Approximately 760,000 families in 1,565 counties on the "direct distribution of surplus commodities for needy families program" were provided assistance on how to use the surplus commodities received.

A recent report also indicated that the Cooperative Extension Service-primarily home economists-has trained over 9,000 nonprofessional aides for other agencies to work with low-income families. During this same period of timeJuly 1965 to October 1966-there were 745 paid nonprofessional aides trained and supervised by the Cooperative Extension Services to assist low-income families.

A 1965 study revealed that nearly 700,000 or 35 percent of the 4-H membership was from families with less than $3,000 income. Nearly 39 percent of Extension 4-H staff time was spent on work with youth from low-income families.

During the past two summers, the Cooperative Extension Service has employed or supervised 6,721 youths in the Neighborhood Youth Corps and College Work Study programs.

A national training seminar has been held for State 4-H leaders and other State Extension staff members to further mobilize and focus Extension staff efforts in 4-H work with low-income youth. Many States planned similar seminars for a broader segment of their State and county Extension workers and, in some cases, for volunteer leaders. A report of this seminar on "Expanding 4-H Opportunities for Rural Disadvantaged and Urban Youth" is attached.

The Federal Extension Service has worked with State Cooperative Extension Services in the conduct of special 4-H and youth demonstration programs designed for developing more specific programs to meet the needs of youth from low-income families and communities. A preliminary report of one such program is explained in the attached report "Reaching the Unreached."

Educational guidance by Extension Services was given to Indian Tribal Councils in 11 States to organize and carry out NYC projects, giving employment and educational training to more than 6,000 Indian boys and girls. This is but one phase of Cooperative Extension work with Indian families, most of whom are in the low-income category.

The State Cooperative Extension Services are spending approximately 22 percent of their time with rural farm families with incomes less than $3,000 in helping them develop improved agriculture practices, management and marketing.

Beginning with the passage of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, the State Cooperative Extension Services, with the help of the Federal Extension Service, launched a massive educational effort to inform rural people of the provisions of the Act and to help organize Community Action agencies and programs.

The Extension Services helped organize some 781 Community Action agencies, some of which were later combined into multi-county organizations.

The Extension Service workers helped design and implement component CAP projects and are currently assisting with some 1,740 such projects.

The Cooperative Extension Service, in the past 6 months, has assisted in the development of 941 MDTA and other job training programs involving some 28,552 participants.

Beginning in 1962, the State Cooperative Extension Services stepped up their work in community development by organizing about 2,200 countywide citizen community groups concerned with carrying out rural development programs. During this same period of time, the Cooperative Extension Service has worked with existing development groups and organizations concerned with the development of rural areas.

The Cooperative Extension Service is now working with these and other committees on the broad range of development programs and projects, ranging from job training and job development, housing, health, education, recreation, industrial development, providing essential community services and facilities to entire community or areawide resource development programs. Many State Extension Services are now working with State, county, and local governments in developing planning organizations. Recent reports indicate more than 1,000 county governments are being assisted by Extension in their planning effort, especially in the "701" funding arrangements. (See enclosures from Illinois and Ohio.)

The Federal Extension Service has provided the State Cooperative Extension Services and other agencies with fact sheets on new Federal programs enacted

during the past two to three years. Over 25,000 copies of the enclosed kit of a fact sheets, explaining some 49 different new Federal programs, have been provided to the State Extension Services and other agencies. The Office of Economic Opportunity purchased 7,500 of these for use of their Community Action Agency personnel.

We are enclosing statements from New York, Ohio, Illinois, and Arkansas that will give some further indication of the involvement of the State Cooperative Extension Services in rural development programs, including work with low-income families.

If I can provide you with additional information, please contact me.

Sincerely yours,

N. P. RALSTON, Deputy Administrator.

COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE, COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE, URBANA, ILLINOIS

ILLINOIS AREA RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT

E. C. Mosser report on south-central Illinois

Serveral counties in south-central Illinois are moving ahead in comprehensive planning. In this issue Emil Mosser, Cooperative Extension Area Adviser in Resource Development, reports on some of the latest developments in his extension district. One of the occomplishments he describes in some detail is the establishment of the Calhoun County medical center.

Emil holds a B.S. Degree in Agriculture from the University of Illinois and a M.S. Degree from Southern Illinois University in Agricultural Industries. He became an area adviser in 1961. His previous experience included that of farm manager for a canning company in northern Illinois, assistant farm adviser in Iroquois County, and farm adviser in White County. Mosser is located at Effingham and divides his time between farm management and resource development activities in his district.

COUNTY PLANNING

Counties in south-central Illinois are taking a new look at comprehensive planning. Many local leaders are requesting that an overall county plan be prepared to assure a coordinated development program that will make full use of the resources of the county or region to accomplish common goals at an economical cost.

In addition, for county and local governments to be eligible for some federal loans, grants, and aids, the county must have or be in the process of preparing a county or regional comprehensive plan. Some recent developments in southcentral Illinois indicate that many local citizens are or soon will be involved in the local planning process.

Report of county planning progress

The Effingham County Board of Supervisors passed a resolution in September, 1966, establishing a county planning commission. The chairman of the Board appointed 12 citizens who will serve without salary to the commission, in addition to the 4 ex-officio members: county farm adviser, superintendent of highways, superintendent of schools, and chairman of the Board of Supervisors. The resolution passed by the Effingham County Board was prepared by John A. Quinn, University of Illinois, and was approved by the State's attorney. This resolution is similar to the one prepared by Mr. Quinn and approved by the Stephenson County Board of Supervisors in May of 1966.

In their March meetings, the Clay County Board of Supervisors approved the proposed contract with a planning consultant firm to provide professional services in the preparation of a general plan for Clay County. Flora, Clay City, Louisville, Xenia, the Clay County Housing Authority, and the county will share the cost of the plan.

The Monroe County Planning Commission is now awaiting approval by the County Board of Commissioners of the subdivision regulations of unincorporated areas and the appointment of the zoning commission. The consulting firm made specific recommendations to the Monroe County Planning Commission on March 9, 1967, concerning steps they should take for future, orderly develop

ment of the county. A planning firm is now working on the recommended final zoning plan. The Planning Commission will probably start township hearings this fall.

John Quinn met with the Jasper County Board of Supervisors and local leaders early this spring to exlain county planning procedures. In their March meeting, the County Board discussed the possibility of developing a comprehensive county plan. The board asked the State's attorney to prepare a resolution dealing with the creation of a planning commission, providing for appointment of its members and organization and defining its powers and duties. At their last meeting, the County Board voted to establish a county planning commission. The Calhoun County Board of Commissioners has appointed a planning commission. The commission has interviewed consultant firms and has entered into an agreement with a planing firm. Application for "701" funds are now being made.

The Marshall Chamber of Commerce was host to a countywide meeting for Clark County to discuss county planning on March 29. John Quinn and representatives of the Illinois Department of Business and Economic Development discussed various aspects of comprehensive planning with the group.

David Morris, Division of State and Local Planning, Herrin, Illinios, met with the Crawford County Board of Supervisors in March to discuss county planning. Fayette County has retained a planning firm to make a detailed study of resources of their county. An application for "701" funds is now being prepared. Sharing the cost with the county will be the various towns and villages within the county.

The Cumberland County Board of Supervisors has appointed a committee to study the possibility of the county appointing a county planning commission. The farm adviser has given several talks to local groups on comprehensive planning. The Jersey County Board of Supervisors also has a committee appointed to investigate the advisability of having a county planning commission. The farm adviser there has developed a slide set showing scenes in the county, along with information on county planning and the advantages and disadvantages of zoning. Macoupi and Montgomery counties are in the process of preparing comprehensive county plans. Both counties have entered into agreements with a consulting firm.

Christian, Macon, Madison, Moultrie, Piatt, and Shelby counties have completed work on both a comprehensive plan and countywide zoning.

The county planning procedure

The organization of a planning commission is initiated by the county board of supervisors. To legally establish a planning commission, they must pass a a resolution of record. The chairman of the board then appoints, with the approval of the entire board, members to the planning commission. Usually, 7 to 12 members are appointed. Ex-officio members may also be included.

The planning commission then organizes and elects officers and draws up bylaws. This is usually followed by meeting with John Quinn, University of Illinois. or a representative of the Division of State and Local Planning, Department of Business and Economic Development, to discuss planning problems and financing. Most counties are taking advantage of planning grants made under Section 701 of the Housing Act of 1954, as amended. Under the "701" program, it is possible for eligible counties to receive up to two-thirds of the technical planning assistance cost.

Once the planning commission has outlined its goals and has decided to proceed with the study, appointments are made to interview planning firms. Usually, three firms are interviewed. The planning commission then decides what firm would best meet its needs and makes recommendations to the county board of supervisors. If the county decides to use "701" funds, the consulting firm and the Department of Business and Economic Development prepare the application for a grant. It is important to note that the county has not spent any money and may drop out at any time, up to this point. No county money is needed until the application is approved.

The consulting firm begins its work as soon as the application is approved. It usually takes them at least 18 months to complete the work. The firm reports regularly to the planning commission, giving its recommendations and alternatives. The local lay leaders on the commission can accept the report or the alternative, or give other alternatives. The planning commission usually has subcommittees to work with the consulting firm. These might include a basic data committee, land use committee, a public facilities committee, and others.

Following completion of the study by the consulting firm, they submit a final report to the commission. Reports should include (a) population and economic information, (b) land use, (c) community facilities, (d) preliminary plans, and (e) final plans, including recommended zoning and subdivision standards. The county planning commission the studies the report and makes recommendations to the county board of supervisors. The county board may approved, disapprove, or approve with amendments to the report. The approval of the report does not set up regulatoins or establish county zoning or subdivision ordinances. This step merely establishes guidelines for future developments within the county or region.

John A. Quinn, Assistant Professor of Community Planning, Department of Agricultural Economics and Bureau of Community Planning, University of Illinois, will meet with county planning commissioners or boards of supervisors to discuss county or regional planning. He may be contacted through the county farm adviser.

WATER-SYSTEM LOAN APPROVED FOR MACOUPIN AND SANGAMON COUNTIES

The Farmers Home Administration has approved a $2,770,000 loan to six communities in Macoupin and Sangamon Counties to develop a water system capable of relieving the low water pressure in the area and to eliminate the serious water shortages that have occurred in recent years. The loan is the largest of its type

ever.

COMMUNITY AND RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT COOPERATIVE EXTENSION, NEW YORK

STATE

Rural development in the urbanizing Northeast has special characteristics and issues. In the Northeastern U.S. is an urban complex containing 43 percent of the nation's population. It stretches from west of Chicago east to Boston and south to Richmond.

Farming is big in this region, but so are its problems. In this richest market, farmers are both thriving and threatened. Here are found all the perplexities of keeping a strong agriculture in the face of urbanization's many pressures. New York is the core of this complex. The State is highly urbanized, yet our agricultural industry is a $3.5-billion-a-year enterprise. We rank 13th in the value of farm products.

The College and Extension have an obligation to protect this productivity. . . to increase it if possible. We must discover all we can about how agriculture can remain a viable part of this complex. . . how the land can be used to everyone's benefit.

We must work with other agencies of State and federal government (such as Farmers Home Administration; Soil Conservation Service; ASCS; HUD; HEW; Labor; etc. of federal and comparable departments of State government). This is a united effort to help rural people in this urbanizing complex participate more fully in the educational, health, job training, welfare, and others-by any standard rural people do not share as fully as do urban people in Federal and State programs that could be of benefit to them. There is need for improving the "Outreach" to rural people.

These are the objectives of what we call the Mid-New York Project in a fivecounty area surrounding metropolitan Syracuse financed by FES-USDA as a special project. The area has the urban vigor and the rich agriculture typical of much of the Northeast.

This experimental project is designed to use research and education to improve public decision-making and to find the answers to rural-urban conflicts in the countryside to help rural areas bridge the rural gap.

For instance, how can the conflicts between farmer and his nonfarming neighbors be resolved? How can farmers continue to spray and dust crops, operate machinery, spread manure or use large amounts of water without irritating neighbors, or actually endangering their health?

The stakes in this effort are large, and a critical proving ground will be the agriculturally rich Cortland Valley south of Syracuse. Farming here has already been restricted by the unwise routing of Interstate 81 which destroyed some of the best land. More trouble could be ahead for farming if urbanization continues to creep into the valley.

But there is an alternative. The project should help in the community decisions which would direct growth away from good farmland toward land equally suitable for urban uses to the north and west where farming is not strong.

Success in this and in other growing areas can mean new continuing investments in the farm plant . . . the kind New York needs to keep a competitve agriculture. Investments like this make good rural communities and create infinite nonfarm jobs.

There are answers to agriculture's problems in urban New York. We hope to find them in the Mid-New York Project by acting as teacher, interpreter, demonstrater and organizer. Most important, we hope to help people and communities throughout the State to act to build healthy, balanced economies and, in the process, to use resources better. Thus this project is directed to the decision makers-both public and private-to help them shape a planned and better community for all the people.

Time was when the lines between rural and urban, farmers and nonfarmers, were comfortably fixed and unvarying. The city's sphere of influence was well defined. When urban limits did move toward the countryside, they usually advanced slowly and in a fairly methodical fashion. Their inroads into farm lands were seldom spectacular nor particularly disturbing in agriculture's uncontested domain. The knowledge of rural and urban people of each other's environments was likely to be gained by occasional vacation excursions into the country and in marketing or shopping forays to the city.

Farmers who succeed in building thriving businesses and have every promise of sharing in the future might seem to have solved most of their problems. Perhaps so-in a simpler time.

But the farmer is no longer alone in the rural areas; his neighbors are not necessarily other farmers who share the same interests and desires. The adjoining farm may no longer even be a farm. The same fields that once supported crops now sprout homes. Where a barn once stood, a shopping center spreads its pavement over acres. The families shopping there clog the old road with new traffic. More important to the farmer, they don't like dust; every morning noise disturbs them and farm smells are unwelcome in the patio.

Clearly, here are possible conflicts; someone must adjust. The farmer was there first. Then can't we assume that the newcomers must do the adjusting? We can't. The newcomers can, and have, in many instances forced farmers out, forced them to install expensive abatement equipment, or to alter radically their operations.

The problems of environmental pollution, rural and urban, are one of the major issues of the times. An advisory group to President Johnson called pollution of all kinds one of the most pervasive problems in our society. As such, it will require concerted efforts in rural areas to find solutions acceptable to both farmers and the new rural residents. Pollution is one problem in a complex web of issues and problems created by the changing nature of the rural areas.

Before the trends that were to blur urban-rural distinctions were many years old, the very real problems of land management and use, disorderly development, friction and even conflict that are with us today arose. Rural people, inexperienced with urban growth, were and still are, unprepared for the sometimes helter-skelter patterns of development created by the urban wedges driving deep into the countryside. Fresh from the city, the new residents also found to their consternation that serenity and the good life did not come guaranteed with a bucolic setting. Mushrooming growth soon, pushed taxes higher than they had expected. Open spaces the family had intended to use for recreation soon sprouted other homes built by families who had planned to do the same thing. Odors wafted from the nearby barnyard or poultry house to the living room windows soon resulted in acrimony and zoning quarrels where neighbor accused neighbor, and of concern to all of us, rural people are too often short changed in human development-schooling, health and welfare measures are not as effective as in urban

settings.

The conflicts and incompatibilities created by urban expansion will prove to be some of the most stubborn problems agriculture will have to face. Urban demands for more huge slices of land are only some of the many perplexities. Taxes and zoning are others. Prohibitive taxes and restrictive zoning regulations are very real problems threatening, in some cases, and in some areas, farming's existence.

Agricultural interests will have to participate more aggressively in local government if they are to speak with a strong voice in an urbanizing society. They