did increase its personnel strength and consequently its occupancyof family housing was off- set almost exactly by the amount that AEC decreased its payroll and its housing occupancy. Therefore, all of the losses in personnel strength sustained by the Zia Company and the corollary decrease in family housing occupancy became a direct net increase in the number of family housing units vacant. The condition, which was looked upon with alarm for a short time, was later recognized as being of great advantage as will be explained later. Part of the difficulty encountered by LASL in building up its personnel strength has re- portedly been lack of an adequate number of acceptable family-type housing units. The latter is defined as meaning single, one-story, modern houses such as are being built for sale, and to a lesser extent for rent, elsewhere in the country. At Los Alamos there are many apartment-type housing units (built for reasons of apparent economy) and there are also 585 temporary-type, substandard family housing units which were constructed during the war with a life expectancy of about five years. Both the apartment and the temporary housing are shunned by most employees choosing a place to live at Los Alamos, However, a great many of the employees who had arrived at Los Alamos earlier were housed in such type housing, muchto their displeasure, and concerning whichthey have beenvocal., During that period new employees were given their choice, within limits, of what was available out of the new houses which were constructed in large numbers during the years from 1947 through 1950, If there were any of those new houses not needed for new employees at the time that they were com-~ pleted, older employees at Los Alamos who were housed in less desirable quarters were permitted to move into them. Because of the large number of employees it was required to house initially, only a small number of the new houses became available to older employees. This matter became critical and in February 1952, the Housing Policy Board recom- ~ mended, and it was approved, that the so-called "convenience" moves, (namely, moves of employees already at Los Alamos from one type of unit to another) should be considered not only as desirable, but necessary in the interest of personnel relations. In short, the Housing Policy Board, at the urging of LASL, expressed a preference for pleasing an employee already in Los Alamos and trained, rather than favoring the new employees. Hence, a definite program was undertaken to utilize the more desirable vacant housing units for convenience moves and the new hires were in most instances offered only the less desirable units, In August 1952, the Housing Policy Board considered the effect of its new policy. LASL said that the program had removed the most desirable units from availability for new hires, which had all but stopped the LASL recruitment program, There was detailed dis- cussion of the experience of LASL in trying, with practically no success, to get new hires to take less desirable housing. It was said that LASL could not expand under those circum- stances, and in fact could not even maintain its personnel strength. Any change in the then existing procedure was opposed by LASL, however, because of the commitments which had been made to people already at Los Alamos who desired to move. LASL representatives asked for sufficient permanent housing to accommodate the needs of the Laboratory and the rest of the employees, Present Policy on Assignment of Housing In September 1952, the Housing Policy Board recommended that all of Los Alamos housing be divided into two categories, Category I would include all single and duplex per- manent housing and the one bedroom apartments in permanent buildings. This category was considered to be acceptable housing for the type of employee LASL was most anxious to retain and recruit. The Category I housing was to include all temporary and semi-permanent housing and all apartment-type family housing units in permanent housing other than the one DOEFALO " JOe