Pilot Rural Development Program
Pilot rural development counties were not chosen directly by USDA. To do so would have violated a basic premise of Morse's self-help philosophy. Rather, State agricultural colleges were given general eligibility criteria (e.g., counties where half of the farmers earned less than $2,500 in cash income) and were asked to nominate counties after securing the consent of the local political leadership.
By the beginning of 1957, 57 counties had been selected.20 This number slowly expanded until 200 counties were participating in the program by the end of 1960. All of them were located in the regions pinpointed by the Human Resources report. None came from the Great Plains or Midwest where the incidence of rural poverty was lower. Even though low income was a criterion for involvement, Doherty wanted to avoid use of the term because he feared it would discourage potential participants who did not want to be stigmatized by the label. He suggested that instead "as much as possible, we should use such terms as Rural Development Program, community development, cooperative local efforts, family-type farm, successful part-time farming, small farmers, farm progress, etc." This advice was usually followed during the next 5 years but it was impossible to totally expunge the term, especially from research publications.21
In the 1950s rural development basically consisted of extension workers helping community leaders to organize state and county rural development committees which then explored ways of improving social and economic conditions. Meanwhile, the Washington office of USDA provided moral support with a steady stream of "how-to" and success-story pamphlets.
At the end of 1956, Don Paarlberg summarized the status of the program at that point before the American Farm Economic Association. After describing conditions in rural America and the self-help philosophy underlying the program, he noted that of the 24 States participating in the program at least 20 of them had formed committees to provide statewide direction. These committees differed in their makeup but that "in all cases, nonagricultural agencies working in the State are represented, either as full or participating members." Paarlberg cited the case of North Carolina where the State welfare and health agencies, industrial education, and small industrial commissions all had a part in the work of the rural development committee. Perhaps most encouraging of all for the future of rural development was that in "some instances the first meeting of the rural development committee was also the occasion for the first meeting between representatives of one agency and another."22
By early 1957, farm economists outside USDA were beginning to take notice of the program. Writing in the May 1957 issue of the Journal of Farm Economics, University of Wisconsin professor Raymond J. Penn made several interesting observations. He noted that rural development had previously been limited to low-income areas, but that this restricted focus "prevents activities in many regions where substantial progress might result from small effort. . . And it cannot even be limited to ‘rural’ areas, since the program once underway must also include urban people." He pointed out that since the program had been assigned to the Extension Service it was primarily an educational and planning effort and was short on "action". Penn concluded that:
"The rural development program is based on some very good ideas. It is facing some serious difficulties. It has possibilities of becoming a strategic part of a most important economic development program for the whole economy, not simply rural areas."23
In February 1957, a special report written by Doherty summarized the early accomplishments of the program. For the most part it consisted of anecdotal accounts of local success stories. The following account is typical of those appearing in this and similar publications:
"Leaders in Tippah County, Mississippi, in the southeastern hilly area of the Nation, are doing something about the serious economic problems they face. . .
"In mid-November 1955 Tippah's people formed a rural development committee, which is representative of farm, business, civic, youth, and government interests in the area. . .
". . .A small clothing factory, employing 250 people, has already located in the county in a building remodeled by local people. Money raised by subscription from businessmen and the more prosperous farmers has financed a milk receiving plant, which will not only employ county workers but also provide a new market for dairy farmers. . .
"Farm and home unit planning has also received new encouragement through the work of the rural development committee. Early in the program, a special two-day meeting of State and local representatives of the Extension Service, Soil Conservation Service [SCS], and the Farmers Home Administration developed a unified farm and home plan acceptable to each of them which will be used in educational work with small farmers.
"Three Extension Service employees are working half their time on Rural Development Program projects, and one technician has also been added to the county SCS staff. These and other agency representatives are helping the rural development committee put its own program on a firm base and move into coordinated, countywide economic improvement."24
As this report indicates, other USDA agencies were also involved in rural development, although the Extension Service was the lead agency throughout the 1950s. For instance, in 1956 the Soil Conservation Service contributed more than 12,000 man-hours of time to conservation work in pilot counties. According to Doherty's report, the FmHA had opened full- or part-time lending offices in 8 pilot counties where offices had not been previously located and a total of 23 employees had been hired for pilot areas or had been transferred to them. Doherty also claimed that many county rural development committees included members of the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service and that in some places they had increased cost-sharing payments for certain practices to encourage conservation improvement in the program.
The rural development program was of particular interest in West Virginia where farm incomes were generally very low. In May 1957, J.O. Knapp, Director of State Extension at West Virginia University, had great hopes that the program could improve conditions in his state.
Lewis County was picked as the first pilot county in West Virginia using the following criteria: (1) that a majority of the county's population live on farms and depend on farming for the major part of their income; (2) that there be some potential in the quality of soil and topography for the improvement of farm income; (3) that the people of the county be willing and interested in participating in the program; (4) that marketing facilities be available; (5) that opportunities be available for vocational training; (6) that there exist the possibility of some financial support from local sources.
A county meeting was held at which "all segments of the county population were represented." A 15-member county committee was formed and this committee in turn decided to form sub-committees to study: (1) labor, (2) industry, (3) farm marketing, (4) education, (5) transportation and communication, (6) water resources, (7) land use, (8) health and recreation, (9) credit and loans, (10) public assistance, (11) public facilities, (12) natural resources, and (13) publicity and promotion.
The associate county agent coordinated activities between the committees. According to Knapp, all government organizations within the county were cooperating to the maximum degree but served only in an advisory capacity on committees and did not have voting powers. This, of course, was consistent with the philosophy of the program and was standard operating procedure for federal agencies in all of the pilot counties.
Knapp then listed six preliminary accomplishments of the Lewis County program and concluded his report with high hopes for the future.
"There have been other results both tangible and intangible. Most important, however, is the fact that the county committees spent much time determining resources and goals. They planned well. Now, these committees can move forward on a broad front with some assurance of success. You can only create additional problems by hasty actions."25
Price County, WI was one of the most ambitious success stories for the Extension Service in the early history of the pilot program. In late 1955 a development committee and several working committees began planning, led by the county Extension staff and including farm and village residents, as well as those from most of the towns. Rural sociologists, agricultural economists, foresters, and others from the University of Wisconsin contributed their efforts, using an intensive educational program to stimulate community leadership, small businesses, and the tourist industry. The 2-year project “set the pattern for total involvement, with all county agents and personnel working toward the goal of overall community improvement and progress.”26
A Committee for Rural Development Program was formed in 1957 and included the undersecretaries from the departments of Agriculture, Interior, Commerce, Labor, Health Education and Welfare, the Administrator of the Small Business Administration, and a member of the Council on Economic Advisors. (There had been some cooperation among departments since 1956.) In 1958, this committee (and others) participated in a conference on rural development held in Memphis, TN. Many of the presentations were devoted to the potential benefits of tourism for rural areas, apparently the first time that tourism was accorded such an important potential role in rural development. The growing awareness of tourism stemmed from the impact of federal interstate highway construction on rural areas.27 In fact, looking back on this period, Joseph Doherty believes that the new interstates, begun in 1956 after the passage of the Federal Aid Highway Act, had the largest impact of any program on rural areas.28 Not only did they allow more people to visit rural areas but they also made it more attractive to locate industry in rural areas near cities. What was probably not noticed at the time was that Federal highways further marginalized many other rural areas that were outside their orbit of influence.
The conference identified seven important trends in rural America society: (1) rural standards of living were improving and rural/urban differences were diminishing; (2) rural education was improving; (3) there were fewer and larger commercial farms; (4) farming was becoming more specialized; (5) there was more part-time farming combined with part-time nonfarm work; (6) there were more nonfarm residents in rural areas; and (7) city dwellers were making greater use of rural areas for recreation. Given this rather optimistic assessment of trends in many of the more prosperous rural areas, the participants agreed that the rural development program should continue to focus on low-income counties.
In 1959, President Eisenhower issued an executive order formalizing the Committee for Rural Development Programs. True D. Morse called this order the "most important event" since the creation of the program in 1955.29 By this time Morse, who had a passionate attachment to rural development, was becoming frustrated by the lack of attention it was receiving, both from within USDA and from the media. In retrospect, it appears that the executive order did not accomplish much, but at the time it must have a given a boost to Morse's flagging enthusiasm.
Actually, there had been a few articles about the program since 1956. Most of these had appeared in rural newspapers. In February 1959, the National Planning Association took notice of the program and issued a report that looked favorably on the idea and Morse's commitment to it but faulted it for "having failed to see the magnitude of the situation."30 According to the Association, the program's leaders had become victims of their propaganda. A few new factories and projects here and there were fine but insignificant given the extent of the problem. "Valuable though such local projects may be in their own right, they might be multiplied many fold without making more than a small dent in the huge problem at hand." A few months later, the Christian Science Monitor published a generally favorable article with the headline "Operation Bootstrap", which Morse disliked because it ignored the Federal Government's role. After reporting that the program had stimulated some preliminary activity and had increased awareness of the problem, the paper cited the National Planning Association’s earlier criticism and concluded that:
"The answer as to whether the Rural Development Program in its present form offers the nucleus of the long-needed solution awaits the further test of time and experience. But even its most vocal critics are likely to concede that this program represents the first organized, fruitful effort to devise long-range, widely applicable solutions for one of the nation's most heart-stirring problems."31
Pilot Program Winds Down
In October 1960, several USDA staff members concurred with these outside evaluations, in a paper presented at the Regional Rural Development Workshop at the University of Nebraska. The paper summarized the current state of knowledge concerning rural America, and its conclusions were less optimistic than those presented at the Memphis conference 2 years earlier. Although they did not refer directly to the Rural Development Program, their observations certainly could have been interpreted as recommendations for future action.
They noted that the proportion of nonfarm income for farmers in low-income areas was surprisingly high, which supported the view that a "broader approach to the solution of the lowincome problem than on-farm adjustments is necessary."
Many of these areas were poor because natural resource industries such as coal and timber had declined, forcing communities to depend more on marginal agriculture production.
Since much of the problem of low-income areas had its origins outside of agriculture, much of the solution would have to come from other sectors of the economy. Looking ahead 15 years, they predicted that agriculture would require one-third less man-hours of labor or 2 million fewer workers. One of the biggest problems was that younger and better educated people were emigrating from rural areas, leaving behind older and very young people, who contributed less to the local economy. Their use of adjectives such as "drastic" to describe changes in rural America underscored the seriousness with which they viewed the situation. They noted that smaller trade and service centers were being supplanted by more remote and larger centers, which in turn affected governmental functions, utilities, hospitals, schools, and other local institutions. In other words, these economists were implying that the scope of rural development had to be expanded beyond low-income areas. Their final remarks pointed the way to the future of rural development policy.
"The problems of our farm people in rural areas are closely linked to those of nonfarm people. We cannot expect satisfactory separate solutions of their problems. [The] Solution will require a broader look at problems and closer working relationships among the people involved and among agencies of government concerned with programs of alleviation."32
Some insiders thought the program had run out of steam and might disappear altogether when the new Kennedy administration took over. In October 1960, Joseph Doherty wrote to program coordinator Garland Marshall that the pilot concept was inadequate. What was needed were State and multi-county committees instead of "the approach to the program in the various states (which) is so varied and lacking in overall direction that in too many cases program goals and intentions set forth by the Committee are obscured, if not lost altogether."33
However, looking back at the program from the perspective of 30 years of subsequent history, Doherty's assessment of Morse's achievement is much more positive. Because Morse's work was often criticized by his Democratic successors as being little more than a "smokescreen" for Republican agricultural policies, it is worth quoting Doherty's reminiscences at some length.
"True Morse never believed the "pilot" RDP, which got started around about ’55 or ’56 after Congressman Whitten grudgingly allowed a little money for Extension, was the real essence of the program, even on a start up basis. He believed the idea of local leaders getting together, assessing their community's pluses and minuses, and putting together a plan for longterm economic-social improvement had universal applicability in poor, backward, marginal, etc. farming areas. He also believed that if only the USDA public information apparatus could be used aggressively and dynamically, the media and the cause groups would see the light and go forth with the word. He was much more appreciative and pleased with from-the-grassroots programs that had no or little government or university impetus than with those pushed into being by the USDA-State network of professional people, not that he disdained the latter. He simply didn't believe they had to get things started. . .
"The problem with this concept was, of course, that the ‘Inside the Beltway’ media, even in that distant past, didn't believe anything was real unless there was a lot of Federal money and Federal administration involved. . . If I recall, commodity programs were their bread and butter but politics was their real interest, and they were uniformly dubious of the Ike-Benson axis, a dubiousness nurtured and enlarged by many of their professional (i.e. career people) contacts in USDA, . . .
"Among my many duties at the time, was I guess I'd have to put it, doing the impossible, i.e., selling the journalists on the concept of community organization and development. Thanks to State initiatives, this has become a commonplace now throughout the U.S. In 1955 or so, reporters covering the Department simply considered it a joke, a way for the Republicans to throw dust in everyone's eyes while they made deep cuts in farm programs. Through one means or another, we did over the years manage to place objective stories here and there with independent writers or papers. . ., but in general because of the reporters' attitude around USDA, little news or feature stories were ever filed, which pained True deeply since he believed sincerely (if naively) he had some ideas which the world should know about."34
1. USDA History Section Files at the National Agricultural Library, Beltsville, MD. (hereafter referred to as HSF), XV(drawer), RD(folder) 1954-1960, “Doane Agricultural Digest,” 1947. 2. Thomas Hady e-mail to author, 7/23/96. 3. HSF, XV, RD 1954-1960, “Doane Agricultural Digest,” 1947. 4. Oral History Interviews with True D. Morse, 10/9,10/1967, Columbia University Oral History Project, Dwight D. Eisenhower Library, Abilene, KS. 5. HSF, XV, RD 1954-1960, “Doane Agricultural Digest,” 1947. 6. HSF, XV, RD 1961-1968, (2); 1954-1960, (2), “A Tale of Three Cities,” speech by True D. Morse, 6/19/57. 7. Secretary Charles F. Brannan before the Sub-Committee on Low-Income Families of the Joint Committee on the Economic Report, Congress of the United States, 81st Cong., 1st Sess., 12/12-22/49, GPO 1950, pp. 251-289. 8. HSF, XV, RD, Jan. - Dec. 1972, Don F. Hadwiger, “Public Policy Research and the Political Process,” ms. 1972). 9. “Rural Neighborhoods and Communities” in Rural Life in the United States, ed. Carl C. Taylor (New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf, 1950), pp. 55-77. 10. HSF, XV, RD 1954-1960, Secretary Benson speaking before the Fourth Regional Conference on Rural Development, Athens, GA, 9/25/57. 11. Progress in the Rural Development Program - First Annual Report of the Secretary of Agriculture (USDA, 1956), p.2. 12. Letter from Calvin Beale to Donald Nelson, 10/9/80. 13. Development of Agriculture’s Human Resources: A Report on Problems of Low- Income Farmers Prepared for the Secretary of Agriculture (USDA, 1955), p. 2. 14. Development of Agriculture’s Human Resources, p. 17. 15. Interview with Joseph J. Doherty, 6/26/92. 16. HSF, XV, RD 1954-60 (2), Statement of Undersecretary of Agriculture True D. Morse Before the House Sub-Committee on the Department of Agriculture and Related Agencies, Appropriation Bill, 6/21/55. 17. Wayne D. Rasmussen, Taking the University to the People: Seventy-Five Years of Cooperation Extension (Ames, IA: Iowa University Press, 1989), p. 193. 18. Department of Agriculture and Farm Credit Administration Appropriation Bill, 1956, House of Representatives, 85th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 11). 19. Doherty Interview. 20. Annual Report of the Secretary of Agriculture, 1957 (USDA, 1957), p. 61. 21. HSF, XV, RD 1954-60, Joseph Doherty to R. Lyle Webster, 6/20/55. 22. HSF, XV, RD 1954-60, Don Paarlberg, speech before the American Farm Economic Association, 12/28/56. 23. Raymond J. Penn, “Discussion: Status of the National Rural Development Program to Date,” Journal of Farm Economics, Vol. 34, No. 2, May 1957, pp. 278-81. 24. HSF, XV, RD 1954-60, Tippah County, ms., 1957. Federal Rural Development Policy in the Twentieth Century 16 25. HSF, XV, RD 1954-60, J.O. Knapp, “Opportunities in Rural Development,” Conference Report, 5/15/57. 26. Rasmussen, Taking the University to the People, p. 198. 27. Committee for Rural Development Program, “Proceedings of the Conference on the Rural Development Program,” Memphis, TN, 6/16,17/58, USDA, 1958. 28. Doherty Interview. 29. Steven Crane, “Rural Depopulation and the Political Process of Federal Rural Development, 1950-1972,” Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Education, University of Iowa, 1975, p. 102. 30. HSF, XV, RD, 1954-60, National Planning Association, “Rural Low-Income Development Programs in the South.” 31. “Operation Bootstrap,” Christian Science Monitor, 12/16/59. 32. HSF, XV. RD 1961-62, “Guides to Development in Depressed Areas: A Task Force Group Report,” USDA, 5/24/61. 33. HSF, XV, RD 1954-60, Joseph Doherty to Garland D. Marshall, 10/12/60. 34. Joseph Doherty letter to the author, 7/16/92.
