Programme sources: an employment objective and a loan report
Compare different kinds of evidence without treating a target and a later transaction total as equivalent outcomes.
Exam scope and assessment notes
Sixteen original lessons and 48 explained guided, independent and transfer tasks introduce the listed causes in enquiry 6.1 for 2027–2029. Compare Republican policy, the boom and unequal wealth, urban/rural differences, speculation and valuation, confidence, war and international trade, banking and the Federal Reserve, agriculture, old and new industries, production and oversupply. This is introductory teaching, not full AS or A Level preparation. Twenty-six further lessons and 78 explained tasks introduce enquiry 6.2: financial losses and bankruptcy, regulation demands, unemployment and hours, agriculture and deflation, welfare, family and minority experiences, Hoover’s agricultural, housing, RFC and relief responses, Bonus Marchers, and the 1932 election and developing coalition. Fifteen further lessons and 45 explained tasks begin enquiry 6.3 through the March crisis, advisers and Congress, holiday and emergency banking legislation, selective reopening, an original source-comparison workshop, conservation work, FERA, agricultural adjustment, industrial codes, public works, TVA and securities disclosure. Eighteen further lessons and 54 explained tasks deepen enquiry 6.3 through original banking-separation and temporary-insurance conditions, securities registration and non-approval, the 1934 market framework, distinct HOLC routes and later operational evidence, farm credit, November CWA recruitment and February 1934 reductions, a local tenant case, labour conditions and an original programme-source comparison. Ten further lessons and 30 explained tasks introduce Supreme Court disputes: Schechter’s delegation and commerce grounds, Butler’s majority and Stone’s dissent, the February 1937 draft’s conditions and ceilings, its failure, Gannett’s press argument, Sumners’s Southern Democratic opposition, the Jones & Laughlin industrial case and existing-seat appointments through 1941. A selected administration/publisher comparison uses original paraphrases, not a full authentic source set. Nine further lessons and 27 explained tasks introduce critics from the Left and Right through Thomas, the June 1936 Communist platform, Townsend’s changing pension plans, Long’s dated redistribution appeal, Coughlin’s monetary proposals and antisemitic propaganda, Republican alternatives and Smith’s Liberty League intervention. A selected Smith/Thomas comparison and a dated official election-table exercise distinguish shared opposition, different institutions, audience, votes and influence. These are original introductory case studies, not complete political histories. Enquiry 6.3 remains partial: wider programme implementation and local, racial and gender access and outcomes, deeper organisational and regional histories of opposition, earlier and later political tactics, further Supreme Court rulings and fuller political and legal depth still need teaching and practice. Ten further lessons and 30 explained tasks begin enquiry 6.4 through the January 1935 security initiative, selected original Social Security assistance, benefit and tax provisions, Wagner Act rights and Board procedures, and WPA creation and work rules. A selected proposal/statute comparison uses original paraphrases, not a full authentic source set. Ten further lessons and 30 explained tasks introduce the 1936 election through the electoral result and its denominator, party claims and pledges, Roosevelt’s Philadelphia economic-freedom argument, the September farm–city broadcast, labour mobilisation, Black political agency and Southern resistance, Farley’s organisation, the July postmaster procedures and June relief anti-coercion provisions. A selected Roosevelt/Republican comparison distinguishes shared concern with insecurity from different institutions. Fourteen further lessons and 42 explained tasks introduce selected 1935–1937 mechanisms: the June tax proposals and enacted individual and corporate schedules; NYA creation and student-aid limits; original rural power loans and allocations; conservation plans, payments and tenant safeguards; farm-acquisition and rehabilitation finance; and original low-rent housing access and finance. A selected tax-proposal/electrification-statute comparison distinguishes instruments and evidence of outcomes. Sixteen further lessons and 48 explained tasks introduce the 1937–1938 recession through industrial measures, fiscal cash flows, payroll collection, reserve requirements and bank responses, Treasury gold finance, inventories and prices, employment and hours, uneven business and household effects, the April recovery proposals, June work-relief and public-works authority, and an upturn with continuing weaknesses. A selected Roosevelt/Eccles comparison preserves the latter’s expressly personal standpoint. All three listed recession strands now have introductory teaching; full historical and assessment coverage remains unfinished. Ten further lessons and 30 explained tasks introduce the original 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act and its 1941 Darby validation: commercial coverage, phased wages and overtime, distinct exemptions, child-labour conditions, special certificates, enforcement and stronger applicable state standards. A selected statute/Court comparison distinguishes purpose, constitutional validity and measured outcomes. This is a selected labour-standards introduction, not complete beneficiary, exclusion or government-change coverage. Eleven further lessons and 33 explained tasks introduce family security under the original 1939 Social Security amendments: earlier monthly operation, worker qualification, wives, widows, children and parents, continuing employment exclusions, distinct state assistance, claims and hearings, pooled finance, actual January–June 1940 payment records and startup limits. A selected law/trustees comparison distinguishes legal rights, recorded delivery and unproven household adequacy. This is a selected family-security introduction, not complete beneficiary, exclusion, administrative or economic-recovery coverage. Enquiry 6.4 remains partial: fuller revenue and programme histories, political motives, deeper regional election and coalition histories, reception and causal evidence, fuller patronage and civil-service practice, programme implementation and unequal access and outcomes, deeper fiscal and bank series, industrial and household experiences, and government, recovery and experiences through 1941 still need further teaching and practice. The 1937 proposal is later follow-through within 6.3, not an event of the First 100 Days. Historical depth, wider authentic reading, subject-specialist review, complete source sets, full papers and calibrated marking remain unfinished. Selected source cards are labelled original paraphrases, not quotations or complete authentic documents. Existing 2026 lessons receive no automatic revised-year credit. The Great Crash, the Great Depression and the New Deal, 1920–1941 is an American Paper 2 topic in 2027 and 2029, and the American Paper 1 topic in 2028. Paper 1 Historical sources is 75 minutes and 40 marks: answer both parts of one question using four sources totalling at most 600 words, with at least three written sources and up to one visual. Part (a) compares two sources for 15 marks; part (b) uses all four sources and contextual knowledge for a 25-mark judgement. Paper 2 Outline study is 105 minutes and 60 marks: answer two questions from one section and both parts of each, with a 10-mark causal explanation and a 20-mark argument. These lessons are introductory practice, not a complete assessment programme.
Before you begin
- Distinguish share prices, output, income, net wealth and purchasing power
- Keep fiscal and monetary policy, liquidity and solvency, contemporary claims and retrospective interpretations separate
Work on paper. Try each question before revealing help, and explain why your method works.
Quick readiness check
How should you judge Roosevelt’s initial New Deal?
What you will learn
- Give one useful comparison between A and B.
- Why does four million versus about one million not rank programme success?
- What additional evidence would test the sources’ claims about practical help?
Compare selected historical sources
- Write your own response before opening the model.
- Define the outcome, explain dated mechanisms and weigh alternatives. Label invented arithmetic and distinguish source claims from measured results.
Sixteen original lessons and 48 explained guided, independent and transfer tasks introduce the listed causes in enquiry 6.1 for 2027–2029. Compare Republican policy, the boom and unequal wealth, urban/rural differences, speculation and valuation, confidence, war and international trade, banking and the Federal Reserve, agriculture, old and new industries, production and oversupply. This is introductory teaching, not full AS or A Level preparation. Twenty-six further lessons and 78 explained tasks introduce enquiry 6.2: financial losses and bankruptcy, regulation demands, unemployment and hours, agriculture and deflation, welfare, family and minority experiences, Hoover’s agricultural, housing, RFC and relief responses, Bonus Marchers, and the 1932 election and developing coalition. Fifteen further lessons and 45 explained tasks begin enquiry 6.3 through the March crisis, advisers and Congress, holiday and emergency banking legislation, selective reopening, an original source-comparison workshop, conservation work, FERA, agricultural adjustment, industrial codes, public works, TVA and securities disclosure. Eighteen further lessons and 54 explained tasks deepen enquiry 6.3 through original banking-separation and temporary-insurance conditions, securities registration and non-approval, the 1934 market framework, distinct HOLC routes and later operational evidence, farm credit, November CWA recruitment and February 1934 reductions, a local tenant case, labour conditions and an original programme-source comparison. Ten further lessons and 30 explained tasks introduce Supreme Court disputes: Schechter’s delegation and commerce grounds, Butler’s majority and Stone’s dissent, the February 1937 draft’s conditions and ceilings, its failure, Gannett’s press argument, Sumners’s Southern Democratic opposition, the Jones & Laughlin industrial case and existing-seat appointments through 1941. A selected administration/publisher comparison uses original paraphrases, not a full authentic source set. Nine further lessons and 27 explained tasks introduce critics from the Left and Right through Thomas, the June 1936 Communist platform, Townsend’s changing pension plans, Long’s dated redistribution appeal, Coughlin’s monetary proposals and antisemitic propaganda, Republican alternatives and Smith’s Liberty League intervention. A selected Smith/Thomas comparison and a dated official election-table exercise distinguish shared opposition, different institutions, audience, votes and influence. These are original introductory case studies, not complete political histories. Enquiry 6.3 remains partial: wider programme implementation and local, racial and gender access and outcomes, deeper organisational and regional histories of opposition, earlier and later political tactics, further Supreme Court rulings and fuller political and legal depth still need teaching and practice. Ten further lessons and 30 explained tasks begin enquiry 6.4 through the January 1935 security initiative, selected original Social Security assistance, benefit and tax provisions, Wagner Act rights and Board procedures, and WPA creation and work rules. A selected proposal/statute comparison uses original paraphrases, not a full authentic source set. Ten further lessons and 30 explained tasks introduce the 1936 election through the electoral result and its denominator, party claims and pledges, Roosevelt’s Philadelphia economic-freedom argument, the September farm–city broadcast, labour mobilisation, Black political agency and Southern resistance, Farley’s organisation, the July postmaster procedures and June relief anti-coercion provisions. A selected Roosevelt/Republican comparison distinguishes shared concern with insecurity from different institutions. Fourteen further lessons and 42 explained tasks introduce selected 1935–1937 mechanisms: the June tax proposals and enacted individual and corporate schedules; NYA creation and student-aid limits; original rural power loans and allocations; conservation plans, payments and tenant safeguards; farm-acquisition and rehabilitation finance; and original low-rent housing access and finance. A selected tax-proposal/electrification-statute comparison distinguishes instruments and evidence of outcomes. Sixteen further lessons and 48 explained tasks introduce the 1937–1938 recession through industrial measures, fiscal cash flows, payroll collection, reserve requirements and bank responses, Treasury gold finance, inventories and prices, employment and hours, uneven business and household effects, the April recovery proposals, June work-relief and public-works authority, and an upturn with continuing weaknesses. A selected Roosevelt/Eccles comparison preserves the latter’s expressly personal standpoint. All three listed recession strands now have introductory teaching; full historical and assessment coverage remains unfinished. Ten further lessons and 30 explained tasks introduce the original 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act and its 1941 Darby validation: commercial coverage, phased wages and overtime, distinct exemptions, child-labour conditions, special certificates, enforcement and stronger applicable state standards. A selected statute/Court comparison distinguishes purpose, constitutional validity and measured outcomes. This is a selected labour-standards introduction, not complete beneficiary, exclusion or government-change coverage. Eleven further lessons and 33 explained tasks introduce family security under the original 1939 Social Security amendments: earlier monthly operation, worker qualification, wives, widows, children and parents, continuing employment exclusions, distinct state assistance, claims and hearings, pooled finance, actual January–June 1940 payment records and startup limits. A selected law/trustees comparison distinguishes legal rights, recorded delivery and unproven household adequacy. This is a selected family-security introduction, not complete beneficiary, exclusion, administrative or economic-recovery coverage. Enquiry 6.4 remains partial: fuller revenue and programme histories, political motives, deeper regional election and coalition histories, reception and causal evidence, fuller patronage and civil-service practice, programme implementation and unequal access and outcomes, deeper fiscal and bank series, industrial and household experiences, and government, recovery and experiences through 1941 still need further teaching and practice. The 1937 proposal is later follow-through within 6.3, not an event of the First 100 Days. Historical depth, wider authentic reading, subject-specialist review, complete source sets, full papers and calibrated marking remain unfinished. Selected source cards are labelled original paraphrases, not quotations or complete authentic documents. Existing 2026 lessons receive no automatic revised-year credit.
Two-source comparison workshop
The opening brief is original StudyForA teaching prose, not a quotation, contemporary document or historian’s extract. A and B are separately labelled original paraphrases of selected linked passages, not complete authentic documents or a full four-source examination set. The Great Crash, the Great Depression and the New Deal, 1920–1941 is an American Paper 2 topic in 2027 and 2029, and the American Paper 1 topic in 2028. Paper 1 Historical sources is 75 minutes and 40 marks: answer both parts of one question using four sources totalling at most 600 words, with at least three written sources and up to one visual. Part (a) compares two sources for 15 marks; part (b) uses all four sources and contextual knowledge for a 25-mark judgement. Paper 2 Outline study is 105 minutes and 60 marks: answer two questions from one section and both parts of each, with a 10-mark causal explanation and a 20-mark argument. These lessons are introductory practice, not a complete assessment programme.
StudyForA teaching brief · Programme sources: an employment objective and a loan report
[1] Original analytical brief. Compare different kinds of evidence without treating a target and a later transaction total as equivalent outcomes. This is StudyForA teaching prose, not a contemporary document or a historian’s extract. Write before opening the model.
Source A · November 1933 CWA rules in the 1937 official chronology · original paraphrase, not quotation
[1] The selected rules set an objective of employing four million people by 15 December 1933, including a planned two-million transfer from relief. They describe later applications through designated employment agencies and conditions for quick-start public projects. This is an adapted plan, not an audited achieved payroll total.
Source B · HOLC operations in the 1935–1936 annual report · original paraphrase, not quotation
[1] The report states that 1,018,390 loans had closed through 12 June 1936. It separately records collections equivalent to about 74 percent of matured principal and interest billed through 30 June. These are dated measures of operations, not the proportion of every applicant approved or every home permanently protected.
1. What additional evidence would test the sources’ claims about practical help?
Compare after trying
The sources share a concern with delivering support, but they provide different kinds of evidence. The CWA material states a target with transfer arrangements, while the HOLC report describes later transactions and collections. Their dates and definitions are necessary to interpretation.
A numerical ranking would therefore mislead. Targeted people are not completed loans, while neither measure directly counts permanent household security or national recovery. Official provenance supplies useful administrative context but does not make the accounts independent, complete or immune to selective presentation.
A stronger comparison tests each within its programme: payrolls and transfers for CWA, loans and later housing experience for HOLC. It identifies what the selected passages support and what further evidence is required. The original paraphrase cards and teaching brief remain separate from authentic documents; this pair is introductory practice rather than a full four-source Paper 1 set or calibrated assessment.
Why this response fits
- Connect a dated provision or event to the mechanism in the question.
- Weigh scope, practical access, implementation and contrary evidence.
- This original analytical model is not a calibrated examination script or Cambridge grade.
Identify the selected documents
Source A paraphrases selected November 1933 CWA recruitment rules as reproduced in the official 1937 chronology. Source B paraphrases selected HOLC loan and collection figures in the 1935–1936 report. Their programmes, dates and measures differ. Both cards are original teaching paraphrases, not quotations or complete authentic extracts. The opening brief is original StudyForA prose and must not be cited as a contemporary document.
Compare what each can establish
A sets a four-million employment objective and a planned transfer component; B reports loan closings and collections at later dates. A is evidence about a plan, while B is an institution’s report of operations. They cannot be placed in a league table by saying four million is larger than one million, so employment relief must have been more successful. People targeted, loan transactions, dollars billed and collections have different denominators and purposes.
Use provenance without automatic trust or dismissal
An official source can preserve valuable detail while still requiring attention to selection, definitions and institutional purpose. The chronology reproduces selected communications after the event; the loan report describes its own programme’s operations. Neither supplies every household’s experience or an independent measure of national recovery. Compare their claims with payrolls, loan files and local records before extending them to effects not measured in the selected passages.
Build a supported comparison
A useful response identifies a common concern with delivery of support, then explains the difference between a prospective target and later operational evidence. Dates help connect programme creation with implementation rather than erase the gap. Full Paper 1 requires four sources and wider contextual evaluation; this pair is only a selected workshop. It introduces comparison while leaving critics, courts, fuller distributional evidence and calibrated assessment clearly unfinished.
Sources for this lesson
- Cambridge History 9489 · 2027–2029 Version 2 · American enquiry 6.3 p. 29, AS rotation pp. 37–38 and assessment pp. 66–69
- Cambridge History 9489 · 2027–2029 update · Version 2 changes, April 2025
- WPA · Chronology of FERA, 1937 · selected printed pp. 28–30 and 45–46, November CWA rules and February 1934 reductions; OCR dates require care
- Federal Home Loan Bank Board · Fourth Annual Report, 1935–1936 · selected printed pp. 29–34 and 41, applications, loan closings and collections; institutional account with dated measures
Pause and explain
Which explanation best fits this lesson?
Worked example
Give one useful comparison between A and B.
Show the worked solution
- Identify support through programme delivery.
- Distinguish target from reported operations.
- Retain measures and dates.
Answer Both concern delivering support, but A states a prospective employment plan and B reports later loan and collection activity. They use different measures and cannot independently prove equal national reach or complete recovery.
Try a topic test
Choose Easy, Normal or Difficult. Save your answers and open worked review after finishing.
Test this topic →From guided practice to a new situation
Write your answer and reasoning first. Use a hint only if you are stuck. The model solution is for self-checking; your written work is not automatically marked.
Guided: Give one useful comparison between A and B.
Give me a hint
Compare evidential status as well as shared purpose.
Compare my reasoning
- Identify support through programme delivery.
- Distinguish target from reported operations.
- Retain measures and dates.
Both concern delivering support, but A states a prospective employment plan and B reports later loan and collection activity. They use different measures and cannot independently prove equal national reach or complete recovery.
Look for these in your work
- Uses the relevant dated evidence
- Explains the mechanism and the specific limit
Independent: Why does four million versus about one million not rank programme success?
Give me a hint
Check what is counted and the appropriate criterion.
Compare my reasoning
- Identify targeted people in A.
- Identify loan transactions in B.
- Choose outcomes and consistent evidence.
A’s target and B’s loan total measure different things at different dates. Their magnitudes cannot rank actual employment, household security or cost-effectiveness without comparable aims, delivery, duration and outcome evidence.
Look for these in your work
- Uses the relevant dated evidence
- Explains the mechanism and the specific limit
Transfer: What additional evidence would test the sources’ claims about practical help?
Give me a hint
Trace their different administrative routes.
Compare my reasoning
- Inspect CWA transfers and payrolls.
- Inspect loans, repayment and housing outcomes.
- Compare local and household circumstances.
Use payroll and transfer records for employment and loan, arrears and household records for refinancing, with matched dates and definitions. The selected official accounts and paraphrases do not supply every participant’s experience or full national assessment.
Look for these in your work
- Uses the relevant dated evidence
- Explains the mechanism and the specific limit
Common mistakes
- Ranking unlike targets and transactions
- Treating official origin as complete household evidence
What can you explain now?
Which explanation best fits this lesson?
Compare with the explanation
Compare target, reported operation, purpose, date and denominator
The sources use a prospective employment target and later loan and collection measures. Their totals cannot rank permanent household benefit; compare purpose, date, denominator and actual delivery before judging results.
After trying it yourself, choose your next review. This is your self-assessment.
Your review choice appears on Today. Sign in to sync it across devices.
Make it stick
Which explanation best fits this lesson?
If you needed the solution, close it and solve the problem again from a blank page. A correct answer is stronger when you can explain the reason for each step.