor was required of all welfare recipients. 75 As the initial welfare activities of the FERA took hold, county agents served as knowledgeable guides to the new FERA administrators in their counties. Barrett Lyons, FERA administrator for Cheboygan County, reported that he traveled with the county agent to learn his territory and its residents while Mrs. Lyons helped with the home economics extension program. Cheboygan County was particularly hard hit by the Depression with 60% unemployment.20 Michigan Extension leadership considered the following projects emergency in character during 1932 and the early months of 1933: . crop production loans tax studies live-at-home programs welfare gardens . homemade and inexpensive entertainment . proper land utilization, including forestry . homegrown feeds (alfalfa, sweet clover) . conservation of soil fertility farm accounts21 OWNOUIJE-UJNH By mid-1933, emergency activities included the initial phases of the Triple A program and the lending resources of the Farm Credit Ad- ministration. 1933 was a transitional year, which saw extension prior- ities shift from survival live—at-home programs to recovery-oriented federal farm programs. The Extension Service mobilized its agents and staff to bring the new farm programs to the attention of Michigan farmers. At the begin- ning of 1933, the county agricultural agent was the only federally- funded employee on the county level.22 This placed an important but difficult burden on the available manpower of the Extension Service and set a high priority for emergency programs over regular extension work. 76 The new federal farm programs which consumed the greatest amount of extension effort and time were the Agricultural Adjustment Administra- tion (AAA) and the Farm Credit Administration (FCA) programs. County agents also assisted the Federal Emergency Relief Administration (FERA). Over a three-year period, these programs stabilized American agricultur- al markets and provided new financial credit to replace the collapse of private, commercial sources. The Agricultural Adjustment Act was designed to raise the level of farm prices by creating artificial scarcity through voluntary agree- ments between farmers and the federal government to reduce acreage, store crops, and enter into marketing agreements.23 The Triple A was a nationalistic policy, based on the assumption that the solution to American agrarian distress was not in exporting farm commodities over- seas but in the regulation of production and distribution at home. Scarcity was intentional and the major method of regulating supply and demand. Benefit payments, which enticed cash-hungry farmers to parti- cipate, were generated by a government-levied processing tax at the mill. Acreage reduction and benefit payments were intended to bring agricultural prices to 100% parity. The responsibility for administering the Triple A program was placed with the secretary of the Department of Agriculture. In turn, the educational and administrative efforts of the program were dele— gated to the Extension Service and the land-grant colleges.24 In Michigan, the director of the Cooperative Extension Service sat on the State Agricultural Adjustment Committee, as an ex officio member. 77 County Triple A committees were composed of farm representatives elected from each township. A chairman was elected from this group, and the county agricultural agent served as the executive secretary to the com- mittee. This responsibility dramatically changed the agent's role from teacher of scientific agriculture to administrator of the most comprehensive farm program ever devised by the federal government. Enthusiasm for the Triple A program varied widely around the country, and the Extension Service's response varied accordingly. In- asmuch as there was no memorandum of agreement between the Extension Service and the Triple A, county agents were only officially obliged to disseminate information about the program. Direct involvement was in proportion to the perceived value of the program in various areas of the country. In the Northeast, enthusiasm was minimal as relatively few hogs were raised there, and corn, wheat, and tobacco acreage was small. Enthusiasm was highest in the South, where cotton and tobacco were staple crops.25 To a lesser extent, the Triple A was accepted in the Midwest. In Michigan, farm reaction was guarded toward Triple A, but ready to accept new alternatives to dismal commodity prices. An editorial in the Michigan Farmer seemed to capture the farm mood of spring 1933. Extreme times require unusual adjustments, hence Congress passed the Farm Act. This act violates a few old principles thought to have been permanently woven into our social and economic fabric [free market place]. . . .We should do our part in cooperating to get the ma- chinery ready for action and give it every opportunity to do its job. It may 'turn the trick.26 78 Essentially, the Triple A was viewed as a short-term device to stimulate prices and ”to restore self-respect to men by making it pos- sible to work.”27 Triple A was a complicated program to administer and severely cut into the time that agents could spend on regular, educational extension work. Contact with every farmer in the county was required; township meetings were held to inform interested persons of the terms of the Triple A program; mailings and phone calls increased; and paperwork sky- rocketed. To manage the Triple A program, the State was divided into districts. In 1933, seven specialists were diverted to Triple A work as district supervisors and spent 100% of their time working with county agents in administering the program.28 By 1934, approximately 26% of most agents' time was spent on Triple A work.29 This was es- pecially true in the southern Michigan counties which produced Triple A commodities in the greatest abundance. Triple A permitted acreage planting and reduction based on a for- mula taking into account the yields of the last five years of a farmer's production.30 Formal application had to be made; fields had to be measured and checked for compliance (Smith-Hughes agriculture teachers often did this as summer work); applications had to be approved by county AAA committees and benefit checks distributed. On top of this, endless hours were spent in individual consultation with farmers re— garding the advisability of participating in the program. As the acreage and commodity reduction program progressed, this work included not only wheat, which was the case in 1933, but also corn, hogs, and sugar beets. 79 The Extension Service had two major problems in selling the Triple A program to farmers. The first was to convince growers that acreage reduction would restore farm prices, and the second was to overcome the farmers' reluctance to undertake the application procedures necessary to obtain benefit payments. The Federal Extension Service provided ready-made ammunition to convince farmers to join the Triple A. Sample farm economic summaries were sent to farmers describing the world wheat commodity market and offering acreage adjustment as a national solution beneficial to wheat farmers. The following assumptions were made: 1. 800 million bushels of carryover wheat are being produced nationally. 2. The ”old" export market is gone. Wheat growers will be assured a parity price on 54% of the average crOp pro- duced during the base period of 1928- 32. 4. Growers who stay out of the wheat ad- justment program will sell their wheat on the Open market, 5. The more wheat produced the lower the price is likely to be.31 (I) This was a classic case of the carrot and the stick, holding out parity benefits to contract signers and further economic disruption to non- signers. In June of 1933, the Federal Extension Service began to turn out a constant stream of directives, sample letters to farmers, applica- tions, and county handbooks to operate the Triple A program, which were standard throughout the country. Unlike most extension activities, there was very little room for program adaptation to local conditions, although methods and techniques varied in reaching farmers. Creativity was not in presenting a solution to an agricultural problem, but in 8O efficiently organizing the management of the application process so as not to discourage compliance with the Triple A program. In Michigan, standard Washington-prepared materials were used; however, considerable attention to educational process was given by Mr. J. A. Hannah, District AAA Wheat Supervisor and Poultry Special- ist.32 A letter, prepared by Mr. Hannah, was distributed by the direc- tor of Extension Service to all agents in lower Michigan and described his formula for approaching farmers about the Triple A wheat program without discouraging them. Mr. Hannah's suggestions included mailing applications, contract specimens, and other compliance information directly to the farmer along with an invitation to a Triple A educa- tional meeting. Mailed information was stapled together so as not to "look as formidable” as loose sheets. At the meeting, agents were in- structed to introduce this information by saying “these forms look like a lot of red tape but actually are very simple and require no more in- formation than is absolutely necessary for the guidance of the county committee and the federal government in paying the benefits. . . ." Franked envelopes were passed out at meetings to encourage the return of documents. Mr. Hannah concluded his letter by asserting: A simple explanation of these various forms makes them look much simpler than they really are and breaks down the feeling on the part of the farmers that filling them out is going to be a big and difficult job. Handing all of this material to the farmers at the start with the subsequent explanation of its sim— plicity is better psychologically than pass- ing out one form and then every few days send- ing him [sic] some more.33 81 From 1933—35, 34% of Michigan's wheat acreage was under contract by the Triple A in 61 counties.34 Only 78,050 of the State's 196,000 farms grew wheat.35 Seventy-two counties participated in the corn—hog program with approximately 24,500 contract signers.36 The sugar beet program assisted farmers mainly in the Thumb area. In all, Michigan received $8,879,984.69 in agricultural adjustment payments from 1933-35 and was twenty-ninth in Triple A benefits nationally. These benefits totaled $2,218,679.32 in wheat; $4,084,125.99 in corn—hog and $2,577,179.38 in sugar beets.37 Triple A benefits went primarily to large landowners in the good agricultural counties of southern Michi- gan.38 The Upper Peninsula was not greatly affected by the Agricultur- a1 Adjustment programs as wheat, corn and hogs were not widely raised there, which permitted the regular extension program to continue on a less interrupted basis than in lower Michigan.39 Michigan's low benefit ranking in relation to other states had more to do with its diverse agriculture than a lack of willingness on the part of Wolverine farmers to participate in the program. Dairy, vegetables, fruit and beef were not covered by Triple A provi- sions and were significant cash crOps in Michigan. Also, many general farms simply did not produce enough wheat, corn or hogs to make parti- cipation worthwhile. In fact, Michigan farmers imported corn as a large portion of state acreage went into silage, and in many counties, local wheat production was used for feed and straw.40 82 Other federal emergency programs that affected farmers were the Farm Credit Administration and the Federal Emergency Relief Administra- tion. Of these two, the Farm Credit Administration program was the more important to Michigan farmers. In the first sixteen months of Operation, the FCA made $37,000,000 worth of loans to Michigan farmers and farm organizations for mortgages, seed, crOp production and market activi- ties.41 Farm mortgages were refinanced through the Federal Land Bank and Land Commissioner loans, which accounted for most of the $37,000,000 loans to Michigan agriculture.42 Long—term debt refinancing was the single most important factor in farm recovery in the State.43 Through- out 1933-35, the agricultural economics specialists assigned to the Extension Service assisted county agents in bringing new farm credit programs to the attention of Michigan agriculture. 1934 was a particularly active year for agricultural economics specialists. The staff spent 292 days on production credit and COOpera- tive loans,44 which represented approximately 21% of the specialists' annual man-days. Seventeen Production Credit Associations were organ- ized in Sandusky, Bay City, Lapeer, Marshall, Charlotte, Pontiac, Cadillac, Goldwater, West Branch, St. Johns, Ann Arbor, Stanton, Gay- lord, Muskegon and Traverse City.45 Specialist activities included helping county agents organize educational meetings about farm credit, organizing Production Credit Associations, collecting statewide credit data and determining policies for crop loans. Agricultural economics specialists also spent approximately 6% of their annual manAdays work- ing on Triple A educational programs.46 In addition, they addressed 83 the problems of cooperative capital structure and National Recovery Administration (NRA) codes affecting the marketing of farm products and supplies, as well as the dumping of surplus, ungraded farm produce on local markets. Solutions were to refinance patronage cooperatives effectively through the FCA, insure compliance to federal standards for the marketing of farm commodities and divert surplus commodities from local markets to avoid price declines. For instance, surplus milk was diverted to industrial users instead of being dumped on a de- pressed consumer market in Detroit.47 Efforts to include dairy,48 beans and cherries49 in Triple A reduc- tion programs failed, although considerable time was spent by agricul- tural economics specialists on this task. Dairy producers could not agree on appropriate codes, and beans and cherries were too regional to be considered for a national program, which further explains why Michigan farmers were 29th nationally in Triple A benefits. By 1935, the economy had improved, which brought renewed atten— tion to the regular Agricultural Outlook program. This program provided a select audience of sophisticated farmers with up—to-date market in- formation. Attention to FCA and Triple A programs continued but de- manded less staff time. Another farm credit activity that the Extension Service supported was The Rural Rehabilitation Program of the Federal Emergency Relief Administration. The Rural Rehabilitation Program was under the direc- tion of the Rural Resettlement Administration in each state, and a 84 memorandum of agreement was signed between the Administration and the Extension Service. The program had two functions: First, appraising the resources of families proposed for rehabilitation or resettlement, developing rehabilitation plans for such families and supervising the execution of such plans. Second, adjusting debts; making loans; pur- chasing and leasing land; constructing and repairing buildings; supplying human sub- sistence, feed, seed, fertilizer, tools, machinery, equipment, farm animals and other rehabilitation goods, as well as ne- gotiating all legal and business transac- tions incident thereto. The first function was considered the responsibility of the Extension Service since it was publicly established to disseminate technical information and extend educational services in agriculture and home economics. The administration of funds was the responsibility of the Rural Resettlement Administration. Cooperation between the two agencies was close and interlocking. The director of the Michigan Extension Service sat on the Rural Reset- tlement Corporation Board, and the state director of Rural Rehabilita— tion was recommended by the director. All employees of the Rural Re— habilitation Program were responsible to the director of extension for the technical phases of resettlement and to the state director for fiscal matters. In Michigan, Mr. Roswell Carr, County Agent Leader, . . 51 was appOinted the state director. The goal of the Rural Rehabilitation Program was to help economic— ally stranded persons establish themselves in rural areas on a self- sustaining basis. By 1935, Michigan had approximately 200,000 families 85 on relief, and about 30,000 of these families lived in open areas.5 They included persons who needed credit, distressed farmers on sub- marginal land, stranded farmers in cities and towns, and unemployed industrial workers. Much of the rural rehabilitation activity in Michi- gan was focused on the northern parts of the State. In a sense, rural rehabilitation farmers became wards of the county agent. The agent's approval of rural rehabilitation loans was usually required. Familiarity with the county, soil conditions, farm markets and the personality and skills of applicants was useful to county Rural Rehabilitation Committees and could be best provided by the county agent. Once loans were approved, the agent actively advised rural re- habilitation borrowers and outlined a comprehensive farm management plan ”so that the applicant may produce feed for his livestock, have a sufficient garden for his family's subsistence and also have some cash crop [sic]. He is required to keep farm account books.”53 The FERA also Sponsored other projects which helped Michigan farmers and were often coordinated by the county agent. Marl digs were sponsored in many counties as a substitute for commercially pul- verized limestone, which was used to correct the acidity of Michigan soils. "In Cass County, twenty-five beds were dug at a cost of 25¢ per yard, or $2-$3 cheaper per acre than lime. This improved the quality 54 The FERA of alfalfa grown, which was valuable during the drought." also sponsored the construction of storage facilities to maintain com- modities that were not immediately perishable and could be held off the market for a higher price at the change of a growing season. In the Upper Peninsula, construction of potato storage facilities was a 86 case in point.55 These projects improved the profit margins of involved farmers and in turn stimulated local economies. The effect of federal spending on emergency farm programs was re- juvenating to rural Michigan. Paul Barrett in Cheboygan County care- fully reviewed the effect of Farm Credit Administration programs on local communities and farmers in his 1932-33 annual report. Seventy- five Cheboygan farmers applied for Land Bank Commissioner Loans. As a group, they had an average indebtedness of $1191, including $141 in delinquent taxes, $950 in overdue mortgages and $150 miscellaneous debts. Most of these farmers were threatened with foreclosure, which not only adversely affected them but also their creditors.S6 Mr. Barrett spent one month of his time working with the farmers in obtaining Land Bank Commissioner Loans. Creditors were asked to waive interest and reduce mortgages as acts of compromise. Reductions averaging $100 per mortgage were coupled with an interest of 5% (com- pared to 16% per annum) and relief from immediate payments on the principal. Through these efforts, the county also benefited. Ten thousand dollars in delinquent taxes were collected that might never have been collected; creditors received cash and the community had the benefit of $75,000 in circulation.57 Examples of this kind vividly portrayed the value of refinancing farm mortgages to farmers and rural communities alike. The value of emergency work was obvious, but it impinged on the time that agents could spend on regular extension work, a situation which was praised by some and resented by others.58 The acceptance 87 of Triple A as a legitimate extension activity was a function of how many farmers in a county participated in the program. Farmers who did not participate in Triple A resented the program when the services of the agent could not be obtained because of administrative duties.59 The same was true of crOp production loan activities. In northern counties where Triple A programs were insignificant, agents often served as executive secretaries to crop production loan associations,60 which affected the time that they had available for regular extension activi- ties. Early in the New Deal era, emergency work was welcomed as a panacea. C. V. Ballard and R. G. Carr, County Agent Leaders in lower Michigan, remarked that the emergency work helped to obtain county appropriations because the Extension Service administered vital farm programs. 1 Ex- tension was no longer viewed by critics as dispensable for the duration of the Depression. It was critical to rural recovery. However, as ad- ditional Triple A programs were added to the initial wheat reduction program and valuable time was spent working with farmers on Farm Credit Administration programs and welfare projects, the regular extension program suffered. Public resentment grew by 1935. In addition, as farm prices began to rise, Triple A was seen as a bulwark against further profit-taking by farmers through increased production. This put extension in the middle, between supporting federal programs as federal employees, on the one hand, and meeting the educational pro- gram as increasingly requested by the public on the other. 88 As emergency work became entrenched in extension Offices around the State, county agents began to view their roles differently. County Agent Lurkins expressed his feeling this way: In the past our work has been strictly educa- tional, but from now on we expect to do any kind of work that will help us serve the greatest number of people as long as it is non-political and non-religious.62 Lurkin's use of the term non-political referred to partisan political activity. The Triple A program was certainly political in the partisan sense of the term, but as long as agents treated it as a federal pro— gram that they were obliged to support, the Extension Service avoided damaging political battles in their respective counties. On the other hand, Lurkin's phiIOSOphy was not accepted by all extension personnel. Another view was expressed by C. V. Ballard in a letter to Kenneth Ousterhout, Agricultural Agent in Antrim County, during March of 1934. Ballard explained that 4—H work around the State was slipping due to the vast amount of emergency work required of county agents. He then stated the position of the extension leadership clearly. ”We believe it is highly desirable to keep as much of our club program intact as possible, looking forward to the day when our emergency work will be completed."63 In 1931-32, the 4-H staff lost one person from the statewide staff. By the beginning of 1934, the number of counties directly supporting 4-H agents dropped from ten to eight.64 The loss of county club agents and the establishment of emergency priorities in other coun- ties cut enrollments by approximately 1,000 children in 1933..65 In Cheboygan County, summer club work was discontinued in 1933 (except for one canning club and two-three calf club members) due to pressure 89 for emergency work in welfare gardens and crop production loans. The agent spent one-half of his time on emergency projects.66 Without ac- tive agent involvement, 4-H enrollments declined. The decline in 4-H enrollments was a national phenomenon.67 In recognition of the problem, the Bankhead-Jones Act provided federal funds to restore 4-H staff losses. It also funded home economics agents. The Act was passed in June of 1935 as the economy began to see signs of recovery, and nonessential activities gained increasing priority. In Michigan, seven new club agents were funded through Bankhead-Jones and put in charge of 4-H district clubs.68 Through this expansion of staff, 4—H enrollments surpassed their 1932 levels and achieved an all time high for the State.69 Bankhead-Jones funding not only restored 4-H activity, but prOpelled enrollments to new levels. During 1933 and 1934, the trend to support 4-H work through vol- unteers peaked. Increasingly, 4-H state leaders relied on elaborate preparatory planning by county agents and volunteers to support train- ing visits to the counties. County 4-H organizations and executive committees carried the program in counties which lost club agents or did not have them to begin with. Advance instructions from the state staff specified publicity techniques as well as the planning of appreci- ation dinners and training sessions in order to maximize the limited travel funds available. Leaders were asked to come to county-wide training sessions. This minimized contact between the 4-H staff and children, which was a major concern of Mr. A. Kettunen, State 4—H Lead- er.7O The State 4—H staff not only enjoyed contact with youngsters, 90 but found simultaneous contact with leaders and children the most pro- ductive way to hold training sessions. Training meetings were not the only 4-H activities to be changed due to insufficient funding. Winter achievement days were also moved from local functions to county or district activities so that the State 4-H staff could attend, which was an important support to the child and volunteer leader alike. Achievement days were significant because the State Legislature withdrew funding for State and county fairs in 1933.71 To fill the leadership and funding void, other public agencies supported the 4-H program. In northern Michigan, the rural schools served as a base of support for 4-H activities. Winter activities were most often clothing projects, handicraft and the promotion of hot lunch programs. In many cases, clubs were organized with teachers as lead- ers;72 Smith-Hughes teachers helped.73 In Detroit, the 4-H program was conducted by the city recreation department. 4—H programming continued to emphasize those activities which helped to meet the economic needs of rural Michigan families. Home garden, potato, and dairy projects had the largest enrollments.74 Through these projects, family staples were provided, and the potato and dairy programs also supplied 4-H youth with worthwhile income. Girls' programs stressed homemade clothing articles, family gardens and good nutrition. Although these projects were helpful economically, the main value of the 4—H program was to provide moral support for the . 7 child in stressful times. 91 Similar to the 4-H program, home economics extension activities suffered because of a reduction in staff. In 1933 and 1934, five counties--Jackson, Kent, Ottawa, Oakland and Wayne-—had resident home demonstration agents, with Kent and Ottawa covered by one home demon- stration agent.76 Compared to the late Twenties, this was a drop of 44% in counties covered. Earlier reductions in clothing, home manage- ment, and nutrition specialists staff continued through 1933; however, . . - 77 . most of these pOSitions were restored by 1955. It was not until 1935, with the valuable infusion of Bankhead-Jones funds, that counties throughout the State had resident home demonstration agents available. During the latter half of 1935, twenty-five agents covered 37 coun- ties.78 Even as the home demonstration staff declined in 1933 and 1934, progress in increasing home demonstration enrollments occurred through the marshaling of volunteer resources in the counties. Through a planned effort in over 60 Michigan counties, enrollments increased from 15,77779 to 22,54780 members. Elected county home economics councils acted as advisory committees to the resident home demonstration agents where they existed and helped to select and promote projects through volunteer leaders, who carried training lessons back to their local groups. In counties without a resident home demonstration agent, one project activity was advanced per year.81 Program options in those counties were few, given the limitations on the specialist staff and travel funds. Volunteer publicity leaders were responsible for spread- ing information throughout the county and in general assumed organiza- tional responsibilities for which the county agricultural agent had 92 little time.82 Overall state planning was facilitated by a state ad- visory committee composed of representatives from the eight home eco- nomics districts in Michigan. In addition, county chairmen met in their respective districts once or twice a year to discuss projects, mutual problems, and future needs.83 Like 4-H, Achievement Days were held on a county-wide rather than a community basis. Projects during 1933-35 emphasized the live-at-home theme, which characterized the early Thirties. How to refurnish the home, maintain the self respect of individuals, provide adequate nu- tritional meals, plan for the many demands of the housewife's time, and also plan for relaxation and family and community recrea— tion have been the main problems given con- sideration.84 Community recreation took the form of organized drama groups, poetry reading and singing. The clothing project continued to stress "home- made for ready-made” clothing and ”madeovers," while the home furnish- ing projects attempted to encourage home improvements without cash expenditures. Project titles like "Making Old Things Look Like New” and "Making the House Home-like Without Cost" fostered refurbishment and rearrangement rather than the purchase of new furnishings.85 Child care projects continued to feature programs that supported child development and recreational activities, which would ”Keep the Child Happy in His Home."86 Lectures stressed home recreation and shar- ing financial information with children so that they would understand why store bought clothing and toys could not be purchased.87 For ex- ample, families enrolled in a project entitled ”Putting Fun into Family . 8 Living" built community playground equipment and homemade toys and games. 8 Nutrition program activity extended beyond the home. By mid-1933, the Federal Emergency Relief Administration had begun to assist Michi- gan families in need of relief. Home demonstration agents assisted around the state with canning demonstrations and the preparation of bulletins on proper nutrition. In conjunction with these activities, the Horticulture Department's bulletin on family gardening was widely distributed by the FERA to indigent families. From 1933—35, rural Michigan was faced with two major nutritional problems according to Roberta Hershey, Nutrition Specialist. First, the farm population used fewer varied foods than were available through Michigan's diverse crOp production, and second small town groups were faced with rising food costs without increased income.89 The latter was a phenomenon of economic recovery and the processing tax on AAA commodities. In addressing these problems, nutritional projects emphasized “Meals to Fit the Purse,” which demonstrated proper nutrition at the lowest price possible.90 ”Protective" foods, which had a high nutri- tional content, were recommended while starchy carbohydrates were dis— couraged. Diets with a high starch content were a general nutritional problem, which was accentuated by Depression conditions, throughout rural Michigan. Barter was also encouraged as a means for farm fam- ilies and home garden growers to diversify and supplement their diets. In addition to familiarizing their communities with nutritional diets and yearly food supplies, nutrition project leaders were encour- aged to offer their services to county welfare offices. When offering 94 nutrition projects, extension leadership urged the inclusion of relief clients with regular members so as not to isolate indigent persons.91 Nutritional relief activities also included the cooperation of the Ex- tension Service in a survey of food relief in Michigan. Mrs. Hershey assisted the State Commission in making this survey, and her previous knowledge of the counties and local needs was a valuable asset in mak- ing the study. County administrators, case workers, local grocers, physicians, managers of municipal commissaries and welfare recipients were interviewed. As a result of the study, the State Commission recommended: 1. That adequate weekly food lists for fam- ilies of various sizes be sent to each county administrator. These lists should be priced locally at least once a month and orders on groceries altered accordingly. 2. Commissaries should supply a greater variety of foods from week to week and base the se- lection on the adequate weekly food list mentioned under 1. The cheaper fruits and milk should be included. 3. On the whole, food orders on grocery stores, issued by a trained case worker and accom— panied by pertinent suggestions as to choice of foods, has proved to be a more satisfac- tory method of food relief than commissaries. 4. Case workers, in general, need to be better informed on what c0nstitutes an adequate diet and on how to present this information in a practical way. 5. The money allowance is often determined by the local member of the county board of supervisors. These orders are usually not adequate. This amount should be regulated as suggested under 1. 95 6. The average family on relief needs help in choosing food and in planning and preparing meals. Community classes for homemakers and popularized bulletins are suggested. 7. Standardization of food relief by the state office would seem to make for bet- ter feeling between county organizations. There might also be less shifting of cases from one county to another. 8. Constant dietary supervision of food re— lief is needed. It would probably re- quire two or three dietitians on the state staff to give effective supervision. As a result of these recommendations a nutri- tionist [was] secured to direct the food relief work, a standard state—wide plan. . . institu- ted, commissaries. . . discontinued, case workers [trained] in the principles of nutri- tion, [nutrition] bulletins. . . distributed and some nutrition classes for homemakers on welfare relief [developed].92 For a family of two, the FERA provided $15 a month for food and $2.50 supplement for each child.93 Food costs were low, but readily consumed relief allocations. For instance, the Quality Service Store in Lansing sold a 15 pound sack of potatoes for 15¢. Ten pounds of sugar was 48¢, frankfurters 10¢ and milk 19¢ a can. Breakfast cereals cost 9¢ a package.94 Emergency work was not the only area of high activity for the Extension Service. From 1933-35, interest in regular extension pro- grams that pertained to scientific agriculture soared. County agents reported that phone calls, bulletin distribution and attendance at demonstration meetings increased. Letter writing was up 100%.95 Un- wittingly, the Triple A program promoted scientific agriculture. Acre- age reductions rewarded the farmer who could Obtain high yields on 96 fewer acres. Thus, the very system which sought to reduce acreage and oversupply spawned increased efficiency. High yields were now rewarded in times of restricted production as well as unrestricted production. The Farm Management Account Program was among the regular exten- sion projects stimulated by emergency work. Farm accounts provided essential information to complete Triple A and various Farm Credit Administration applications, i.e., information on crop production, income, and cost of operation.96 The Triple A increased interest in efficient production and sound financial management, which was the pri- mary goal of the Farm Account Program. By 1935, 933 Michigan farmers participated in this project, a new high for the program and a healthy increase over participation in 1932-34.97 Prior to 1933, most regular extension work was done with indivi- duals. Given the time pressures of emergency programs, a new emphasis was placed on working with groups such as Triple A Allotment Committees, Parent Teacher Associations, breeding organizations, Farm Bureaus, the Grange, and 4-H and Home Economics Councils, which forced a heavy re- liance on volunteers and client organizations to follow through with ex- tension programs.98 Correspondingly, farm visits by county agents dropped at the height of emergency activity in 1933 and 1934.99 Staff reductions were symptomatic of a larger budgetary problem. The Extension budget reached its low in the 1934-35 fiscal year with 100 a total budget of $652,653.27. The most significant decreases were in State of Michigan and county apprOpriated dollars. Operating funds 97 were severely restricted. Nonetheless, the Extension Service was able to make a significant budgetary breakthrough in 1935. For the first time in Michigan Extension history, all agent salaries were paid through Michigan State College. Previously, the counties had shared this responsibility with the College. Counties were still responsible for providing operating expenses for extension work, but the burden of salary was no longer on their shoulders, a welcome relief to local tax rolls. Also, by 1933, the use of extension associations as a means Of support for county agents had reached a peak. Eight counties supported extension work by private membership associations. In all but two cases, boards of supervisors made appropriations to continue the work in 10 , . . . . 1 After 1935, ExtenSion Assoc1ations were no longer needed to 1934 provide private funding to support extension.102 To some extent, agents, such as George McIntyre in Cass County, still tried to justify their existence by how much revenue the Extension Service brought into their counties. McIntyre reported that the total income to Cass County from extension activities was $149,815. This included benefit payments, loans, 4-H premiums and scholarships.103 Such justification became unnecessary as the economy accelerated in 1935. Despite a low budget, county agents increased from 66 in 1932 to 76 in late 1935.104 Public support for emergency programs, intensive de- termination to keep agents in the field and budget increases made this possible. Additional dollars for support came from the USDA for admin— istering the Triple A program. In 1933, six emergency agents were hired 98 105 In other to work in counties that did not have resident agents. counties, Triple A funds subsidized salaries of agents involved in Triple A programs. As federal farm programs were established and new employment op- portunities for agriculturally trained manpower increased, extension staff transferred to newly created government programs. By 1935, a con- siderable number of extension personnel had shifted employment. Two staff members went with the Triple A in 1934, two with the Federal Land Bank in 1933 and five with the Soil Conservation Service by the end of 1935. One agent was part-time with extension and the Soil Conservation Service, and former State County Agent Leader Roswell Carr served as 06 Staff transfers not the state director of Rural Rehabilitation.l only served the technical needs of government but also facilitated the cooperation between federal agencies. In summary, the Extension Service's response to the Depression from 1933-35 was essentially crisis management. The highest priority was placed on assisting the federal government's efforts to foster farm recovery through the Triple A and Farm Credit Administration programs. Projects which related to these programs such as Agricultural Economics, Farm Accounts. and efforts to disseminate the most up—to-date methods of scientific agriculture benefited indirectly from a renewed value placed on higher yields per acre, increased production efficiency, and higher incomes for farmers. Given these priorities, budgeting for home economics and 4-H staff declined significantly. In a time of economic stress, educational activities that had social value were set aside for those with more tangible consequences. The technical 99 services of the home economics staff and volunteers throughout Michigan, however, proved a worthwhile asset in the relief efforts of the FERA. By 1935, signs of economic recovery gave some hOpe that the worst was over, and through Bankhead-Jones Act funding, federal priorities began to shift back to normal extension activity. As 1936 began and renewed farm prosperity was on the horizon, one of the major sources of agrarian relief was declared unconstitutional. In January of 1936, the U.S. Supreme Court in Butler vs. the United States found the Triple A processing tax unconstitutional. Extension leadership in Michigan, as in the winter of 1932-33, was again bewil- dered about the future direction of federal programs. What resulted was new farm legislation that once again dramatically altered the role of the Extension Service and its response to the Great Depression. 100 1David Bruner and Paul K. Conklin, A History of Recent America, (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Company, 1974), p. 158. 7 "U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Historical Statistics of the United States: Colonial Times to 1970, Part I: 489. 31bid. 4”Annual Report of Extension Project in Agricultural Economics for Fiscal Year December 1, 1932 to November 30, 1933," Michigan State Col- lege, East Lansing, Michigan, COOperative Extension Service Collection 16.34, Michigan State University Archives and Historical Collections, East Lansing, Michigan, p. 19. (Typewritten.) 5"Summary of Annual Farm Business Analysis Reports for 1933,” Co- Operative Extension Service Collection 16.34, Michigan State University Archives and Historical Collections, East Lansing, Michigan, p. 2. (Typewritten.) 6"Annual Report of Extension Project in Agricultural Economics for Fiscal Year December 1, 1932 to November 30, 1933,” p. 1. 7”Summary of Annual Farm Business Analysis Reports for 1935," CO- Operative Extension Service Collection l6.34, Michigan State University Archives and Historical Collections, East Lansing, Michigan, pp. 3-4. (Typewritten.) 8William Haber and Paul L. Stanchfield, Unemployment and Relief in Michigan, Second Report of the State Emergency Welfare Relief Commission (Lansing, Michigan, January 1936), p. 17. 91bid., p. 143 10U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Sixteenth Census of the United States, 1940: Pppulation, 2:759. 1Division of Research, Graduate School of Business Administration, Michigan State University, Michigan Statistical Abstract, Eleventh Edition (East Lansing: Michigan State University, 1976), p. 596. 12 William Haber and Paul L. Stanchfield, Unemployment and Relief in Michigan, p. 38. 13Roswell G. Carr, "Report of Trip to Oscoda, Alcona, Iosco, and Ogenaw Counties,” July 2, 1934, Cooperative Extension Service Collec- tion 16.34, Michigan State University Archives and Historical Collec- tions, East Lansing, Michigan, p. 1. (Typewritten.) 101 14R. J. Baldwin, Director, "Report of the Division of Extension Work," Seventy-Third Annual Report of the Secretapy of the State Board of Agriculture of the State of Michigan and the Forty-Seventh Annual Report of the Experiment Station July 1, 1933 - June 30, 1934, Michigan State College, East Lansing, Michigan, p. 273. 15Duncan McMillan, ”Annual Report of the County Agricultural Agent 1933, Chippewa County, Michigan,” Cooperative Extension Service Collec- tion 16.34, Michigan State University Archives and Historical Collec— tions, East Lansing, Michigan, ”Agricultural Economics” section. (Type- written.) 16Roberta Hershey, ”Annual Report, Nutrition, Michigan, September 1, 1932 - August 31, 1933,” Cooperative Extension Service Collection 16.34, Michigan State University Archives and Historical Collections, East Lansing, Michigan, p. 9. (Typewritten.) 17George McIntyre, ”Annual Report of the County Agricultural Agent, December 1, 1934 to December 1, 1935, Cass County, Michigan," Coopera- tive Extension Service Collection 16.34, Michigan State University Ar- chives and Historical Collections, East Lansing, Michigan, ”Rural En- gineering” section. (Typewritten.) 18”Annual Report of State Supervisors of County Agricultural Agents, Michigan, December 1932 - November 1933," COOperative Extension Service Collection 16.34, Michigan State University Archives and Historical Collections, East Lansing, Michigan, p. 30. (Typewritten.) 19Duncan McMillan, "Annual Report of the County Agricultural Agent 1934, Chippewa County, Michigan,” COOperative Extension Service Collec- tion 16 34, Michigan State University Archives and Historical Collec- tions, East Lansing, Michigan, p. 13. (Typewritten.) 20Interview with Barrett Lyons, former Cheboygan County FERA Ad- ministrator. Interview held in the home of Mr. Lyons, East Lansing, Michigan, November, 1977. 21"Annual Report of State Supervisors of County Agricultural Agents, Michigan, December 1931 - November 1932, p. 12. 22C. Austin Vines and Marvin A. Anderson, eds., Heritage Horizons, (Madison: Journal of Extension, 1976), p. 9. 23Murray R. Benedict, Farm Policies of the United States, 1790 - 19§9_(New York: The Twentieth Century Fund, 1953), p. 283-284. 24C. B. Smith, "Extension Plan for Educational Work in the Wheat— Adjustment Program,” Cooperative Extension Service Collection 16.34,” Michigan State University Archives and Historical Collections, East Lansing, Michigan, p. l. (Typewritten.) 102 25Gladys Baker, The County Agent (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1939), p. 94. 26”Farm Act Goes into Action,” The Michigan Farmer, May 27’ 1933, p. 190-6. ,. “'Clark Brody, In the Service of the Farmer, My Life in the Michi- gan Farm Bureau, (East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University Press, 1959),tuL 90-91. 28R. J. Baldwin, Director, ”Report of the Division of Extension Work," Rppprt of the Secretary 1933—34, pp. 252-253. 29C. V. Ballard, R. G. Carr, and J. G. Wells, "Annual Report of County Extension Workers, Michigan, December 1, 1933 to November 30, 1934.' Form No. 285, Cooperative Extension Service Collection 16.34, Michigan State University Archives and Historical Collections, East Lansing, Michigan, p. 4. (Hand annotated statistical summary). The twenty-six percent computation is based on dividing the number of work days spent on AAA by county agricultural agents by their total number of office and field days. If time spent on farm credit and wel- fare activities were added to time spent on Triple A, the percent of work days devoted to emergency activities would be 41.5%. ~ JOChester C. Davis, “One Year of the AAA: The Record Reviewed,“ United State Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Adjustment Ad- ministration, Washington, D.C., June 1934, p. 3. 31Sample farm economic summary entitled ”The Present Wheat Situa- tion and Prospects for 1934-35.” sent to Mr. Baldwin for use by county agents in wheat producing counties. (Mimeograph.) 32J. A. Hannah later became the secretary of the Board of Agricul- ture and president of Michigan State College, now Michigan State Uni- versity. 3R. J. Baldwin to All County Agents of Lower Michigan, 22 August 1933, Cooperative Extension Service Collection 16.34.2, Michigan State University Archives and Historical Collections, East Lansing, Michigan. 04U. S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Adjustment Admini- stration. Agricultural Adjustment 1933-35, A Report of Administration of the Agricultural Adjustment Act May 12, 1933 to December 1, 1935, Table 45, (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1936). Also see State Tabulation of Wheat Production Adjustment Referendum Ballots for 1935, Cooperative Extension Service Collection 16.32, Michigan State University Archives and Historical Collections, East Lansing, Michigan. (Typewritten.) 103 35Sixth Census of the United States, 1940, "Agriculture Michigan," First Series Use of Land, Principle CrOps and Classes of Livestock with Statistics for Counties, (Washington, D.C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1941), p. 7. 36 E. D. Longnecker to D. S. Myer, 13 November 1934, Cooperative Extension Service Collection 16.34 2, Michigan State University Ar- chives and Historical Collections, East Lansing, Michigan. (Typewrit— ten.) DIR. J. Baldwin, "Report of the Division of Extension Work,” Sev- enty-Fifth Annual Report of the Secretary of the State Board of Agri- culture of the State of Michigan and Forty-Ninth Annual ReportOfnthe Experiment Station July 1, 1935 - June 30, 1936, Michigan State College, East Lansing, Michigan, p. 109. ‘7 38George McIntyre, ”Annual Report of the County Agricultural Agent, December 1, 1932 to December 1, 1933, Cass County, Michigan," Coopera- tive Extension Service Collection 16.34, Michigan State University Ar- chives and Historical Collections, East Lansing, Michigan, ”Wheat Re— duction Control Campaign" section- (Typewritten.) Also see State Tabulation of Wheat Production Adjustment Referendum Ballots for 1935, which cites the number of contracts in each participating county. 39”Annual Report of State Supervisors of County Agricultural Agents, Michigan. December 1932 - November 1933,” Cooperative Extension Ser- vice Collection l6.34, Michigan State University Archives and Histori- cal Collections, East Lansing, Michigan, p. 54. (Typewritten.) 40R. J. Baldwin, ”Report of the Division of Extension Work,” Report of the Secretary 1935-36, p. 109. 41"Annual Report of Extension Project in Agricultural Economics for Fiscal Year December 1, 1933 to November 30, 1934,” Michigan State Col— lege, East Lansing, Michigan, Cooperative Extension Service Collection 16.34, Michigan State University Archives and Historical Collections, East Lansing, Michigan, p. l. (Typewritten.) 4 2This is an approximation, as no clear records exist in the archi- val collection to describe how the 37 million dollars was spent. The Agricultural Economics Annual Report for December 1, 1933 to November 30, 1934, p. 14, showed that the FCA spent close to one million dollars for Production Credit loans and slightly less for cooperative marketing loans in Michigan during 1934. The remainder would have been spent on long-term mortgage refinancing. 104 43R. J. Baldwin, "Report of the Division of Extension Work," Seventy- Fourth Annual Report of the Secretarypof the State Board of Agriculture of The State of Michigpn and Forty-Eighth Annual Repprt of the Experi- ment Station July 1, 1934 - June 30, 1935, Michigan State College, East Lansing, Michigan, p. 272. 44"Annual Report of Extension Project in Agricultural Economics for Fiscal Year December 1, 1933 to November 30, 1934,” p. 19. 4s Ibid., p. 15. 46 . . Ibid., p. 19. Six percent represents 69.5 man-days. 471b1d., p. 6. 48 ”Annual Report of Extension Project in Agricultural Economics for Fiscal Year December 1, 1934 to November 30, 1935,” Michigan State Col— lege, Lansing, Michigan, COOperative Extension Service Collection 16.34, Michigan State University Archives and Historical Collections, East Lansing, Michigan, p. 5. (Typewritten.) 49”Annual Report of Extension Project in Agricultural Economics for Fiscal Year December 1, 1933 to November 30, 1934," pp. 7-8. 50Memorandum of Understanding Between Extension Service of the United States Department of Agriculture and the Resettlement Adminis- tration, June 7, 1935, Cooperative Extension Service Collection 16.34, Michigan State University Archives and Historical Collections, East Lansing, Michigan, p. 1. (Typewritten.) 51R. J. Baldwin, "Report of the Division of Extension Work," Report of the Secretary 1934-35, p. 253. 52State Emergency Welfare Relief Commission, Michigan Rural Relief and Rehabilitation Plan, Revised, January 1935, Cooperative Extension Service Collection 16.34, Michigan State University Archives and His- torical Collections, East Lansing, Michigan, p. 1. (Typewritten.) S3George McIntyre, ”Annual Report of the County Agricultural Agent, December 1, 1934 to December 1, 1935, Cass County, Michigan,” "Agricul- tural Economics” section. (Typewritten.) S4George McIntyre, ”Annual Report of the County Agriculture Agent, December 1, 1933 to December 1, 1934, Cass County, Michigan,” Coopera- tive Extension Service Collection 16.34, Michigan State University Ar- chives and Historical Collections, East Lansing, Michigan, ”Soils" sec- tion. (Typewritten.) 105 55”Annual Report of Extension Project in Agricultural Economics for Fiscal Year December 1, 1933 to November 30, 1934,” Michigan State College, p. 11. 56Paul Barrett, ”Narrative Summary, County Agricultural Agent, Cheboygan County, December 1, 1932 - December 1, 1933,” COOperative Extension Service Collection 16.34, Michigan State University Archives and Historical Collections, East Lansing, Michigan, p. 16. (Typewrit- ten.) Silbid., p. 17. 58"Annual Report of State Supervisors of County Agricultural Agents, Michigan, December 1933 — November 1934," p. 35. 59Keats Vining, ”23rd Annual Report of Agricultural Extension Work, December 1934 - December 1935, Kent County, Michigan,” Coopera- tive Extension Service Collection 16.34, Michigan State University Ar- chives and Historical Collections, East Lansing, Michigan, pp. 56-57. (Typewritten.) 60Interview with Kenneth Ousterhout, former Antrim County Agent. Interview held in the home of Mr. Ousterhout, East Lansing, Michigan, September, 1977. 61"Annual Report of State Supervisors of County Agricultural Agents, Michigan, December 1932 - November 1933,” pp. 10-11. 62H. J. Lurkins, ”Annual Report of the County Agricultural Agent 1935, Berrien County, Michigan,” Cooperative Extension Service Collec- tion 16.34, Michigan State University Archives and Historical Collec- tions, East Lansing, Michigan, p. 4. (Typewritten.) 63C. V. Ballard to Kenneth Ousterhout, 19 March 1934, Cooperative Extension Service Collection 16.34, Michigan State University Archives and Historical Collections, East Lansing, Michigan. (Typewritten.) 64See Appendix, Personnel Trends of the Cooperative Extension Ser- vice in Michigan, 1929—1939. 65See Appendix, 4-H Enrollments in Michigan, 1929-1938. 66Paul Barrett, ”Narrative Summary, County Agricultural Agent, Cheboygan County, December 1, 1932 - December 1, 1933,” p. 16. 106 67Barnard Joy, 25 Years of 4-H Club Work, Analysis of Statistical Trends (With special reference to 1938), COOperative Extension Work in Agriculture and Home Economics, Extension Service Circular 312, 1939, Fig. l - 4-H Club enrollment, 1914-38. 68A. G. Kettunen, ”Narrative Report, Annual Report of Boys' and Girls' 4-H Club Work in Agriculture and Home Economics, Michigan, 1935," COOperative Extension Service Collection 16.34, Michigan State Univer- sity Archives and Historical Collections, East Lansing, Michigan, p. 7. (Typewritten.) 69See Appendix, 4-H Enrollments in Michigan 1929-1938. 70A. G. Kettunen, “Narrative Report, Annual Report of Boys' and Girls' 4-H Club Work in Agriculture and Home Economics, Michigan, 1933,” COOperative Extension Service Collection 16.34, Michigan State Univer- sity Archives and Historical Collections, East Lansing, Michigan, p. 8. (Typewritten.) 71A. G. Kettunen, "Narrative Report, Annual Report of Boys' and Girls' 4-H Club Work in Agriculture and Home Economics, Michigan, 1936,“ Cooperative Extension Service Collection 16.34, Michigan State Univer- sity Archives and Historical Collections, East Lansing, Michigan, p. 10. (Typewritten.) 72Burton C. Mellencamp, ”Annual Narrative Report County Agricultural Agent, December 1, 1933 to November 30, 1934, Charlevoix County," Co- operative Extension Service Collection l6.34, Michigan State University Archives and Historical Collections, East Lansing, Michigan, p. 28. (Typewritten.) 73C. P. Milham, ”1935 Annual Report, Lenawee County," Cooperative Extension Service Collection 16.34, Michigan State University Archives and Historical Collections, East Lansing, Michigan, p. xxvii. (Type- written.) 74R. J. Baldwin, Director, ”Report of the Division of Extension Work,” Report of the Secretary 1934-35, p. 262. 5Interview with Mr. Benjamin Hennink, Organizer of the Junior Farm Bureau in Michigan and former 4—H Club leader. Interview held in the home of Mr. Hennink, Okemos, Michigan, July, 1977. 76See Appendix, Personnel Trends of the Cooperative Extension Service in Michigan, 1929—1939. 77See Appendix, Personnel Trends of Campus-Based Specialists Employ- ed by the COOperative Extension Service in Michigan, 1929—39. 107 78See Appendix, Personnel Trends of the Cooperative Extension Service in Michigan, 1929—39. 79R. J. Baldwin, ”Report of the Division of Extension Work," Report of the Secretary 1933-34, p. 256. 80R. J. Baldwin, ”Report of the Division of Extension Work," Report of the Secretary 1934-35, p. 258. 8 llbid. 82Edna V. Smith, ”Annual Report State Home Demonstration Leader, Michigan, 1934-1935,” Cooperative Extension Service Collection 16.34, Michigan State University Archives and Historical Collections, East Lansing, Michigan, p. 3. 8°Ibid. 84Ibid., p. 1. 85R. J. Baldwin, Director, ”Report of the Division of Education Work,” Report of the Secretary 1935-36, pp. 113—115. 8 61bid., p. 115. 8[Lydia Ann Lynda, ”Annual Report Child Care and Training, Michigan, September 1, 1932 to August 31, 1933,” Cooperative Extension Service Collection 16.34, Michigan State University Archives and Historical Collections, East Lansing, Michigan, p. 14. (Typewritten.) 88R. J. Baldwin, Director, ”Report of the Division of Extension Work,” Report of the Secretary 1935—36, p. 116. 89Roberta Hershey, ”Annual Report, Nutrition, Michigan, September 1, 1933 - August 31, 1934,” Cooperative Extension Service Collection 16.34, Michigan State University Archives and Historical Collections, East Lansing, Michigan, p. l. (Typewritten.) 9O Ibid., pp. 4—5. 91Edna V. Smith, ”Annual Report State Home Demonstration Leader, Michigan, 1934-1935," p. l. 92Roberta Hershey, "Annual Report, Nutrition, Michigan, September 1, 1933 - August 31, 1934,” pp, 6-7. 3Interview with Barrett Lyons. 108 4 . . . . . . 9 LanSing Quality SerVice Stores advertisement, Circa mid-1930's, Cooperative Extension Service Collection 16.34, Michigan State Univer- sity Archives and Historical Collections, East Lansing, Michigan. 95See Appendix, Statistical Summaries of Annual Reportsof County Extension Workers 1929-1938. 96H. J. Lurkins, "Annual Report of the County Agricultural Agent, December 1, 1933 - December 1, 1934, Berrien County, Michigan,” COOperative Extension Service Collection 16.34, Michigan State Univer- sity Archives and Historical Collections, East Lansing, Michigan, p. 10. (Typewritten.) n 7"Summary of Annual Farm Business Analysis Reports for 1935,” p. 3. 98George McIntyre, ”Annual Report of the County Agriculture Agent, December 1, 1933 to December 1, 1934, Cass County, Michigan," ”Changes in Extension Organization" section. 99See Appendix, Statistical Summaries of Annual Reportsof County Extension Workers 1929-1938. 100See Appendix, Summary of Funding Sources and Levels for the Co- operative Extension Service in Michigan 1929-39. 101"Annual Report of State Supervisors of County Agricultural Agents, Michigan, December 1932 - November 1933,” p. 27. 102C. V. Ballard, R. G. Carr, and J. G. Wells, "Annual Report of the State Supervisors of County Agricultural Agents, Michigan, December 1935 - November 1936,” p. 12. 10‘jGeorge McIntyre, ”Annual Report of the County Agriculture Agent, December 1, 1933 to December 1, 1934, Cass County, Michigan," Coopera- tive Extension Service Collection 16.34, ”Summary of Accomplishments” section. 104See Appendix, Personnel Trends of the Cooperative Extension Service in Michigan, 1929 - 1939. 105R. J. Baldwin, Director, "Report of the Division of Extension Work," Report of the Secretary 1933 - 1934, p. 254. 106R. J. Baldwin to C. W. Warburton, 21 February 1938, COOperative Extension Service Collection 16.34, Michigan State University Archives and Historical Collections, East Lansing, Michigan. (Typewritten.) RECOVERY AND LONG-TERM PLANNING,1936-38 By the end of 1936, the American economy had taken a decided up— turn. Unemployment fell to 16.9% from a high of 24.9% in 1933.1 Dur- ing the same period, farm income doubled, and the parity ratio returned to 92, which was its 1929 level. The farm-to-retail price spread also improved from a low of 31 in 1932 to 41 in 1937.2 In general, the signs of farm recovery continued throughout the late Thirties with some minor, negative fluctuations after the recession of 1937. buchigan's economy kept pace with thecountryas a whole. By 1936, Detroit had put most of its labor foce back to work, and there was a general decline in relief assistance. As with the country at large, 1936 was a banner year for Michigan farmers. Agriculture produced its highest cash income since 1929, $216,000,000, which was twice the Wol- verine farm income of 1932.3 This trend continued through 1937 with some moderation in 1938 and 1939. Farm prices followed a similar pat— tern. Because of drought conditions which limited crop yields in 1936, farm prices in Michigan advanced spectacularly from an index of 109 in May, 1936 to 144 in February and March of 1937.4 In 1938, the Michigan farm index dropped to 102, which was about the same level as 1936.5 In many respects, the Depression was over for farmers by the late 1930's. Farm price levels were not seriously affected by the industri- al recession of 1937. R. V. Gunn of the Agricultural Economics Depart- ment correctly forecast the farm price situation while speaking to 109 110 Farm Credit Administration borrowers in Lenawee County on December 2, 1936. "Chances are that farm prices for the next year or two will not rise as rapidly as they did last year but the general price level will not be down and agriculture will not lose anything during the next year or two; farmers will be able to hold their own."6 Further evidence of farm recovery was shown through the gains in net cash income registered through the Farm Management Account Pro- gram. By 1936, the average net cash income for Michigan farms had ex- ceeded its 1929 level and produced an unusually high rate of earned in- O vestment, 11.246. The average net cash income for Michigan farmers was $1484 in 1936, $1257 in 1937 and $1148 in 1938.7 Approximately 30 percent of the total cash income on Michigan farms was from the sale of dairy products. 20% from the sale of livestock, 12% from poultry and eggs, 12% from fruits and truck crops, 17% from the four leading cash field crops--wheat, beans, potatoes and sugar beets, and the balance, or 9%, from miscellaneous crops: nursery, greenhouse and forestry products and gov- ernmental payments.8 Although net cash income varied with the annual economic cycles of the late Thirties, it still demonstrated a positive trend toward agrar- ian recovery in comparison to earlier Depression years. In Michigan, another indicator of agricultural recovery was the increasing attractiveness of farming to rural youth. President Shaw pointed out in 1936 that "the agriculture and veterinarian science division of Michigan State College showed thelargest percentage of 9 H increase in student enrollment. . 111 By 1935, the number of farms in Michigan had increased through the back to the land movement of the mid-1930's. The Michigan Department of Agriculture recorded 197,000 farms in Michigan at an average size of 94 acres. In all, there were 18,500,000 acres in farms throughout Michigan. At the end of the decade, the number of farms had dropped to 187,589 with slightly over 18,000,000 acres designated for agricul- tural use. This was in part due to industrial recovery and the re— zoning of land for non-agricultural use.10 During the late Thirties, the farm population was relatively stable in Michigan. In 1930, 16.3% of Michigan's pOpulation was on farms, compared to 17.5% in 1935 and 16.2% in 1940.11 Nationally, the figure had dropped from nearly 25% in 1930 to approximately 23% in 1940.12 With the exception of a minor influx of persons who went back to the land in the mid-1930's, Michigan's farm population was fairly constant. The challenge to the Extension Service in the late 30's was to meet the needs of a stable farm population. With the passing of the initial economic crisis in 1933-35, feder- al farm programs shifted from emergency priorities to long-range eco- nomic adjustment. During the late 30's, the major federal programs were soil conservation and agricultural adjustment, rural rehabilitation, farm credit, and rural electrification. Of these four, soil conserva- tion and agricultural adjustment consumed the most time of county agri— cultural agents in Michigan, but unlike the original Triple A, this program directly complemented regular extension work. 112 The Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act of 1936 provided benefit payments for farmers who planted soil enriching crops such as grasses and legumes and reduced production of soil depleting, com- mercial crops such as wheat, corn, cotton, tobacco, and sugar beets.13 "The new farm law reflected the intense national concern with soil conservation aroused by the terrible dust storms of the early 30's."14 Prior to the deepening of the Depression, the acidic condition of the soil was considered the number one agricultural problem in Michigan. A keen commitment to soil conservation was evident in Michigan as the Extension Service had emphasized proper land usage and resource management in the late Twenties. Although the Soil Conservation Act differed from earlier Triple A legislation in basic philosophy, it insured continued benefit payments to farms to keep surpluses down and farm income up. One of the problems with the old Triple A program in Michigan was its limited applicability to the diverse agriculture of the State. The new soil conservation program had broader appeal as most farmers could potentially participate. An editorial in the Michigan Farmer made the point very well just after the Supreme Court declared the original program unconstitutional. We are not so certain but what this ruling may work out for the best of all concerned. Few will dispute the fact that the farmers of the country need and are entitled to assistance in working out their problem, but there has always been serious objection to the methods employed. . . After these few years of experiments is it not possible that something better and more universally popular can be worked out? .15 By 1936, the benefit inequities of the Triple A program were ap- parent. A Muskegon County subscriber to the Michigan Farmer stated the case in a letter to the editor. I raise peppers, tomatoes, eggplant, beans, lettuce. beets, carrots, and some dill. My neighbor used to raise some hogs and corn, but when the AAA came along he signed up and got a nice govt. check for not rais— ing either one. But his land didn't Stand idle. He began raising beans, squashes, potatoes, tomatoes, eggplant, beets, car- rots, and the like. 16 What served the interests of one farmer, did not serve the other. The new soil conservation program also differed from the original Agricultural Adjustment Administration in its source of revenue. U.S. vs. Butler declared the processing tax unconstitutional; however, it did not outlaw marketing agreements, acreage control or benefit pay- ments.17 In the new program, the latter was funded through general tax revenues, rather than a special tax levied at the mill and passed on to consumers. The organization of the soil conservation program resembled the original Triple A structure. A state committee, comprised of farmers, state officials and the director of the Extension Service, coordinated the program in Michigan. The old county committee system of the Triple A was retained, and again the State was divided into districts with extension specialists designated as supervisors. Unlike the original Triple A program, the specialists assigned had expertise in the field crops and soil conditions of their districts. County agents throughout Michigan held information meetings, conducted elections of county 114 committeemen and officers, established soil depletion bases, and super- vised the measuring of farms. For the first year of the soil conserva- tion program, some agents acted as the secretaries of their county as- sociations.18 This changed, however, in 1937 when the Michigan Agri- cultural Soil Conservation Committee separated county agents from ad- ministration of the program and put it totally in the hands of local, . 1 county committees. 9 In the opinion of some, this was to the advantage of the Extension Service. Michigan Agricultural Soil Conservation Com- mittee did county agricultural agents a good turn more than a year ago when it literally divorced the agents from having a major part in the administration of the AAA program.20 By this action, agents were able to avoid the ever present politics of AAA and focus more attention on regular extension work. With the amended Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act of 1938, county agents served as executive secretaries to county AAA com- 7 mittees at the discretion of the individual states. 1 By and large, those states that had large benefit programs continued the administra— tive relationship between the Extension Service and the Triple A. In marginal benefit states, however, the relationship was not maintained, although county agents did sit on county committees as ex officio members. Communication between agencies was often facilitated by the location of the agent and the soil conservation officer in the same county courthouse and frequently in the same office space. 115 The Extension Service was not without its difficulties in encourag- ing farmers to adOpt soil conservation practices. In Ingham County, the county agent pointed out in his 1936 report, "With the soil con- servation program and with the old AAA programs, attention of many farmers is centered on payments rather than on broad objectives, a perfectly natural though undesirable situation."23 The same was true of Cheboygan County. On the other hand, agents viewed the slow drift from emergency programs back to regular extension work in positive terms. Extensive time spent on emergency work had taken its toll. Keats Vining in Kent County explained: "The writer feels at times that he has lost contact with technical agriculture due to the amount of time spent the last three years on the AAA program."24 From 1936-38, the general trend in extension work was to return to orthodox extension activities. The state county agent leaders noted in their 1936 annual report that the Extension Service would ac— cept any new federal programs that the national situation required but at the same time guard against the "eclipse” of regular extension work.25 Emergency programs demanded less time of agents as the admin— istration of the soil conservation program was turned over to the county committees and the economy grew to recovery. The educational work for the successor to Triple A did not reflect the man-hours demanded of agents from 1933-35. In 1936, county agents devoted 21% of their work days to Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment activities,26 which can be compared to 26% in earlier years. By 1938, only 7% Of their . 27 time was devoted to the program. 116 Essentially, the Extension Service was responsible for the educa- tional work of the Soil Conservation and National Allotment Act of 1938 and the other emergency programs that related to the farmer, i.e.: the Farm Credit Administration and the Rural Rehabilitation Program. No longer were county agents directly involved in the administration of these programs although they continued an advisory relationship to these agencies and their clients. In 1938, Mr. Baldwin noted that the county agent's working relationship with other federal agencies was ”advisory.H28 The initial federal emergency programs had come of age in the second Roosevelt Administration and were put on a stable, per- manent basis with financial support to fund offices at the district and county levels. This changed the rural landscape considerably as the farmer was no longer the exclusive client of the Extension Service. On the other hand, the Extension Service was still recognized as the educational arm of the United States Department of Agriculture and the land-grant colleges--its original role--and one that most agents felt comfortable with despite a willingness to do whatever was required of them by way of emergency activities. In Michigan, the return to educa- tion was welcomed by extension leadership. After an intensive three-year period of working night and day with the emergency programs, some of the agents viewed their educational role rather distantly. Harold Barnum in Ingham County looked forward to getting back to education and leaving the details of emergency work to others.29 This was not every agent's sentiment, but this course of action seemed most appropriate for a publicly-funded educational in- stitution. It was often difficult for agents to maintain a fiduciary 117 relationship with farmers when they were involved in approving loans, supervising the federal compliance requirements of the Soil Conserva- tion and Domestic Allotment Act and handing out benefit checks to parti- cipants. Although county agents were relieved of their emergency administra- tive duties, coordination of educational projects and federal programs was required. Careful articulation between the soil and farm crops projects and the Soil Conservation Service was necessary to achieve the goals of the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act of 1936. Both projects received considerable attention with a new emphasis on soil building practices and conservation techniques to protect land against wind and water erosion. Interagency coordination was accom- plished in part by the transferring of five county agents to the Soil Conservation Service in 1935. Four new soil specialists were added to the extension staff between 1934 and 1938. The soil project and agri- cultural economics had the largest number of specialists with six each.3 The new farm program had wide farm support and fit very well into the traditional educational activities of the Extension Service. An encouraging editorial in the Michigan Farmer portrayed this relationship. . a majority [Michigan farmers] seem to feel that they will probably benefit as it encourages practices that have been followed since the close of the World War. Producers will be urged to grow more grasses, raise dairy cattle, and feed livestock. Michigan farmers, thanks to the foresight of Michigan State College and other agricultural lead— ers, began working on such programs some years ago»1 118 Soil conservation not only complemented the Extension Service's general emphasis on scientific agriculture, but also served more Michi— gan farmers than the old Triple A program. By 1937, 107,000 farmers participated in the soil conservation program, which was over half of the farmers in the State.°“ During the first 18 months of the program's operation, these farmers received $7,300,000 in benefits.33 By compar- ison, $8,879,984 worth of payments went to approximately 53,000 Michi- gan farmers who participated in the original, Triple A program from 1933-35. Soil conservation was seen as a long-range program of agrarian relief, A related program was the federally encouraged land use studies of the late 30's, which enabled each county to study the soil conditions of its townships and recommend appropriate usage. County agents parti- cipated in those studies and the develOpment of land use maps.34 The entire trend toward appropriate land use was aided by a zoning bill that was passed by the Michigan Legislature in 1935 enabling counties to zone land for agricultural, recreational, and commercial purposes.35 This gave agriculture further relief by taking marginal, non—profitable land out of production, and left good farm land in production or soil building practices. A similar program had been promoted by the Michigan Extension Service in the late 1920's36 but failed when farmers continued to plant beyond consummable levels and the Depression drove people back to the land. A good example of county land use planning appeared in the 1937 county agent's report for Charlevoix County: 119 After a very careful analysis of statistics covering the last 10-20 years the committee, farmers, farm organizations, professional men, farm credit officials came to the fol— lowing conclusions: First, that the number of farms should be decreased from 1342 down to 1050. Likewise the number of acres in farms from 128,000 down to 105,000. With this change it is felt that the size of farms will increase to 100 acres as compared with 95.4 in 1934. It was recommended to increase the acreage of corn and an increase in legume hay. Also that an expansion in small fruits and ber- ries could be made. Also, that there is plenty of room for improvement in the pro- duction of potatoes and beans. The commit- tee went on record as favoring the soil conservation program with the comment that there should be no curtailment of soil de- pleting crops and that an increase in pay- ments fog soil building practices should be maden’7 Clearly, there was an understanding in Michigan during the late 1920's as well as the late 1930's that in order for farming to be profitable, it would have to be conducted on good, not marginal,soil. Proper land use was a salient tOpic with the Michigan Extension Service. Long before soil conservation and land use studies were fed- erally proposed as appropriate remedies for agrarian relief, members of the Extension Service, faculty of the Division of Agriculture, Michi- gan State College and the University of Michigan, and the Michigan De- partment of Conservation were committed to proper land use and zoning as the most effective means of improving farming in the State. As the soil conservation movement gained momentum nationally, Mr. Ballard revealed the thinking of these persons in his 1935 annual report: 120 As early as January, 1933, plans were formu- lated for an adjustment program based on land use rather than specific crop reduction. NO one outside of our own little group took our proposals very seriously. However, the hope lingered that someday the powers that be might think of the land as the common denominator underlying the whole farm production problem. In November, 1933, a land use committee was organized wholly without authority or legal status. The committee consisted of: Dean Anthony, Michigan State College, Chair- man Dr. C. E. Millar, Soils Dept., Michigan St. College J. O. Veatch, Soils Dept., Michigan St. Col- lege Prof. E. B. Hill, Farm Management Dept., Michigan St. College Prof. P. A. Herbert, Forestry Dept., Michigan State College Prof. K. C. McMurray, Geography Dept., University of Michigan, representing Michi- gan Academy of Science Prof. Ramsdell, Forestry Department, Univer- sity of Michigan Peter Hoffmaster, Michigan Department of Conservation P. S. Lovejoy, Michigan Department of Con- servation C. V. Ballard, Extension Department, Michi- gan State College This committee served wholly as an advisory body and attempted to be useful in all pro- jects pertaining to land use in Michigan. This committee interested itself in a land zoning law for Michigan, also the rededica- tion of certain submarginal farming areas to more profitable uses.°8 With unified direction and in cooperation with the Soil Conserva- tion program, the Extension Service actively supported the Michigan Soil Conservation Districts Law of 1937. This legislation specified that the state should be divided into sub-districts for the purpose 121 of establishing and administering erosion control projects and to pre- scribe land use regulations that prevented or controlled erosion.39 To support this legislation and the federal program, Michigan State College established a Conservation Institute in the Division of Agricul- ture, which became an active center for the study of Michigan land and resource use, Extension's relationship with the Rural Rehabilitation program continued on a harmonious basis. Mr. Roswell Carr, State County Agent Leader, continued to serve as the state director and was partially funded by the Extension Service. In Michigan, a high degree of coopera- tion existed between rural rehabilitation workers and county agents, which was not always the case in other states.40 This was due in large measure to the relationship that Mr, Carr had with the Extension Service. Mr. Carr reported the valuable cooperation between the two agen- cies in a letter to Mr. Cecil W. Creel, Director, Nevada Extension Ser- vice and member of the Extension Committee on Relationships with the Resettlement Administration. The County Agents helped us pick our County Rehabilitation Supervisors and County Com- mittees. They helped us make farm plans. Together we organized marl projects and farmers’ cooperatives. We built twenty-three potato storage warehouses in the Upper Penin- sula. The County Agents selected the loca- tions and organized the cooperatives. We financed a canning factory the County Agent promoted. We financed and helped the County Agent in one County organize a County Veter- inary Association to provide service to low income farmers. We financed bull and stal- lion associations, and spray rings which the County Agent helped organize. We worked with County Agents on grasshopper control, drought feed loans, farm debt adjustment and county zoning. 122 these specialists [,too,] have given time for consultation, drawing plans, leases, co-op incorporation papers, and procedure, doing field work, attending county meetings, helping to organize farmers, hunting and helping select sires, perfecting farm and home record systems. And I don't mean that this has been just casual. It has been con— tinuous and extended. We did not attempt to duplicate the extension personnel, we used them. They did the work for our fam- ilies as they did for those reached by other Extension methods. The state director concluded his letter to Mr. Creel by stating his belief that the Rural Rehabilitation program was just another kind of extension work, which focused on the needs of the low income farmer. He viewed the work of the two agencies as cooperative rather than com- petitive and saw rehabilitation work as means of furthering extension education. The Farm Credit Administration took the same direction as the Soil Conservation Service and Rural Rehabilitation program and developed direct staffing of Production Credit Associations. Although the agri— cultural economics specialists and county agents had an active role in the initiation of these associations during 1934, their involvement de- clined as these organizations were able to manage their own affairs.39 In the interim, short-term credit had become routine for thousands of Michigan farmers. In 1934, 2,768 farmers received $723,601 in PCA - . . 43 . loans. By 1936, 7,107 farmers received $2,881,463 in loans. Atti- tudes toward credit had changed significantly among agents and farmers since 1932. County agent Lurkins reflected on this change and charac- terized the new View: 123 Knowing that it is not the use of credit but the misuse of credit that is detrimental, we believe that everyone should have a basis of credit, no matter how great or small, worked out so that there is no doubt about his abil- ity to pay barring climatic conditions or something beyond his control. The maturation of PCA also diminished the role that county agents played in working with applicants. George McIntyre in Cass County reported that agents were active in writing PCA loan applications in the late 30's, but the demand on agents for assistance with feed and seed appli- cations decreased as Production Credit Associations and the Rural Re- habilitation program assumed more of this responsibility.4 With the shift of federal programs to other public agencies, the agricultural economics specialists returned to their work with market- ing cooperatives. Seventy—five to eighty percent of their work was taken up in promoting, organizing and servicing the farmers' coopera- tive movement.46 Even when agricultural economics specialists worked with PCA, their efforts had a definite educational flare. Specialist presentations included such tOpics as: ”Farmers' Cooperatives Credit System through the Farm Credit Administration, the Organization of Profitable Farmers and the Agricultural Outlook for Michigan for 1937."47 Through increased federal funding of the Extension Service, the number of agricultural economics specialists grew from five to six in 1937.48 The Farm Account Program also continued to give a representative picture of average farm income and expenditures in the state. By 1938, 1,346 farmers participated in the program,49 which was increasingly useful to borrowers of FCA loans and Triple A participants in completing 124 their respective applications. This project increased its staff from two to three in the mid-30's and maintained this level until the end of the decade.50 A new federal program which was particularly helpful to Michigan and important to regular extension work was the Rural Electrification Administration (REA). ”In 1932, only 21.6% of Michigan's farms had electricity. . . ;"51 however, this percent increased dramatically in the late Thirties. Specialists in agricultural engineering pre- sented talks and demonstrations about wiring, electric water pumps and feed grinders, as electrification expanded and demand for extension work in this area soared. In 1937, agricultural engineering specialists held 26 Electric Wiring Schools with 850 in attendance and 107 Rural 52 Interest in elec- Electrification Meetings with 6,728 in attendance. trification jumped again in 1938 as over one-half of Michigan's farms received service from central power lines. 4,168 persons attended 46 electrification meetings, and another 10,920 attended 120 demonstra- tion meetings.53 County agents also assisted REA by organizing their counties to make power line feasibility surveys, explaining government guidelines and developing proposals to the government for funding. Survey work was done in cooperation with a county committee and in- cluded: names and addresses of potential users; equipment to be hooked up such as lights, washing machines and cream separators; estimates of expenditures for electricity; and the location of farms and farm build- ings by township sections.54 In many ways, REA was the most important piece of legislation of the Roosevelt Administration as it drastically affected the way people lived.55 Meetings were held in all Michigan 125 counties to show farm women how to use electricity in the home and kitchen. The demand for this assistance was so great that home demon- . 56 , . stration agents could not keep pace. No longer did farm women have to envy their city sisters who had the conveniences of vacuum cleaners, refrigerators and washing machines, For the first time in their lives, they could have the modern conveniences that the Saturday Evening Post featured in their advertising columns. With the decline in emergency work, extension programs began to return to normal. In 1938, Mr, Ballard stated: ”We look forward to normal growth in efficiency and usefulness in the field of agriculture education."57 This was the first time that this comment had been made since 1929. Increasingly, as the American economy improved and agri- culture stabilized as a result of federal programs, there was a demand for "orthodox" extension work. County agent statistical summaries showed a definite trend toward expansion in this area. In 1938, county agricultural agents visited 25% of Michigan's farms. This was double the number of farm visits in 1934. Office calls were down, which was a result of the declining involvement of county agents in the administration of federal programs. Agents were now more available for work outside their offices. Bulletin distri- bution and farmer attendance at demonstration meetings were up over previous figures. In addition, the number of demonstration meetings rose over 100% from 3,665 meetings in 1933 to 7,593 meetings in 1938. Too, home visits by home demonstration agents exceeded their 1929 level.58 126 Increasingly, home demonstration and 4-H work concentrated on en— couraging sound farm and home economics practices among rural women and youth. Less emphasis was placed on food production and preserva- tion for the sake of survival and more on good nutrition to promote health. In the clothing project, the live-at—home theme of "homemade for ready made” continued, but was tempered by a return to the consumer orientation of the late 1920's, which was a result of improved economic conditions.56 The "Well Dressed Women” project reappeared in some counties, and a declining emphasis on welfare canning and clothing clinics was apparent. Both 4-H and home demonstration activities sustained dramatic growth as a result of increased funding of agents through the Bankhead- Jones Act and county appropriations, freed by Michigan State College paying county agricultural agents' salaries. Counties with 4-H agents available increased to 53 through a combination of Bankhead-Jones assis- tance, county funding and the districting of counties so that they could be covered by more than one agent.60 As a result, 4-H enrollments increased from 35,362 in 1935 to 43,873 in 1938.61 By 1936, 4-H pro— grams were available in every Michigan county. The number of home dem- onstration agents also grew, and families in 37 counties had access to their services through resident or district agents.62 The number of farm home visits jumped from 478 in 193563 to 4781 in 1938.64 Still, the demand for 4-H and home economics work exceeded the capacity of available, professional staff, and the pattern of reliance on local leaders and centralized training centers established during the bleak years of 1933-35 continued. 127 The number of county agricultural agents also increased. By 1938, 65 The 81 of Michigan's 83 counties had county agricultural agents. management goal so long dreamed of in the late Twenties finally became a reality in the late Thirties. By 1939, agent tenure was no longer seen as a function of bad economic conditions and poor mobility, but once again indicative of the permanence of extension work. Seventy- three agents had an average of 10.5 years of service; among them were 54 agents who had served more than five years. Forty-one agents had served more than ten years, eighteen agents more than fifteen years, and eight agents more than twenty years, In-service education was revived. From 1936-1938, district meet- ings emphasized scientific agriculture: soils, crops, dairy, animal husbandry and poultry. By comparison, district conferences in 1933935 basically trained agents in the Operation of emergency programs.67 Again, subject-matter specialists from the departments were requested to develop instructional materials in the form of trueefalse tests to be given to the agents at the district meetings. Keys were distributed with the correct answers, noting the appropriate references for further study. The summer school program, which was suspended during the crisis years of the Depression, emphasized understanding long-range agricul- tural policy problems. The agent summer school in 1938 focused for one week on "What Is A Desirable National Agricultural Policy?"68 128 A considerable amount of time was spent on explaining what had happened to agriculture in the early and mid-Thirties and what future government policy would be to maintain agriculture at a stable level. This trend toward long-range planning was indicative of inservice training through— out the late Thirties, and noteworthy, as this was one of the few times since the beginning of the Depression that agents had time to contemplate the future, rather than worry about the present. Extension relations with county boards of supervisors were smooth in 1936—38. Only in one instance did Mr, Ballard have to visit a county board about extension funding and that proved to be a false 69 alarm. Such trips were frequent in 1931-32. By 1938, only 16 county supervisors voted against extension appropriations for 1939. The high was 245 against in 1931.70 As the economic crisis passed, demand for home economics and 4-H club work increased and, as a result, funds formerly used to pay county agent salaries were apprOpriated by county boards of supervisors for the salary support of county home economics and 4—H agents. By 1938, the total Michigan Extension Service's budget had sur- passed its 1929 level of $775,192.58.71 The sources, however, had changed significantly and reflected a higher prOportion of federal funds. In 1929, the three highest sources of funding came from Smith- Lever Act appropriations ($167,549.32), the State of Michigan ($335,000) and county boards of supervisors ($218,659). By 1938, State of Michigan and county boards of supervisors funding dropped precipi- tously and federal funding filled the void. The three highest sources of funding in that year were Smith—Lever Act appropriations d:- 129 ($138,595.61), State of Michigan ($228,000) and the Bankhead-Jones Act ($276,140.29).72 As Smith-Lever Act funds remained somewhat stable and state and county support declined, the infusion of Bankhead-Jones Act funds provided the level of support necessary to significantly ex- pand extension work throughout Michigan. Other units of the College were not as fortunate. Bankhead-Jones Act funds brought the level of federal dollars in the Michigan State College budget to 24%, which was close to half of the total state ap- ~ propriations. Extension represented 20% of the total College budget.7° Due to the large sums of money available to the Extension Service through the Bankhead-Jones Act, extension employee salaries were par- tially restored to their pre—Depression levels.74 This was not the case with other college employees, as the decrease in biennium funding from the State had dropped throughout the early Thirties and forced a 23% reduction in College salaries and maintenance.75 Had it not been for the Bankhead-Jones Act, the extension staff could not have been in- creased at all, as State funding for that purpose dropped 47% between the 1930—31 fiscal year and 1933—34 fiscal year.76 By 1939, there was a general decline in emergency work, and the Extension Service rededicated itself to educational efforts in service to farmers and rural people. Earlier estimates of extension influence were below 50% of the State's farm population reached. By the end of the decade, the Michigan Extension Service claimed that itinfluencedffifls - . . . 77 . . of the farm families in the State. Staff increases and improved mass communication accounted for most of the increase. WKAR, the College 130 radio station, expanded its hours of service and broadcasting range in 1937 and 1938. As rural electrification reached Michigan's out—state areas, over 80% of the State's farms could receive WKAR. This media was very useful in spreading information about federal programs and re- lieved county agents of much of what was purely an information function in their counties. In summary, 1936-38 was a transitional period for the Michigan Ex- tension Service. Farm recovery, a significant budget increase from the federal government and administrative separation of the Extension Ser- vice from emergency programs fostered a return to educational activities. County agents and the extension leadership in East Lansing continued to support the informational phases of the federal farm programs of the second Roosevelt Administration and provided ready counsel to the new federal agencies created to serve the long-range, economic adjustment of the farmer. Coordination of federal programs in Michigan went smoothly as key personnel shifted employment from the Extension Service to the new federal, farm agencies. As the agricultural situation sta- bilized, so did the Extension Service. By 1938, the Michigan Exten- sion Service's budget exceeded its 1929 level, supposedly the last nor- mal year. The Depression was over for the Extension Service. As the Michigan Extension Service staff seemed to gain a moment of tranquility and a feeling that emergency work was behind them, many miles away in Europe, German troops were preparing to march into Poland. A new emergency for American farmers was in the making as World War II brewed overseas. But for the time being, the Michigan Extension Service felt that its world had achieved stability. 131 1U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Historical Sta- tistics of the United States: Colonial Times to 1970, Part I: 135. 21bid., Part I: 489. °”Annual Report of Extension Project in Agricultural Economics for 1937,” Michigan State College, East Lansing, Michigan, Cooperative Extension Service Collection 16.34, Michigan State University Archives and Historical Collections, East Lansing, Michigan, p. l. (Typewritten.) 4Ibid. 5"Annual Report of Extension Project in Agricultural Economics for Fiscal Year December 1, 1937, to November 30, 1938,” Michigan State College, East Lansing, Michigan, Cooperative Extension Service Collec- tion 16.34, Michigan State University Archives and Historical Collec- tions, East Lansing, Michigan, p. 1. 6”Annual Report of the County Agricultural Agent Lenawee County 1937,” Cooperative Extension Service Collection 16.34, Michigan State University Archives and Historical Collections, East Lansing, Michigan, p. 155. 7State Summary of ”Annual Farm Success Factor Reports" on 1,346 Michigan Farms--1939, Cooperative Extension Service Collection 16.34, Michigan State University Archives and Historical Collections, East Lansing, Michigan, p. 3. 8”Annual Report of Extension Project in Agricultural Economics for 1937," p. l. 9"Enrollment Shows Farm Improvement," The Grand Rapids Press, 2 December 1936, p. 18. 10Division of Research, Graduate School of Business Administration, Michigan State University, Michigan Statistical Abstract, Eleventh Edi- tion (East Lansing: Michigan State University, 1976), p. 596. lllbid. 12U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Sixteenth Census of the United States, 1940: Population, 2:759. 13”The AAA-What Is It," United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Adjustment Administration, Washington, D.C., August 1940, p. 4. 14William E. Leuchtenburg, Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal, 1932-1940 (New York: Harper 6 Row Publishers, 1963; Harper Torchbooks, 1963), p. 172. 132 15”The Court's Ruling," The Michigan Farmer, January 16, 1936, p. 38-6. 16"The Late AAA,” The Michigan Farmer, February 29, 1936, p. 7- 127. 1/David Bruner and Paul K. Conklin, A History of Recent America, (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Company, 1974), p. 195. 18”A Report of the Activities of the Michigan Extension Workers in Directing and Carrying Out Educational Work in Connection with the Agri- cultural Conservation Program," circa 1938, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, Cooperative Extension Service Collection 16.34, Michigan State University Archives and Historical Collections, East Lansing, Michigan, p. l, lglbid. 7 “ONewspaper unknown. circa 1938, COOperative Extension Service Collection 16.34, Michigan State University Archives and Historical Collections, East Lansing, Michigan. 21"A Report of the Activities of the Michigan Extension Workers in Directing and Carrying Out Educational Work in Connection with the Agricultural Conservation Program,” p. 1. 22Duncan L. McMillan, ”Memoirs,” Cooperative Extension Service Collection 16.34, Michigan State University Archives and Historical Collections, East Lansing, Michigan, pp. 66-67. (Typewritten.) 23Harold H. Barnum, "Annual Report of the'County Agricultural Agent, December 1, 1935 - November 30, 1936," Cooperative Extension Service Collection 16.34, Michigan State University Archives and Histor- ical Collections, East Lansing, Michigan, p. 14. 24Keats Vining, ”24th Annual Report of Agricultural Extension Work, December 1935 - December 1936, Kent County, Michigan," Cooperative Ex- tension Service Collection 16.34, Michigan State University Archives and Historical Collections, East Lansing, Michigan, p. 5. 25C. V. Ballard, R. G. Carr and J. G. Wells, ”Annual Report of State Supervisors of County Agricultural Agents, Michigan, December 1, 1935 - November 30, 1936,” COOperative Extension Service Collection 16.34, Michigan State University Archives and Historical Collections, East Lansing, Michigan, p. 10. (Typewritten.) 26"Annual Report of County Extension Workers, Michigan, December 1, 1935 - November 30, 1936,” COOperative Extension Service Collection 16.34, Michigan State University Archives and Historical Collections, East Lansing, Michigan, p. 4. (Hand annotated statistical summary.) 27"Annual Report of County Extension Workers, Michigan, December 1, 1937 - November 30, 1938," Cooperative Extension Service Collection 16.34, Michigan State University Archives and Historical Collections, East Lansing, Michigan, p. 4. (Hand annotated statistical summary.) 28R. J. Baldwin, "Report of the Division of Extension Work," Seventy-Seventh Annual Report of the Secretary of the State Board of Agriculture of the State of Michigan and Fifty-First Annual Report of the Experiment Station July 1, 1937 — June 30, 1938, Michigan State College, East Lansing, Michigan, p. 149. 29Harold H. Barnum, "Annual Report of the County Agricultural Agent, December 1, 1935 - November 30, 1936, Ingham County," p. 19. 30 . . . See Appendix, Personnel Trends of Campus-Based SpeCialists Em- ployed by the Cooperative Extension Service in Michigan, 1929-39. N l D "The New Farm Program,” The Michigan Farmer, March 14, 1936, p. 154—6. 32R. J. Baldwin, ”Report of the Division of Extension Work," Seventy-Sixth Annual Report of the Secretary of the State Board of Agriculture of the State of Michigan and Fiftieth Annual Report of the Experiment Station July 1, 1936 - June 30, 1937, Michigan State College, East Lansing, Michigan, p. 105. 3"Ibid. 34 C. V. Ballard, R. G. Carr and J. G. Wells, ”Annual Report of State Supervisors of County Agricultural Agents, Michigan, December 1, 1936 - November 30, 1937,” Cooperative Extension Service Collection 16.34, Michigan State University Archives and Historical Collections, East Lansing, Michigan, p. 13. (Typewritten.) 35C. V. Ballard, R. G. Carr and J. G. Wells, "Annual Report of State Supervisors of County Agricultural Agents, Michigan, December 1, 1934 - November 30, 1935,” Cooperative Extension Service Collection 16.34, Michigan State University Archives and Historical Collections, East Lansing, Michigan, p. 37. (Typewritten.) 36This was the Land Economic Survey which generated land use infor- mation throughout Michigan. 37Burton C. Mellencamp, "Annual Narrative Report County Agricul- tural Agent, December 1, 1936 to November 30, 1937, Charlevoix County,” Cooperative Extension Service Collection 16.34, Michigan State Univer- sity Archives and Historical Collections, East Lansing, Michigan, p. 26. 134 38C. V. Ballard, R. G. Carr and J. G. Wells, "Annual Report of State Supervisors of County Agricultural Agents, Michigan, December 1, 1934 - November 30, 1935,” pp. l7-18. 39Paul M. Barrett, "Basic Provisions of the Michigan Soil Conser- vation Districts Law," Michigan State College, East Lansing, Michigan, Cooperative Extension Service Collection 16.34, Michigan State Univer— sity Archives and Historical Collections, East Lansing, Michigan, p. 3. 40"Report of Extension Committee on Relationships with the Resettle- ment Administration,” Cooperative Extension Service Collection 16.34, Michigan State University Archives and Historical Collections, East Lansing, Michigan, p. 7. 41Roswell G. Carr to Cecil W. Creel, 25 February 1937, Cooperative Extension Service Collection 16.34, Michigan State University Archives and Historical Collections, East Lansing, Michigan. (Typewritten.) 42"Annual Report of Extension Project in Agricultural Economics for Fiscal Year December 1, 1935 to November 30, 1936,” Michigan State College, East Lansing, Michigan, Cooperative Extension Service Collec- tion 16.34, Michigan State University Archives and Historical Collec- tions, East Lansing, Michigan, p. 19. 431bid. 44Harry J. Lurkins, “Annual Report of County Agricultural Agent December 1, 1935 - December 1, 1936, Berrien County," Cooperative Exten- sion Service Collection 16.34, Michigan State University Archives and Historical Collections, East Lansing, Michigan, p. 14. 5George McIntyre, "Annual Report of County Agricultural Agent December 1, 1937 - December 1, 1938, Cass County,” Cooperative Extension Service Collection 16.34, Michigan State University Archives and His- torical Collections, East Lansing, Michigan, p. 34. 46”Annual Report of Extension Project in Agricultural Economics for 1937,” p. 1. 47"Annual Report of Extension Project in Agricultural Economics for Fiscal Year December 1, 1935 to November 30, 1936,” p. 19. 48See Appendix, Personnel Trends of Campus-Based Specialists Employed by the COOperative Extension Service in Michigan, 1929-39. 49State Summary of "Annual Farm Success Factor Reports" on 1,346 Michigan Farms —- 1939, Cooperative Extension Service Collection 16.34, p. 3. 135 50See Appendix, Personnel Trends of Campus-Based Specialists Em- ployed by the Cooperative Extension Service in Michigan, 1929-39. 51”Still Going Ahead," The Michigan Farmer, May 13, 1933, p. 170-6. 32R. J. Baldwin, "Report of the Division of Extension Work," Re- port of the Secretary 1937-38, p. 162. 5 DR. J. Baldwin, Director, ”Report of the Division of Extension Work," Seventy:Eighth Annual Report of the Secretary of the State Board of Agriculture of the State of Michigan and Fifty-Second Annual Report of the Experiment Station July 1, 1938 - June 30, 1939, Michigan State College, East Lansing, Michigan, p. 127. S4Kenneth Ousterhout to Robert J. Baldwin, 6 July 1936, Cooperative Extension Service Collection 16.34, Michigan State University Archives and Historical Collections, East Lansing, Michigan. SDWilliam Leuchtenburg, Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal, 1932-1940, p. 140. Reaffirmed in an interview with George McIntyre, former Cass County Agent. Interview held in the office of Norris C. Bryson, East Lansing, Michigan, September, 1977. S6 R. J. Baldwin, "Report of the Division of Extension Work,” Re- pert of the Secretary 1937-38, p. 151. 57C. V. Ballard, R. G. Carr and J. G. Wells, ”Annual Report of State Supervisors of County Agricultural Agents, Michigan, December 1, 1937 - November 30, 1938,” Cooperative Extension Service Collection 16.34, Michigan State University Archives and Historical Collections, East Lansing, Michigan, p. 14. 58See Appendix, Statistical Summaries of ”Annual Reports of County Extension Workers” 1939-1938. 59Marjorie Eastman, ”Narrative Report Clothing Project, Michigan, 1935—1936," Cooperative Extension Service Project 16.34, Michigan State University Archives and Historical Collections, East Lansing, Michigan, p. 3. 60See Appendix, Personnel Trends of the Cooperative Extension Service in Michigan, 1929-1938. 61See Appendix, 4-H Enrollments in Michigan 1929 - 1938. 62See Appendix, Personnel Trends of the Cooperative Extension Ser- vice in Michigan,l929 - 1938. 136 6DSee Appendix, Statistical Summaries of "Annual Reports of County Extension Workers" 1929-38. 64lbid. 65See Appendix, Personnel Trends of the Cooperative Extension Ser- vice in Michigan 1929 - 1938. 66C. V. Ballard, R. G. Carr and J. G. Wells, "Annual Report of State Supervisors of County Agricultural Agents, Michigan, December 1, 1938 - November 30, 1939,” Cooperative Extension Service Collection 16.34, Michigan State University Archives and Historical Collections, East Lansing, Michigan, p. 14. 67C. V. Ballard, R. G. Carr and J. G. Wells, "Annual Report of State Supervisors of County Agricultural Agents, Michigan, December 1, 1936 - November 30, 1937,” p. 16. 68C. V. Ballard, R. G. Carr and J. G. Wells, "Annual Report of State Supervisors of County Agricultural Agents, Michigan, December 1, 1937 - November 30, 1938," p. 21. 691bid., p. 16. 7OIbid., p. 18. /lSee Appendix, Summary of Funding Sources and Levels for the Cooperative Extension Service in 1929 - 1939. 72Ibid. 7JRobert Shaw, President, "Report of the President 1934—36,” Seventy-Fifth Annual Report of the Secretary of the State Board of Agri- culture of the State of Michigan and Forty-Ninth Annual Report of the Extension Service July 1, 1935 - June 30, 1936, Michigan State College, East Lansing, Michigan, p. 22. 74Ibid., p. 23. 7SIbid. 76Robert Shaw, President, ”Report of the President 1934-36, Report of the Secretary 1935-36, Michigan State College,East Lansing, Michigan, p. 22. 77Statistical Summary of ”Annual Report of County Extension Workers, December 1, 1938 - November 30, 1939," Cooperative Extension Service Col- lection 16.34, Michigan State University Archives and Historical Collec- tions, East Lansing, Michigan, p. 6. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS This dissertation has been an investigation of a publicly funded, educational organization during a time of national economic crisis--the response of the Cooperative Extension Service to the Great Depression in Michigan, 1929-38. Program, personnel and budget trends were studied. Following is a summary of the dissertation and an explanation of the conclusions and major contributions of the study. The Extension Service proved to be an excellent organization to examine. Geared to the economic and social needs of farmers and rural households, the curriculum or educational projects of the Extension Ser— vice reacted quickly to changes in the economy. Unlike the collegiate curriculum, program adaptations moved rapidly to meet changing con- ditions. Further, the Extension Service was integrally linked by pub- lic legislation to the welfare of the farmer and rural residents. These persons constituted a well-defined clientele, whose welfare could be specifically related to extension projects. The Extension Service was also unique in terms of its distinct funding and programmatic relation- ship to county, state and local governments. At the same time, its concerns were both local and national in sc0pe. Michigan was an ideal state to investigate as it had an effective Extension Service and was severely affected by the Depression. In 1933, banks closed first in Detroit, industrial unemployment far exceeded the 137 138 national average, and farm prices were approximately one-half of their 1929 levels. As unemployment and farm prices reacted to economic change, the historic relationship between the auto industry in Detroit and the State's overall economy was readily demonstrable. Compared to other states in the tobacco, cotton and wheat belts of the country, Michigan's diverse agriculture did not lend itself to widespread participation in the Triple A program of the first Roosevelt Administration. In turn, high reliance was placed on the short and long-term financing programs of the Farm Credit Administration to ameliorate the negative, economic effects of the Depression. The Great Depression was a critical period of organizational assess— ment and growth for the COOperative Extension Service in Michigan. At the time the stock market crashed, the Extension Service was on the verge of covering the State with county agricultural agents. The farm recovery of the late Twenties and speculative euphoria of the era en- couraged extension leadership to view future staff and program develop- ment in positive terms. Since the charter Smith—Lever legislation of 1914, the Extension Service viewed its primary educational role as the development of farm and rural leadership. The Dairy Herd Improvement Association, the farm cooperative movement and volunteer 4-H and home economics county councils were among its successes in fostering rural leadership. The key to the entire process was the catalytic role played by the county agricultural agent. Through him, the entire county extension program in scientific agriculture, 4-H and home econom— ics was initiated. The agent was the day-to-day link between the rural 139 population of the State, Michigan State College, and the United States Department of Agriculture. For this reason, the first personnel priority of the Extension Service was to keep county agents in the field and in- crease their number whenever possible. The economic imperatives of the early Depression years put a momentary end to these plans. As the Depression deepened between 1929-32, tax revenues declined and caused a severe shortage of salary funds for county agents in the field and extension specialists resident on the East Lansing campus. In some counties, referendums were held on the continuation of exten- sion funding. Interestingly, extension support of 4-H and home economics projects often carried public support of the program. These programs did more to enhance the public image of the Extension Service than sci- entific agriculture. When referendums failed, privately initiated sub— scription funding often prevented a complete obliteration of extension programs; nonetheless, the Michigan Extension Service lost a few of its county agents and approximately one-fifth of its specialist staff due to insufficient budgets. Extension projects changed rapidly to meet the economic emergency of the Thirties. The number one agricultural problem in Michigan shifted from the poor condition of the soil to rapidly deteriorating economic conditions. During the Hoover administration, when economic problems were viewed as remedial through individual and private collec- tive action, the Extension Service advised farmers to minimize cash ex- penditures and maximize farm self-sufficiency. This was the "Live At Home Program." As decreasing farm income encouraged more efficient pro- duction and home self-sufficiency, interest soared in scientific 140 agriculture, adequate nutrition through homegrown produce and inexpens- ive homemade clothing. This trend continued throughout the early Thir- ties until 1933 when attendance at demonstration meetings declined sharply as extension personnel and farmers focused their attention on the emergency farm legislation of the new administration. The first Roosevelt Administration ushered in a wave of new farm legislation to cure the dismal financial position of the American farmer. The new president and many congressmen felt that agrarian distress and lack of consumption by farm families were major causes of the Depression. In Michigan, the Extension Service administered the Triple A program and actively collaborated with the Farm Credit Administration and Rural Rehabilitation efforts in the State. Although the Triple A pumped $8,879,984 into the Michigan economy and assisted one-quarter of the State's farmers from 1933-35, long-term, farm mortgage credit through the Farm Credit Administration was the single most important federal contribution to farm recovery in Michigan. In the first sixteen months of operation, the FCA loaned $37,000,000 to Michigan farmers and farm organizations. Extension support of New Deal farm legislation and wel- fare food needs of rural Michigan residents accounted for over 40% of county agent work days in 1934 and, in the process, eclipsed the regular educational program. County agents were transformed overnight from itinerant teachers of scientific agriculture to administrators of the most comprehensive farm program the nation had ever seen. On the county level, the Extension Service received a boost in public and county board of supervisor support through its association with the Triple A program and commensurate benefit payments, Farm Credit 141 Administration programs and county welfare food projects. The county agent and the extension program were no longer seen as expendable for the duration of the Depression. They were the key to economic recovery. As a result, the necessity for extension support through private sub- scription subsided. Ironically, as farm prices began to recover and farmers wanted to produce more, the Triple A became a political issue, and the Extension Service was frequently criticized for the amount of time it spent administering the program and neglecting educational pro- jects, which were in high demand. Extension budgets continued to decline until 1935, when major federal funding through the Bankhead-Jones Act began to provide support to replace the county, 4-H and home economics agents lost during the early years of the Depression. Volunteers sustained 4-H and home economics activities in the mid-Thirties, but participation dwindled in the face of staff decline. By 1936, the immediate economic crisis had peaked. As farm re- covery began, the Supreme Court declared the Triple A program unconsti- tutional, which again changed the relationship of the Extension Service to the farmer. The Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act re- placed the Triple A program and emphasized conservation of the soil as a national resource along with benefit payments to farmers who did not plant soil depleting crOps. Over half the farmers in Michigan were able to participate in the new program, which significantly increased the number of benefit recipients over the old crop reduction program of the Triple A. 142 By the end of 1937, the Michigan Agricultural Committee had sepa- rated the Extension Service from the administration of the new Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act. This released agents from day—to-day administrative duties and permitted them to resume the pro- motion of educational programs on a full-time basis. In 1938, agents spent only 7% of their time on soil conservation work compared to 26% of the time spent on the earlier Triple A program. Too, this symbolic- ally marked the end of an era. The Extension Service was clearly separated from government stabilization programs and no longer had the farmer as its exclusive client, During the latter part of the Thirties, agrarian stability was achieved through federal programs, and the Extension Service focused its attention on the long-range, economic adjustment of agriculture. Extension educational projects in soils and field crops fit in well with the Soil Conservation Program, and the Rural Electrification Administration stimulated new programs in home economics and agricul- tural engineering, which improved the lifestyle of rural families and brought labor-saving devices to the farmer. At the end of the decade, the Extension Service had become a coordinator of information and ac- tivities regarding federal programs and a participant in the long- range, economic development of rural Michigan. The Depression had de- veloped a closer relationship between the federal government, the farmer and the Extension Service. 143 A number of conclusions can be drawn from the Response of the Co- operative Extension Service to the Great Depression in Michigan. First, the response clearly followed federal farm policy of the Hoover and Roosevelt Administrations. Educational policy and programs followed, not led, political consensus. As with most publicly funded educational organizations, the educational activities of the Extension Service carefully followed socio-economic trends, but did not exert leadership to effect change itself. Significant changes in the quality of life in rural areas resulted from urbanization, economic fluctuation, and popu- lation shifts. For instance, the reduction of farms in Michigan from 1920 to 1930 followed population shifts from rural to urban areas be- cause of industrial growth in the auto industry, not because the Exten- sion Service felt that agriculture in Michigan would benefit from a re- duction in the number Of farms. The Triple A program was a federal remedy for the American glut of agricultural commodities, not a brain- child Of the Extension Service. On the other hand, the Michigan Extension Service read the economic trends well and provided programs that assisted farmers and rural resi- dents to cope with the social and economic circumstances that confronted them. Michigan was one of the first states to adopt the Farm Account Program and was in the forefront of educational programs in cooperative management, agricultural outlook and land use surveys. Much of this progress was a result of a stable extension staff and leadership. Follow-through with federal farm programs was also effective because of a stable extension staff and transfer of extension personnel to the Soil Conservation and Rural Rehabilitation programs. 144 Second, Extension administration of the Triple A and succeeding Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment program was an obvious depar— ture from the promotion of educational programs in scientific agricul- ture, home economics and 4-H. Triple A was not an educational activity. True, the program had its informational aspects, with which the Exten- sion Service felt comfortable; however, the day-to-day management of records and benefit allotments involved more than education. It in- volved legal compliance with the terms of a federal benefit program and engendered a non-fiduciary relationship with participating farmers. This legal responsibility and the amount of time spent in administra- tion compromised the educational purpose of the Extension Service. Third, public support for the Extension Service's administration of the Triple A wore off as the economic crisis passed. During the early days of the New Deal, extension support of the Triple A and other emergency programs was well received in Michigan. Through county agents, millions of dollars were brought into the State in federal benefits, which helped to revive Michigan agriculture. On the other hand, as farm prices began to recover in 1935, the Triple A became a political issue, and the Extension Service was frequently criticized for the amount of time that it spent administering the program and neglecting educational work. Fourth, the issue whether it was apprOpriate for an educational organization to become involved in the direct administration of a govern- ment benefit program was avoided by the Supreme Court declaring the Triple A program unconstitutional. Even when the Congress passed 145 subsequent legislation, the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act, it skirted the issue by leaving the involvement of the Extension Service up to the individual states. In Michigan, the State Agricultur- al Committee finally saw the virtue of separating the Extension Service from the program to avoid a politically damaging entanglement. Fifth, the Extension Service's association with the Triple A, despite the difficulties faced, had long-range educational benefits. From the beginning, public association with extension programs and ac- tivities was voluntary. County agents encouraged interest in scientific farming, 4-H and home economics as best they could, but they were not obliged to reach every farmer or rural household with every program. With Triple A, the obligation was different. Every farmer was entitled to know about the program and commensurate federal benefits for compli- ance. This changed the relationship between the Extension Service and the farmer and put the county agent in touch with every farm in his county. By 1935, extension contacts with farmers had increased consider- ably, and much of the contact was attributable to the Triple A program. George McIntyre, Cass County Agent, reported that he knew 90% of the farmers in his county by name at the end of his tenure there and that many of those contacts were attributable to the Triple A program. Sixth, extension clientele also expanded through contact with other federal emergency programs. The Farm Credit Administration crop and seed loan programs as well as mortgage financing served the needs of a wide range of farmers and invariably involved formal or informal consultation with the county agent. Through such contacts, county 146 agents had an opportunity to discuss a wide range of extension projects which were of value to the farmer and his family. This was especially true of the Rural Rehabilitation program, which provided long-term fi- nancing to indigent, relocated farmers. The Resettlement Administration required all loan recipients to participate in the Farm Account Program and actively encouraged participation in a wide range of other exten- sion projects. Thus, extension association with federal emergency programs was a paradox. On the positive side, this association developed an important network of contacts that could be used to enhance expanded participation in other extension activities; however, it was also a significant drain on extension manpower and sometimes a difficult political situation to handle. Seventh, volunteers served a critical role in supporting the Exten- sion Service during the Depression. It was volunteer led programs in 4-H and home economics that develOped sufficient public support to carry county referendums in 1931 and 1932. Too, volunteers sustained the 4-H and home economics programs when extension staff reductions cut into available professional support. In 1935, the Congress recognized that additional federal funding was necessary to replace county, 4-H and home economics agents who were lost at the height of the Depression. Volunteers had performed admirably in 1933 and 1934, but program parti- cipation definitely declined since there was insufficient professional staff available to organize and deliver projects to outstate areas. 147 Eighth, extension projects and budgets did not always meet demon- strated need. The home economics program was a case in point. In the early Thirties, county funding priorities forced the Extension Service to drop resident home economists from county staff rosters at a time when they could have been most useful to rural and urban residents, who needed to produce nutritious food at the lowest possible cost. Exten- sion efforts in distributing home garden bulletins to persons on relief and county agent supervision of local relief gardens supported indirectly a wide range of persons in need; however, more home economists working at the county level would have broadened emergency food efforts. Also, the demand for 4-H work did not diminish because of lack of interest but because of lack of professional staff. In retrospect, the assign- ment of personnel and budget priorities during the initial years of the Depression was a recognition that only a limited number of things could be done to meet the economic and social needs of the times, and the Ex- tension Service, no matter how well intentioned, could only meet some of those needs. Inasmuch as the Extension Service was the best equipped public organization to administer the Triple A and collaborate with other emergency farm programs, agents focused their efforts accordingly and only indirectly affected relief work. Ninth, as federal recovery priorities and funding stabilized American agriculture, the budget of the Michigan Extension Service re- turned to its 1929 level. Through the Bankhead-Jones legislation of 1935, the Extension Service received funding to expand county, 4—H and 148 home economics agents and significantly increase staff throughout Michigan. These funds substantially increased the federal contribu- tion to the extension budget and replaced diminished contributions from State and county sources. Increases in federal funding achieved the personnel expansion goals of extension leadership and marked the end of the Depression for the Michigan Cooperative Extension Service. Tenth, increased federal funding of the Michigan Extension Service expanded the dependency of the state program on Washington. Accounta- bility of funds shifted with this dependency and extension projects developed a careful integration of state and federal interests in an effort to manage American agriculture on a sustained and profitable basis. In summary, this study has made the following contributions to the field of history of education. The record of the Cooperative Extension Service's response to the Great Depression in Michigan has been fully stated. Although considerable attention is given to New Deal farm remedies in most textbooks, very little is given to the Extension Ser- vice and the valuable administrative role it played in managing the Triple A and supporting other emergency farm legislation. In addition, this study adds credibility to the thesis that public education follows public policy and exerts very little influence over the political, so- cial and economic forces that alter society, except instructing the public in the means of c0ping with difficult social circumstances. It also adds credibility to the position that educational organizations Often cannot provide public service outside the realm of education 149 without compromising the central purpose of their existence. It is not in the best interest of educational organizations to administer govern- ment compliance programs, such as Triple A, unless they are the best suited public institution for the task and only accept the assignment for the duration of a national crisis. To do otherwise would expose education to the vagaries of political capriciousness. And last, pro— fessional staff cannot be replaced by volunteers, no matter how en- thusiastic, without a decline in program participation. Certainly, the role of extension volunteers during the Depression was commendable; however, the decline of 4-H and home economics staff cut project acti- vities and commensurate public service. In a larger context, the Depression was the beginning of federal efforts to coordinate national economic and social planning at the state and local levels as we know it today. The Extension Service and land- grant colleges. responding to national priorities during this period, became part of a concentrated federal effort to manage American agricul- ture through price supports and marketing agreements to avoid serious economic disruption. With representation at the federal, state and local levels and a traditional identification with the welfare of agra- rian interests, the Extension Service was uniquely suited to assist in the administration and educational work of the new federal farm programs of the Roosevelt Administration. This social activism was part of the long-term support and continuity provided by the Extension Service on behalf of American agriculture since the passage of the SmitheLever Act. 150 Future researchers might find it worthwhile to explore extension activities during other periods of national emergency such as World Wars I and II. During both wars, county agents played significant roles in working with food production and selective service boards to develop efficient food production with minimum manpower available. Like the Depression, the World Wars were significant periods of social responsi- bility for the Extension Service. APPENDICES .A_vm_ 0:35 :am_;om2 zm .meN em.e__=m eemmeeexa ”eeaagem: .meameea Seam. .em-e.a_ 151 xhoz :o_m:o.x; o>_u=uomcou mo NHmmem :.xhoz :ommcouxm :. pom: macsm: "oucaom em.nem.e~m co.vme.mv_ oo.ooo.m- e~.ce_.ea~ co.c~e._ 44.nm~.qn Ao.oo~._~ em.mnn.a~_ mm-wme_ .m.ee_.eee o¢.~mw.em_ eo.ooc.m- an.enm.om~ oo.o~e._ ev.nm~.vn e~.e~m.- em.mmn.-_ mm-eme~ ee.mae.mvn oc.~ee.e__ co.oco.oo~ ee.v_o.m- oa.e~e.. oe.aeo.n 44.nm~.vn -.cun.nn em.mmm.h~_ an-emm_ ec.mme.e_n ec.e_c.-_ oc.moe.mh. am._mv.ee.» eo.c~e._ ec.mmm oc.coo._~ ev.»m~.vn o~.eec.me qm.mmm.a- em-mmm_ a~.mme.~me co.mee.~__ cc.ece.me_ oc.c~e.. oo.eee.~ co.ooo.om_ oc.ooo.- ev.nm~.vn m~.oeo.me em.mmn.a~_ mm-eme_ A~.vn~.eee ec.mmm.mn_ eo.ecm.~_~ oo.o~e.. eo.oom.n eo.ooe.vn » co.c¢o.-» ev.mm~.en m~.oec.me vm.mmn.n~_ em-mmm_ A~.ce_.mme oc.e_=._ cc.mnh.nn~ cc.ccm.mn~ oc.cmm._ cc.om~.m ee.mm~.qm o~.oeo.me em.mnn.a~_ mm-~mm_ cm.a~e.~oa co.=-.~ oo.eoa.me~ oo.coc.oa~ oc.emm._ oe.ooa.e ev.nm~.qm an.oeo.me ee.nmn.h~. ~m-_ma~ em.eee.__m cc._mn.e eo.em¢.hm~ ec.aco.mnn oo.ooe.— ce.com.m em.hnw.nn A~.m~h.ne mm.m~m.m~_ .m-eme~ mm.~e_.maa » oc.cmn.m . ce.eme.o_~» oc.eee.mnm» ce.ome._a oo.oou.o » e~.ena.nn» he.m~a.me» mm.m~m.n~.» om-e~e_ n»0m.> uo>oa Janus: -conam be cam—go“: macaw xuuzuz .ao-ou laguuou xcuucol uo>oq use» .e.0h lung .00 peace .0; ho euaum -unozxcam lake—u .<.=.m.= < o.a.uh .ccofiumss< -uonnuu -o~nn:m -_auovom naummm am-o~m_ .:au.:u.z c“ oua>uom coamcouxu o>fiuauonoou us. how n~u>oa a nouuzom u=_1::m we xcallsw < x _ 329?: 152 .lmm—acu30m mops—o:_c .wncomm_ cow mmzmm_mea uo: one: maummsn uuomohn .mnum~m~ :uumcum: uo cuaum 0;“ mo okay—:o.cw< we canon ouaum ecu mo xwuuouuom 0:» mo muuommw ~m:==< 0:“ ca so;n«_a:n ooq>uom =o_m:ouxm o>fiuuuoaoou oz» cow nucolouuum unmucsoou< unavam “cussom man.o Nem.e nee.~ ova.n emm.s oo~.o_ ehc.o~ mucou< xeeaou «Ne... eee.~_ um¢.o_ ~5m... e-.e_ amm.n~ ohm.e. :-v on».. on~._ .ee meo._ nem.. nnm._ aon.. cementummeaas< nem.~ .mv.~ eo_.~ Neu.n ~mu.m mme.e mee.m “.Som non.n aNm.n e_e.v ~on.e _o_.h weo.a mmm.n Ace—see naa.. .40.. m~a.. anm._ e~m.~ on..~ nNe.~ eczeoeeaaee< oaeumeeea 4.5.. cc... nah om... ___.~ omo._ e~_ _oue=eo upon:— mNe.e nen.v ano.n mco.e neo.n m=~.A nao.n ou=3_:8mace: yam an... no” nee oe~.. m~m.. mm» xtemecea n~m.e Ree.e eNe.n e~_.n mmn.~ mme.~ ea_._ See-ounce: ate; eee.m m-.v mee.e mA~.A ame.m_ 4m8.~_ hem.v~ mecca seem .mca.n_ .Ahe.e_ me~.m cee.a enm.~_ eem.__ .em.a meeaueu._eze ..... ~=e.~ eea.e enm.e eom.m_ eee.e mam... Aaaez_e=a ~ee.e ee_.e men.n men.m eme.e ewe.» Gem.» xe.ea mee.n mam.~ n_m.~ qae.~ wan.e ~ne.e .mn.n susceEeez .ea.e< mee.n cea.n e_m.v cee.e eca.m_ awe.e_ new.- nemuoo=.u=u .ec:e_:umcu< meq.a en~.m eve.m oe~.e me~.e ~e~.m _m~.m muaueeoeu .ac=e_38acu< mae._ ene.~ ~e_.~ ame.~ nee.m e~a.m ooe.~ cemeaeaaz ove._ .e... axe ~oe._ e~m.~ mem.~ Ace._ ecu-ounce: one: ene.~ .v..~ ~ca.. one._ ~ae.~ e~_.~ mea.~ aueagm.:c:a one: A__.~ .Ah.. ma~._ mme._ ee_.~ ane.~ .eo.~ meazae_u mem.. hmm._ .Mm~._ own._ whenw. .me._ eon oequ e_mgu nousunesonxu no.2».ccosnu nouzaavsoaxm noczuapcoaxm nuczuacsoaum nouzuatzoaxu nocsuflvcomxm mn-vne_ en-nnm_ mn-~ne. ~n-_ne_ .n-ome_ an-o~e_ e~-a~e_ mn-a~m. eeu.;e.z e. ooa>uem =c_n:e.nu o>muauoacou 0;. new naoufian uueqoum a x_:z;;g< 153 .en-e~e_ eemNeeN: No.0eeem use No ousuNzuNum< No acaon oucum osu No xuauouuow ecu mo mNuomuz Ne::=< oz» :N soszanm mucwunNN uwaum :oNnN>N: concouxm “cousom .neeou< esNu z-e N ea; Nuance eeeNNeo.. .nNcouu uoNuuva ogu No use No uouo>ou noNuczou =0 chccomop one! he m coon o>a; xml ouaumu nNfih. me a oN N wN NN m N Na o No n N om N N amummmN Ne w a N 0N NN m N N» o No N N nm N N mn-nnmN ev a oN N oN NN n N N” a Na N N mm N N nm-omaN Nv c cN N mN NN N N en a oN N N om N N on-mmmN c m m N N m N N nN m NN N N we N N mn-vmmN c m a N N n N N an m ac N N ow N N wm-mmaN o cN a N N N m N N co m me n nv N N mmuNmmN It‘ll I: II. . II I'll! Ill-Ill]: illil‘l‘ll .4 II N :N n N m N N co m me n nm N N Nm-NmmN N NN a N o N N N No n co m no N N NmnommN N ..eN N N a N N we .v me m cm N N om-mNmN I t. -- i. Il-lI-[I-l- ii: [1 [la n a. a N N a N N no .v No n nm N N mN-wNmN .Mwmwc— cm—mwmn-wmwmmx Newmmuu ouufiN .oNnNs Na_:uoz mmwMMKHmeeaoHJ nNcou< nNcou< uaNzuox .mNmmK_ No aoN munNNuNooam .numm< Nouoomwm mucou< :-v whoanN =nv .Izwk- -1I-. III-11-: ncoccoN xuczou NoNuumm: muopaoN Nau=0luuaaoc coNumuumNchd< zNNx noNN::ou nNco < :oNNeNNnccfla: :oNNauNn mu=ou< zuNx Ncom< xuczou etc: zNNx -:olo: one: moNchou oNaNm % moNN::ou fi - .:-t- :- - -r -...-..L 511:]---1 IL ii - am-aNa_ .ezuNzoNz :. ooN>com concowa o>NNacoscou ozN Ne «cache No=:6mco; U x N 223...: 154 .mmlvnmN ecu «n1nnmN o>noN :o no: unNNuNuoan NuuN=om one. .on-cNmN cauNzuN: mo ouuuw one no ouauNsoth< mo ocean ounum 0;» No NNeNouoom ozN mo nuuomux Nascc< ogu :N poszNazm nucqunNN umaum :onm>Nn :onGOqu Noouzom N N uovuoa macho :onmzonNo N NamuuooaNz N N N xuoNoguaa NaIN:< ucNuoNuwz use: mNNom xNNNzoa xuoNocNam usuNm unaumuceN Nouucou NoomzN ousuNsuNuco: xuumouom Neoaouacm: scam macho sham ouoza mmoca Nuuza oNvmm mucuNem zoncouxm xNNno NuccmNmsz NaaNc< omaomN: NelN=< ueNuoocNucw NausuNaoNum< noNlo:0um NausuNsoNuu< coNuNcuzz “sesamncnz one: muchnNcuam use: ueNzeeNG ouau 1NNsu nuNlocoum olo: N N xuoNOON o‘II I'll l: l. Illl.1.I4u||‘l|I’ll|‘-Illlullll'[lu III- 'l‘lllt‘l I! cn-onmN mm-NmaN hm-0mmN om-mmaN mnavan Qn-nnmN nm-NnQN chNm$N Nn-onmN on1m~mN a~1m~aN H ~ ~ ~ WMuth—I—n—nnc men—.m—u-u—ono mid—om—c-e—nlflv mm—m-u—nNM .- c mn—m—u—Nnm a-I o mN—nm—n—n—IMN an WN—th—I—I—oHN :— NQNa—N—ON—um—aa-o—tlflN .— MON—c—n—nmN—am—I—nqenv—o— Q—o—am—q—a mm Nth”— Nth")— NW”— N06”— NM—c— NM—n— NVN— -INNN—~Olfi ~~NNN—IWP’§ n—NNN-mm —-—-NNN—o|n"3 N—i—nN—i—WM uni-0") o—a—u—NNNLDQ ou—INNNNNLD ~—~~~~mm—mo~~~~m~~m~~—vn a-ea-INNNNMVO NON—0N adult—N em-mNaN .:¢uN;ch :N ooN>Nom :onchxu o>NuaNogoou opp Nu voNcNalm «NnNNeNuoam women-azalau No mzsoch No::OmcoL c :22“??? 155 .numnH>-:Mv woszocN OnNa o>ez xul moh:mN~ nsoN>oua N.5ouauo:=m scazN .:umN:uNz .ucchwN umum .ncoNNooNNou NauNuoNnN: pea mo>Ngou< NuNnNu>Ncs oNaum cauNzuNx .vm.oN :oNuooNNou ooN>Nom :oNneouxm o>Numuomoou .mm-mNmN muuomoz n.uoNuo»No 0:. :NNx aoNNu waN Ice». cauNgoN: 2N nuoxuox :oNncoNxm Aussou No muuoaoz Nn:::< No momuaalsm NauNumNquw nouusom .cho nuNmN> noNuauuncoaov use: mowsNucN :oNuauNu. mmm.emv nam.e NcN.NeN aa..e- m~m.eoN e~m.nNN Nee.eeN .eoe.N .NaN.v mne.e~ MNe.ce mmmN mne.nmv Nec.a NAN._mN emN.nNn NNN._NN n~c.e~_ mmN.eNN .emm.~ .ewc.v ANN.NN ae~.mn ammN mne.vnn ece.m Ree.neN emn.meN moc.a~N ch.n__ men.eoN .Nmm.N .mNe.m eon.nN NNN.nm emeN ~e_.NNN eNA.v mee.ee_ e~e.m_~ N www.mNN cmo.moN mNN.eNN .N_m .mne aqm.qN wmv.Nn mmeN Nae.ev~ mee.v .mm.oNN aN_.NoN eNc.NoN onv.No mne.NNN .Nce .eev Nem.N_ emN.mN 4mm. Iii-11:11.11] a -- l-Iiil 1111 .3113] 111.! 111’:- III .III. wem.=m_ mee.m m~m.ce_ oNe.~N_ cme.ee moe.me en~.a.. m~m.m an.v mow.NN nmN.Nm mmeN m¢e.m- Nem.e th.ee_ one.c~N eNc.~m nee.NN NmN.em coo.m NNo.e ”No.4N Nae.ne NmmN Nam.moN Neo.v eeo.ec_ eme.cmN vnm.Nm mec.Nm Nma.mo sme.n ova.n onN.nN em~.Ne NmoN oNa.ceN mme.a NeN.VAN Nan.Nm em..eoN noe.mm NNo.ee NAN.m oNN.m NNn.~N evm.cq cmmN mo_.meN Ann.m nec.N_N 4mm.ooN ~m5.em eqa.~n No~.Nm NNN.N NAN.» noe.mN evq.Nn e~aN I]: .|-.] L iii-i] -L .11.!!! I11] nueN.eex eNe: aueNaeez eaeNNeex =e.=eNt.m_= ee....n aNNeo nNNeo aNNnN> ueNnNN soaNmN> eaNaN> :oanoNxa :cNNaNNn:OIo= :oNuaan acNNoNNan nNoNuoN ozozaoNoh ooNuuo ole: one: album luau Nozuc N< -=olo: N< aceuouuNa unououuN: eucaN.:u:< g 02.25.32 II.I||I1.- I71: Ii: |-l‘« .I. I! llllll .. 1 TI .IIIIIu-c.lah I]: .III III-Ilullull.L Nun-2.: .2323. c3283... :25; .No «IE—oz NEE—2 .No 93.2....le NaoNNv-NNnNm m x 52.??? APPENDIX E 4-H Enrollments in Michigan, 1929-38 Year Total Enrollment 1929 24,174 1930 25,884 1931 31,037 1932 31,150 1933 30,198 1934 30,062 1935 35,362 1936 41,131 1937 46,329 1938 43,873 Source: ”Reports of the Division of Extension Work,” published in the Annual Reports of the Secretary of the State Board of Agriculture of the State of Michigan 1929-38. 156 BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Primary Sources Interviews Hennink, Benjamin. Organizer of the Junior Farm Bureau in Michigan and former 4-H Club Leader, Okemos, Michigan. Interview, July 1977. Hill, E. B. Former County Agent and Chairman of the Farm Management Department, East Lansing, Michigan. Interview, September 1977. Lyons, Barrett. Former Cheboygan County FERA Administrator, East Lans— ing, Michigan. Interview, November 1977. McIntyre, George. Former Cass County Agent and Director, COOperative Extension Service, East Lansing, Michigan. Interview, September 1977. Nickle, Olga Byrd. Former 4-H Club Leader in the Upper Peninsula, East Lansing, Michigan. Interview, November 1977. Ousterhout, Kenneth. Former Antrim County Agent, East Lansing, Michi- gan. Interview, September 1977. Ulrey, Orion. Associate Professor Emeritus, Department of Agricultural Economics, East Lansing, Michigan. Interview, July 1979. Woodward, Mary. Former Secretary to the Director of the Extension Ser- vice and 4-H Club Specialist, East Lansing, Michigan. Interview, September 1979. Michigan State College Records and Archival Sources ”Annual Reports of County Agricultural Agents in Berrien, Cass, Charle— voix, Cheboygan, Chippewa, Huron, Ingham, Kent, Lenawee and Wayne Counties." Cooperative Extension Service Collection 16.34. Michigan State University Archives and Historical Collections. East Lansing, Michigan, 1929 through 1938. (Typewritten.) 157 158 Annual Reports of Extension Projects in Farm Management, Agricultural Economics, 4-H, Home Demonstration, Clothing and Textiles, Foods and Nutrition, Child Care and Home Management. Cooperative Ex- tension Service Collection 16.34. Michigan State University Ar- chives and Historical Collections. East Lansing, Michigan, 1929 through 1938. (Typewritten.) Annual Report of 4-H County Agents primarily in Chippewa, Ingham, Kent, and Wayne Counties. Cooperative Extension Service Collection 16.34. Michigan State University Archives and Historical Collec- tions. East Lansing, Michigan, 1929 through 1938. (Typewritten.) Annual Reports of Home Economics County Agents primarily in Ingham, Kent and Wayne Counties. Cooperative Extension Service Collection 16.34. Michigan State University Archives and Historical Collec- tions. East Lansing, Michigan, 1929 through 1938. (Typewritten.) Baldwin, R. J. ”Report of the Division of Extension Work." Annual Re- port of the Secretary of the State Board of Agriculture and Experi- ment Station. East Lansing: Michigan State College, Annual Re- ports 1929 through 1939. Ballard, C. V.; Carr, R. G.; and Wells, J. G. "Report of State Super- visors of County Agricultural Agents.” Cooperative Extension Ser- vice Collection 16.34. Michigan State University Archives and Historical Collections. East Lansing, Michigan. Annual Reports 1929 through 1938. (Typewritten.) Correspondence of Cooperative Extension Service Personnel in Michigan. Cooperative Extension Service Collection 16.34. Michigan State University Archives and Historical Collections. East Lansing, Michigan, 1929 through 1938. (Typewritten.) Michigan Statistical Summaries of Annual Reports of County Extension Workers (form 285). Cooperative Extension Service Collection 16.34. Michigan State University Archives and Historical Collec- tions. East Lansing, Michigan. 1929 through 1939. (Typewritten.) Public Documents U.S. Congress. House. An Act to Provide for Cooperative Agricultural Extension Work Between the Agricultural Colleges in the Several States Receiving the Benefits of an Act of Congress Approved July Second, Eighteen Hundred and Sixty-two, and of Acts Supplementary Thereto and the United States Department of Agriculture. H.R. 7951, 63rd Congress, 2nd session, 1914. 159 Unpublished Reports State Emergency Welfare Relief Commission. Michigan Rural Relief and Rehabilitation Plan, Revised, January 1935. Cooperative Extension Service Collection 16.34, Michigan State University Archives and Historical Collections, East Lansing, Michigan. (Typewritten.) Secondary Sources Books American Association of University Professors, Committee Y. Depres— sion, Recovery and Higher Education. Draft prepared by Malcolm M. Willey. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1937. Anderson, Marvin A., and Vines, C. Austin, ed. Heritage Horizons: Extension's Commitment to PeOple. Madison, Wisconsin: Exten- sion Journal, Inc., 1976. Armstrong, Louise V. We Too Are The People. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1938. Bailey, Joseph Cannon. Seaman A. Knapp; Schoolmaster of American Agriculture. New York: Columbia University Press, 1945. Baker, Gladys. The County Agent. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1939. Benedict, Murray R. Farm Policies of the United States, 1790-1950. New York: The Twentieth Century Fund, 1953. Bliss, R. K.; Gallup, G.; Reese, N. J.; Schruben, L. M.; Symons, T. B.; and Wilson, M. L., eds. The Spirit and Philosophy of Extension Work, as Recorded in Significant Extension Papers. Washington: Graduate School, United States Department of Agri- culture, and the Epsilon Sigma Phi, National Honorary Extension Fraternity, 1952. Brody, Clark L. In the Service of the Farmer, My Life in the Michigan Farm Bupeau. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University Press, 1959. l—é 160 Bruner, David, and Conklin, Paul K. A History of Recent America. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Company, 1974. Dunbar, Willis Frederick. Michigan: A History of the Wolverine State. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1965. Haber, William, and Stanchfield, Paul L. Unemployment and Relief in Michigan, First Report of the State Emergency Welfare Relief Commission. Lansing, Michigan, January 1935. Haber, William, and Stanchfield, Paul L. Unemployment, Relief and Economic Security, Second Report of the State Emergency Welfare Relief Commission. Lansing, Michigan, March, 1936. Kelsey, Lincoln David, with the collaboration of Hearne, Cannon Chiles. Cooperative Extension Work. 3rd ed. Ithaca, New York: Comstock Publishing Associates, 1963. Kile, Orville Merton. The Farm Bureau Through Three Decades. Balti- more: The Waverly Press, 1948. Kuhn, Madison. Michigan State, The First Hundred Years. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University Press, 1955. Leuchtenburg, William E. Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal, 1932- 1940. New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1963; Harper Torch- books, 1963. Michigan State Administrative Board. Michigan, A Guide to the Wolver- ine State. American Guide Series. New York: Oxford University Press, 1941. Schlebecker, John T. Whereby We Thrive; A History of American Farm- ing, 1607-1972. Ames, Iowa: The Iowa State University Press, 1975. Stadtfeld, Curtis K. From the Land and Back; What Life Was Like on a Family Farm and How Technology Changed It. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1972. Verway, David I. (editor), Michigan Statistical Abstract. East Lans- ing: Division of Research, Graduate School of Business Administra- tion, Michigan State University (twelve editions). Wecter, Dixon. The Age of the Great Depression, 1929—1941. .New York: The Macmillan Company, 1948; reprint ed., Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1971. 161 Bulletins Hill, E. 8. Types of Farming in Michigan. Michigan Special Bulletin 206. (Revised) June 1939. Joy, Barnard. "25 Years of 4-H Club Work, Analysis of Statistical Trends.” Cooperative Extension Work in Agriculture and Home Economics, Extension Service Circular 312, 1939. Michigan Cooperative Extension Service. "Adjustments to Meet Present and Prospective Economic Conditions." Extension Bulletin 122, February. Michigan Cooperative Extension Service. "Did Efficiency Abate the Surplus." Extension Service Review, Vol. 2, No. 7, circa 1931. Michigan Cooperative Extension Service. “History of Cooperative Ex- tension Work in Michigan, 1914-1939.” Extension Bulletin 229, June 1941. Dissertations Axinn, George Harold. "The Relationship of Personnel Selection and Salary Administration to Organizational Effectiveness in the Co- operative Extension Service in Michigan." Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin, 1957. Government Publications Davis, Chester C. ”One Year of the AAA: The Record Reviewed." United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Adjustment Admini- stration. Washington, D.C., June 1934. First Annual Report of the Farm Credit Administration 1933. Washing- ton, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1934. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Adjustment Administration, Agricultural Adjustment 1933-35, A Report of Administration of the Agricultural Adjustment Act May 12, 1933, to December 1, 1935. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1936. 162 The United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Adjustment Administration. ”The AAA--What Is It,” August 1940, p. 4. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Historical Statis- tics of the United States: Colonial Times to 1970. Part 1. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Fifteenth Census of the United States, 1930. Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Sixteenth Census of the United States, 1940. Washington, D.C- U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Sixth Census of Agriculture, The United States 1940. Washington, D.C.: Govern- ment Printing Office, 1941. Newspapers ”About This Tax Business.” Tuscola County Advertizer, circa 1932. ”Enrollments Show Farm Improvement.” The Grand Rapids Press, 2 Decem- ber 1936, p. 18. “The Court's Ruling.” The Michigan Farmer, 16 January 1936, p. 38-6. ”Farm Act Goes Into Action.” The Michigan Farmer, 27 May 1933, p. 190-6. ”The Late AAA." The Michigan Farmer, 29 February 1936, p. 7-127. "The New Farm Program.” The Michigan Farmer, 14 March 1936, p. 154-6. ”Still Going Ahead." The Michigan Farmer, 13 May 1933, p. 170-6. HICHI WI 3 IES llmlm»