Sears F. Riepma, candidate for the Ph. D. degree in history at Western Reserve University; and on May 19, Mr. Arthur R. Kooker, who was transferred from his position as regional director in Michigan. Mr. Carl Louis Gregory, special assistant in charge of collections of motion pictures, other photographic records, and sound recordings, resigned on March 16 to accept a position as motion-picture engineer in the Division of Motion Pictures and Sound Recordings in The National Archives, but he continued to devote part of his time to the work of the Survey.

The field organization of the Survey and the regional directors and their assistants remained the same as in the preceding fiscal year, with the following exceptions:

Illinois: Mr. William E. Austin resigned on April 17 as assistant director and no successor was appointed.

Indiana: Mr. William O. Lynch resigned as director on July 15 but continued to serve in an advisory capacity to his assistant, Mr. J. Harley Nichols, who succeeded him.

Iowa, Kansas, and Nebraska: Dr. James L. Sellers, professor of history in the University of Nebraska, succeeded Mr. Francis E. Fitzgerald as director on December 6.

Kentucky and Tennessee: Judge Samuel C. Williams resigned as director on October 31 and no successor was appointed for the region. In Kentucky, Mr. John Wilson Townsend, historian and former State supervisor, became director for the State. In Tennessee, Mr. Lowe Watkins, a member of the Nashville bar and former State supervisor, served as State director until his resignation on May 1. Tennessee was then added to the region made up of Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi under Mr. Stanley C. Arthur, with Mr. John Luton, formerly Mr. Watkins' assistant, as State supervisor.

Michigan: Upon the transfer of Mr. Arthur R. Kooker to the Washington office on May 19, Mr. Frank Murphy, formerly State supervisor, served as acting director until the end of the fiscal year. Minnesota: The work of the Survey being virtually completed by May 31, Mr. Jacob Hodnefield resigned as assistant director to accept a position as State director of the Historical Records Survey.

Missouri: Dr. Walter Krausnick, a member of the faculty of Washington University, succeeded Mr. H. Hadley Grimm on October 19 as assistant director on a part-time basis.

Montana: Dr. Paul C. Phillips, professor of history in the University of Montana and State director of the Historical Records Survey, succeeded Mr. Daniel J. Sullivan as director on December 6.

New Mexico: Mr. Lansing B. Bloom resigned as director on June 6 and the State was added to the region made up of Colorado and Wyoming under Mr. Clifford M. Sublette.

Ohio: Dr. William D. Overman resigned as director on February 15 and was succeeded by his assistant, Mr. William M. Verross.

Oklahoma: Mr. Powell Boyd, graduate student at the University of Oklahoma, succeeded Mr. James W. Moffitt as assistant director on February 15.

Oregon and Washington: Mr. Jesse S. Douglas resigned as director on October 15 to accept a position with The National Archives and was succeeded by his assistant, Mr. Paul E. Hartmus. After the death of Mr. Hartmus in April, this region was added to that made up of California and Nevada under the direction of Dr. Charles L.

Stewart, and Mr. Conrad E. Peterson, formerly assistant State supervisor under Mr. Hartmus, was made supervisor of the Oregon project. Eastern Pennsylvania: Dr. John P. Corry, who had received his Ph. D. degree in history from the University of Pennsylvania, succeeded Mr. Richard H. Heindel as director on July 31 and served until December 20, when the region was added to the region made up of New York City and Long Island under Dr. Richard B. Morris. Mr. James L. Whitehead, formerly project superintendent in Philadelphia and a graduate student in history at the University of Pennsylvania, was made assistant director for Eastern Pennsylvania.

Rhode Island and Connecticut: Mr. Norman L. Kilpatrick served as director on a part-time basis after his return in July to active duty in the Brown University Library, with Mr. R. A. McLeod and Mr. William B. Gardner as assistants, until June 5, 1937, when this region. was added to that of Massachusetts, under Mr. John W. McElroy.

South Carolina: Miss Edith Belle Layman, who had served as acting director following the resignation of Mrs. Jessie Reed Burnett, was appointed director on August 1.

Texas: Mr. D. Roy Parker, a graduate student in political science at the University of Texas, succeeded Dr. Richard R. Stenberg as director on August 31.

Virginia: Dr. Kathleen Bruce, formerly a member of the history faculties of the College of William and Mary and Hollins College, succeeded Mr. Terry C. Durham as director on September 15.

West Virginia: On June 5 this State was added to the region of Ohio under Mr. William M. Verross.

Virgin Islands: Provision was made to extend the Survey to the Virgin Islands at the request and with the assistance of Governor Lawrence W. Cramer, and on August 16 Mr. Harold Larson was given leave of absence from his position as reference supervisor in The National Archives to direct the work there. After he resumed his duties in The National Archives on April 16, 1937, he continued to supervise this work and to prepare reports on the information obtained in the Islands.

WORK OF THE WASHINGTON OFFICE

The Washington office kept closely in touch with the regional offices in order to promote a uniform understanding of the purposes and procedures of the Survey. Regional directors submitted semimonthly narrative progress reports in addition to monthly reports on employment; on expenditures and man-month costs; on linear footage, agencies, and places surveyed; on forms completed; and, in the latter part of the year, on progress on the descriptive inventory of the records surveyed. The Washington office sent out 125 memoranda with general instructions and information for all regional offices and wrote numerous letters on particular regional or local problems. Information was compiled for final reports on conditions of storage and on collections of motion pictures, other photographic records, and sound recordings, and the preparation of a descriptive inventory of Federal archives outside the District was begun. The National Director held conferences with Survey officials from a number of regions in New York City in July, in Nashville in November, and in Providence in December. In August and April he made trips of inspection that took him as far as the west coast and into 30 cities where the Survey was in progress. Other members of the staff of the Washington office

visited 29 cities on inspection trips through the North, the East, and the South.

The National Director discussed phases of the work of the Survey at meetings of the Florida Historical Society in Gainesville and the Southern Historical Association in Nashville in November, at conferences of legal historians in New York City and of executives of historical societies in Chicago in February, and at meetings of the Society of American Archivists in Washington and of the American Library Association in New York City in June.

EMPLOYMENT QUOTAS

At the close of the fiscal year 1936, 2,895 persons were employed by the Survey. At the request of the National Director, estimates of man-months of employment needed to complete the work had been submitted by regional directors prior to June 30, 1936. On the basis of these estimates it was thought that, even allowing for underestimates, it would be possible to terminate the Survey by the end of the calendar year. Arrangements were accordingly made to provide a total of 13,800 man-months of employment for the 6 months ending December 31, 1936, amounting to an average employment of 2,300 per month. It was planned to reduce employment month by month so that, though employment in the early part of the new fiscal year would exceed 2,300, it would be brought sufficiently low in the later months to maintain this average for the 6-month period. The apportionment of the total among the several States was to be made as recommended by the National Director.

As a result of the policy of quota reductions, total employment was decreased from an average of 2,773 in July to 2,624 in August, 2,501 in September, 2,393 in October, 2,224 in November, and 1,919 in December. Before this time, however, it had become apparent that the work then in progress could not be completed by the end of the calendar year. In November regional directors were again requested to submit estimates of the time and man-months of employment needed to complete the work. On the basis of these estimates arrangements were made to continue the Survey in the expectation that it could be completed without question in all States by the end of the fiscal year. Reductions in quotas were made periodically, however, until April when the policy of enforced reductions was discontinued. Average employment during this month was 1,349, and in June it was 1,317. During the 12-month period the Survey furnished 23,072 man-months of employment, an average of 1,923 per month, at an average manmonth cost of $93.30.

Notices of prospective reductions in employment were sent to regional directors well in advance of the time they were to go into effect, which made it possible to obtain the transfer to other projects of or to find private employment for many of those who were to be dropped. Nevertheless, many individuals were left without work and in real distress. These periodic reductions in employment quotas were unfortunate in their effect upon the work of the Survey. The fear of being dropped was injurious to the morale of many workers, however conscientious they might be. Some regional directors reported that so much of their time was taken up with the problem of finding employment for workers whose services were to be terminated that the professional aspects of their work had to be neglected.

TRAINING AND QUALIFICATIONS OF WORKERS

During the fiscal year 1937 the number of persons employed by the Survey who were not certified for relief constituted approximately 17 percent of the personnel, or 15 percent, if the Washington office, where only non-certified persons were employed, be excluded. From State to State the percentage varied greatly. In Massachusetts, Louisiana, and Montana, for example, it was very low, while in New York, Maryland, and Wyoming it was high. Variations resulted from such factors as conditions of employment, the strictness with which local authorities interpreted certification regulations, and the ability of a regional director to find competent workers on the relief rolls and to arrange for their assignment to his project.

The non-certified personnel formed, for the most part, the administrative and supervisory staffs in the field. Unfortunately, much of the time of the professionally trained members of the field force, particularly that of the directors and their assistants, was taken up by the many administrative problems that arose, and consequently little time was left for careful examination and criticism of the work being done. Nevertheless, without these workers the accomplishments of the Survey would have been meager.

Most of the workers of the certified group were of the "whitecollar" class and were classified as "skilled" or "professional and technical" workers. An analysis of the personnel records of local projects indicates that there were roughly two categories into which these certified workers fell. The first, and probably larger group, was composed of persons of 45 years of age and above. Some of these had known wealth and power; some had held minor clerical jobs and when reductions in business staffs were made they had been released; some were teachers who in the "economy cuts" were dropped; others were skilled office workers who had spent almost a life-time in firms that became bankrupt in the early thirties; some were widows, or wives of unemployable men; some were drifters and incompetents. All had felt the depression and their age had militated against them. The well-known reluctance of private enterprise to employ anyone over 45 often kept even the best-qualified persons from filling positions they might have held with credit to themselves and to their employers. In the second group were young people in their twenties. Many of them had attended college; some had degrees from the best universities in the country. Most of them, however, had only a high school education. They had left school in time to be caught in the downward surge of the depression, and many of them never had an opportunity to utilize the skills they possessed. The personnel problems presented by these groups were usually personality problems as well. Every successful supervisor also had to be a case worker, because some of his workers had been so thoroughly beaten that they regarded everybody with suspicion. It was difficult to make such people a part of an effective organization, but it is believed that Survey supervisors did good work in mental as well as in occupational rehabilitation.

Another problem which the Survey faced was the tendency of a few workers to attempt to make the work at hand last as long as possible. The relief worker's natural reluctance to work himself out of a job is understandable, especially in view of the fact that it was frequently difficult, even impossible at times, to arrange for his

reassignment to another project. Nevertheless, it is believed that there were relatively few willful loafers on Survey projects, particularly in those States where regional directors were most free to predesignate the assignment of personnel and to drop those whose work was most unsatisfactory.

The great majority of the workers labored long and faithfully. They were eager to see their job well done. Even when the closing of the project was definitely in sight and it was expected that there would be a noticeable let-down in morale, members of the administrative staff were agreeably surprised to find that the reverse was often the case. The following statement presented to one of the regional directors is typical of the attitude of many of the workers: We, the undersigned employees of the State Office of the Federal Archives Survey, in a meeting called entirely under our own initiative, have unanimously decided to offer our services for over-time work, without compensation, to enable you to more fully clear up your undertaking in connection with closing the project in the most satisfactory manner.

Such offers, which had to be refused because of regulations against overtime work, indicate the willing spirit of many on the local staffs.

To the credit of the workers is the fact that many custodians of Federal archives have been commendatory of the Survey. Every attempt was made to provide competent supervision, but in the last analysis the success or failure of such a large project depended upon the individual surveyors. By their industry, tact, and interested, workmanlike attitude toward their job, most of them won the respect of the people with whom they came in contact, not a few of whom were at first inclined to regard any part of the WPA program with suspicion.

The following excerpt from a letter to a regional director from a minor official with Federal archives in his custody is both amusing and indicative of the appreciation which custodians often expressed: Writing you this letter to thank you for putting off coming to my office to straighten out our records. I imagine the supervisor has already told you I lost my father last week and when your men showed up the clerk wouldn't let them in, well yesterday they got through with their work, and I must say they did a fine job, especially here where we have no filing system what-so-ever, and papers are just put in boxes and stored in attic or basement, as case may be, and some of the papers just fell apart when touched. It's too bad that they don't have a job like this done more often, say every five years. I also want you to know that the men that were here certainly conducted themselves like gentlemen.

QUANTITY AND NATURE OF THE RECORDS SURVEYED

During the first half of the fiscal year the field force continued to be occupied chiefly with surveying records and with recording on printed forms the information thus obtained. During the second half of the year, however, this work tapered off somewhat and that of compiling an inventory increasingly occupied the attention of the staff. When the project was continued into the fiscal year 1937, it was planned to survey the records not only of the larger and older agencies but of all agencies of the Government outside the District of Columbia, with the exception of minor and inaccessible ones, such as small post offices, isolated CCC camps, and remote offices of the Department of Agriculture Extension Service. In every State a