Mills and Cain (1979) studied 
the financial efficiency of the 
1974 Forestry Incentives 
Program using a 9-percent 
sample (1,433) of the 15,849 
assistance cases. Their 
analysis showed that the 
financial returns on the 
investment and the total 
yield increases were high on 
the average. But, as with any 
new program that is broadly 
applied, they noted that 
some segments of the 
program did not provide 
good returns. The 
benefit/cost ratio for the 
whole program using a 
discount rate of 6 3/8 percent 
was 5.6. Of the individual 
cases nationwide, 75 percent 
earned at least that. Southern 
cases did better. The 
weighted average internal 
rate of return was 10.2 
percent. Mills and Cain also 
offered several 
recommendations for 
improving the efficiency of 
the program. 
Cubbage, Skinner, and 
Risbruadt (1985) made an 
economic evaluation of the 
Georgia rural forestry 
assistance program. They 
matched pairs of harvesting 
operations where one 
landowner had received 
assistance from the State’s 
90 
service forester and the other 
had received no assistance. 
Their field crews "cruised" 
harvested areas to determine 
numbers of stumps, trees, 
saplings, and seedlings, and 
_ damage to trees. In the 17 
pairs of stands examined in 
the upper Piedmont of 
Georgia, the differences 
were striking. The personal 
characteristics of the owners 
did not differ greatly between 
groups. Those assisted 
received higher stumpage 
prices: $108 per thousand 
board feet vs. $66 per 
thousand board feet. They 
cut smaller volumes per 
acre: 1,135 cubic feet vs. 
1,485 cubic feet. They had 
greater volumes per acre 
remaining: 810 cubic feet vs. 
226 cubic feet. The present 
net values per acre ata 
4-percent discount rate were 
$1,563 for the assisted 
owners and $940 for the 
owners receiving no 
assistance. The authors 
concluded that the technical 
assistance provided was 
effective in improving forest 
management practices, and 
that it was economically 
efficient. The tax dollars 
attributed to harvesting 
assistance exceed the cost 
of marking the timber to be 
sold but not the entire 
