Questionnaires were circulated to 48 States. Questions covered public accounting, reporting, auditing, and budgeting. By 1952, a total of 25 States furnished either supervisory or advisory services to their municipalities in regard to financial transactions. Supervision in 15 States was mandatory. The other 10 States rely upon an educational approach to convince municipal officials of the advantages in a State-recommended system of accounts. Only 13 States reported that they had at any time held instruction sessions for local accounting officers. Forms and record books were prescribed by 20 States; however, these varied among municipalities. Only 21 States reported that they included uniform terminology and classification of accounts as essential ingredients for developing comparable statistics. Thirty States had some provision for either the auditing or supervision of audits, but compliance with State audit requirements was mandatory in only 22 States. Another tool of financial control, adequate reporting, was reviewed. Twenty-three States reported that an agency of the State exercised regulatory or advisory functions over municipal reporting. This regulation was compulsory in 21 States. Finally, 32 States indicated that the State is directly concerned with the preparation of municipal budgets. Formal laws governing the preparation of municipal budgets existed in 27 States. Twenty-one States prepared budget forms for use by their municipalities, but only 13 States required the State prescription to be adopted (the remaining States left the form of the budget document to local discretion). The study recommended the establishment of common standards in accounting, auditing, and budgeting. Footnotes are provided.