mentioning auto touring, covers any item of travel, whether it be by boat, automobile, or train. Secondhand Fords and free automobile camps for tourists add new temptation to the restless souls seeking adventures. One family worker has cleverly offered to assist any auto-tramp family to establish itself in her city stipulating that her organization hold the car during that period. As yet not one such transient has accepted. One agency writes the Committee on Transportation that it would sign the Agreement if its city was not so conspicuously situated on a national highway, where it received so many transients! One is tempted to inquire just how many transients they can afford to pass on to the new community. Can they afford to be a case work agency that does not investigate before closing a case? For "passing on" is a drastic way of closing a case. Two societies naïvely state that a few gallons of gasoline are cheaper than a bill for hotel and telegrams while investigating a transient's story, and so they hesitate to sign the Transportation Agreement. Shall we not have to take a firm stand that case work principles apply universally and that these "casuals of the highway" need peculiarly the close scrutiny into their situation which we give resident problems? Special problems with automobile migrants arise in observing the Transportation Agreement which will have to be worked out as we pool our experiences with the Committee on Transportation.

The many problems of continuing transportation which come to a junctionpoint city require careful scrutiny and point toward the need of a more generally similar understanding between these intermediary cities and the railroad. In one such city where a group of such cases was studied it was found that the railroad officials were much more particular about satisfying themselves as to the wisdom of the journey than the sending societies now appealing to the intermediary city. A plan for transportation relief as covered in the Agreement includes arranging for travel through to destination, and that means full data to the intermediary city where such help with ticket-buying is relied upon.

Early in this paper we have tried to show that the kernel of the Agreement and its rules is an affirmation that case work is required in any situation. The whole Agreement is bound up in that portion of the rules which says: "The applicant's prospects for return to normal living shall not be decreased by sending him to the proposed destination." This statement, "return to normal living," is the purpose of modern social work and the guiding factor in all questions of treatment, whether or not they involve change in environment, which is what all transportation signifies. And normal living includes in its meaning a spark of adventure, whether the journey taken be one of the imagination or real. The important things are the purpose and joy of the pilgrimage.

For living is one long journey, whether we move about much or not. Our purpose in life is often too indefinite to urge us on. Good guideposts and intelligent fellow-journeymen are needed. The very indefiniteness of our desires may be all that keeps us back. We may be like the Chinese shopkeeper whom Thomas Burke describes:

Fluent as his road had been, it had a sharp corner.

His shop is there, his lantern is there, maybe his spirit is there.

I knew his road had many corners and I could see he was fumbling after them.

To sort out the impediments of travel and mark the road and destination plainly for some of life's tourists, that is the task social workers have chosen. But one studies the map each time a traveler asks for help, and takes into account the strength of each on the way. May we again recall the great historic journeys of the tribes of old, with their strong and definite purposes. Thus may we see all our case work as concerned with plans of spiritual travel. May we search always for the soul of adventure in everyone we serve, not forgetting we need ever the guidance of a keen heart, because our motives make our turnings and the distant stars of our desires our goal.

THE ART OF HELPING THROUGH THE INTERVIEW:
A STUDY OF TWO INTERVIEWS

Lucia B. Clow, Supervisor of Districts, Family Welfare
Association, Milwaukee

To a person going through a large group of records, both new and old, in search for material on successful treatment, several changes in emphasis are apparent. The early records have nothing except treatment interviews: "Man looked healthy, so agent advised that he get to work at once." There was no time for investigation, for consultation with experts, for anything beyond the meeting and treating of each problem as it arose, although because of the meager records it is hard to judge of the workers' objectives or of the results obtained. While thoughtfulness and consideration certainly went into the planning, treatment was somewhat on an intuitive basis.

Then, in the development of the technique of diagnosis, in the search for facts and more facts, the ultimate use of those facts was sometimes obscured or pushed indefinitely ahead. Diagnostic and prognostic summaries were couched in vague and general terms. Or again, the visitor sat in solemn conclave with her superintendent or with the district committee and decided what was to be done with the family, "that these were the facts of the case," only to visit afterward to find an altered situation demanding an entirely new plan to be worked out extemporaneously with the family. Frequently, in spite of the stressing of the need for further facts, when a plan did not grow out of diagnosis the visitor found herself with long, typewritten pages of information from collateral sources which she did not know how to use, or which she occasionally interpreted to show the need for some panacea, birth control, prohibition, minimum wage, etc.

Our emphasis is now swinging back to the treatment phase again. We are accepting, of course, a forward-looking diagnosis as a foundation, utilizing, too,

the stimulating but objective help of the case conference and bringing to the client's doorstep all the available resources of the community. Yet we are realizing also that the success of any except a fool-proof plan (and of such, how many are there?) may be made or marred by the relationship between client and visitor, and that more and more in the medium of this interplay the plans for the family evolve.

This has given a new significance to the interview. "Well, but what do you say to a family on such and such an occasion?" is the query of not only the visitorin-training. However, we are still far from formulating definite principles of how the interview may be used as a tool in treatment, although the psychiatric field has given, and is giving, incalculable help with this problem. But must not all of us repeatedly turn back to specific interviews for further material?

The following two interviews are presented for discussion, not at all in the spirit of charting a new field, but as illustrations of how two rather typical situations were met in two certain families.

Mr. Grant was referred to the family agency by a court worker to whom he had complained about the care given by his wife to their two children, eight and six. At the time of the application the children were still in the home with Mr. Grant, being partially cared for by a relative who lived in the same building. Mrs. Grant had been gone a few days, was at the home of a friend who was said to be influencing Mrs. Grant to divorce her husband. After the visitor had had a long interview with Mr. Grant she made several attempts to talk with Mrs. Grant, who answered the questions put to her, but who gave information guardedly and insisted that she would proceed with her divorce because of Mr. Grant's nonsupport and cruelty, that Mr. Grant should support the children in an institution. Several collateral sources seen led the visitor to feel that the points of contention were not insurmountable, that if Mrs. Grant could only be persuaded to return before the break became established, an adjustment might be made. Even Mrs. Grant's attorney was willing to assist in a reconciliation. Mrs. Grant continued obdurate, however, and Mr. Grant, growing impatient, applied to a Catholic agency for placement of the children. Mrs. Grant was seen again, both by the visitor and by the priest, but she reiterated her refusal to return to Mr. Grant, although halfheartedly stating that she would like the custody of the children. At no time was there any success in getting any spontaneous reaction from her. In another attempt to formulate a plan a conference of the interested persons was arranged.

Father X, Mr. and Mrs. Grant, the latter's attorney, and the visitor were present. Mr. Grant had in his hand a copy of the divorce proceedings which had been served on him the previous day and over which he was very much excited, vehemently declaring that he would counterclaim all such accusations. Mr Grant, on the other hand, seemed not to consider Mrs. Grant, only the welfare of his two children. Mrs. Grant blamed Mr. Grant for everything she had ever done; she had not gone out with other men, but even if she had, it would have been his fault, because he once told her that if she wanted kind words she would have to go to the street to get them. Mr. Grant brushed these things aside as not worth consideration, and asked about the care of the children, going over much of the ground already discussed with him before. Mrs. Grant insisted that Mr. Grant had struck her; he insisted he had only pushed her away. Mr. Grant insisted that many times Mrs. Grant had stayed out all night, that she arrived home one morning at 5 A.M. Mrs. Grant retorted that he knew perfectly well he had locked her out of the house, so that she was forced to sit on the porch. During this argument the visitor listened quietly and Father X acted as mediator. Finally, when the neglect of the children was stressed, Mrs. Grant began to cry, sobbing that everyone was against her. She got up as if to leave the room, but the visitor went to her to calm her. Mrs. Grant stood by the window undecidedly. Mr. Grant spoke up, "What's the matter? If you need air, why don't you raise the window?"

The visitor suggested that Mr. Grant do this for her, but when he made no move the courtesy was performed by Father X. As the conference seemed to be getting nowhere it was adjourned. The visitor suggested that Mrs. Grant accompany her to lunch.

As they left the building Mrs. Grant was asked where she might like to go. The question was put quite casually, as the visitor was anxious to know what familiarity Mrs. Grant had with downtown restaurants, these having played a prominent part in Mr. Grant's accusations. Mrs. Grant's reply was hesitating, and it was hard to tell whether she did not know eating places or whether she did not wish to appear to know. The choice of lunchroom was finally made by the visitor, and a secluded table chosen and a nourishing lunch ordered. Mrs. Grant seemed to enjoy her meal, but she showed little experience with restaurant service, and watched the visitor closely in the use of her silver. With the casual preliminaries of the ordering of the meal out of the way, a barren spot in the conversation was avoided by talking of clothes Mrs. Grant was trimly dressed, and it was possible sincerely to compliment her about her appearance. "Oh, but he says I lost all my good looks by going out with men." To this the visitor replied, avoiding temporarily the possible discussion of the present difficulty, "But he hasn't always said such things to you, has he?" With this as an opening wedge it was easy to turn the conversation back to Mrs. Grant's early married life. With great pride and in detail she told of her wedding in St. Margaret's, the finest one the church had ever had up to that time. With only a question here and there a long story followed of her early home with Mr. Grant's parents, of her troubles with him, of several illnesses, including a period of extreme nervousness a year before when she had not been able to sleep. She spoke particularly of a certain doctor who had treated her kindly at that time. Then, somewhat abruptly, the conversation stopped, and after a pause uninterrupted by further questions and in which Mrs. Grant seemed to be thinking over the situation, she said slowly that she thought Mr. Grant was looking thinner, that she wondered if he got enough to eat, that when she was at home she always tried to feed the family well, even taking the children with her to the store so that they could pick out what they wanted.

The visitor replied, "But don't you think that Mr. Grant is really worried over all this trouble?" Mrs. Grant admitted that he might be. She had wanted to surprise him, to make him think, so she applied for a divorce. He had thought she would come back as she had before when she went away. But she hated to see him looking so poorly. Then the visitor, risking everything she had gained, but feeling even surer than before with the new insight gained from Mrs. Grant's story that if Mrs. Grant could only return home and Mr. Grant be made to see her point of view that the home might be saved, asked Mrs. Grant if she would not put aside some of her own troubles, consider the children, go back to Father X, and tell him that if Mr. Grant would move to another house (this had been one of the points of contention) she would return to live under the same roof. Mrs. Grant was hesitant, but further details as to the probable arrangement were brought to the support of the plan. These, in turn, brought out additional facts from Mrs. Grant. She spoke particularly of Mr. Grant's discourtesy to her in the preceding conference; this argument was met by asking her if she did not think that both she and Mr. Grant were worried and had said things they each regretted. It was agreed finally, however, that after seeing Father X, Mrs. Grant was to go to her lawyer to discuss with him her return, so that all should be done legally in case she wished to reopen divorce proceedings if the reconciliation failed. Mrs. Grant was then accompanied to Father X's office and left to carry out the rest of her plan alone. Her actual return to the home took place a few days later.

Now of course this interview by itself could not be fruitful of results unless Mr. Grant could be reached and unless the visitor's diagnosis of the probably solvable sources of friction was correct. Yet the three objectives of the worker for this interview were accomplished. Mrs. Grant told freely of her side of the trouble, a contact was established, and the first step in a reconciliation was taken.

The key points in the interview might be listed as follows: first, a setting

favorable to the securing of confidence was created. In the sharing of food it is hard to maintain a barrier; second, the main issue was avoided until a sympathetic understanding had been established; third, the previous high-water mark in the client's life, namely, her wedding and early married life, were utilized to balance against the present low-water mark of the threatening divorce; fourth, only a tentative plan was offered, with definite loopholes of escape; fifth, the definite next steps were left to the client, so that the plan would be of her own making as much as possible; sixth, the visitor's personality without doubt was a deciding factor; she was a married woman, older than the client, with children of her own. She was punctilious about small courtesies, and was quiet-spoken. Unconsciously her wider experience must have been a recommendation for the wisdom of her suggestions.

In the Reilly family was a very different situation. All the possibilities of a new contact were gone. Mr. and Mrs. Reilly and their five children had been known to social agencies and public outdoor relief departments in various communities in two states. An accidental near-asphyxiation of the children brought newspaper publicity, which was far from helpful. The family society in A knew of at least three occasions when the family had been returned as public charges. In one community they had been given tickets to leave town, as they were considered undesirable. There was a history of irregular work, of residence in cheap rooming-houses; they were always going to move on to something better, but were also endowed with a faculty for achieving a return to A at 5:00 P.M. with no place to go. Both Mr. and Mrs. Reilly had come from homes which had been broken when the children were small.

One cold day in December a call came in to the district office. The Reillys were needing food. The visitor making the call had seen the Reillys only a few times, but had recently had physical and mental tests of Mr. Reilly which had been productive of no particular findings. There seemed no tangible reason why Mr. Reilly should work so irregularly. He had given up his last job, when jobs were not plentiful, to have cash on hand. His failure to find other work had elicited some rather positive remarks from the department of outdoor relief. Upon the occasion of this particular visit, a school nurse was leaving the house and Mrs. Reilly was concluding her argument against some much-needed medical attention for the children. When Mrs. Reilly and the visitor were alone, the visitor's first comment was that she was surprised to hear Mrs. Reilly talking in such a way to a person who came to be of help to the family. Mrs. Reilly— "But of what help has anyone been to the family?" and she launched volubly into her grievances. A refusal to Mr. Reilly's recent request for aid was uppermost. The visitor listened quietly without arguing back as Mrs. Reilly had evidently expected her to do. Mrs. Reilly straightened herself with a visible physical effort and put the baby down out of her arms. She had been talked to by social workers all over the state, and she had made up her mind that this time she would do the talking, that what she was going to say took courage. After all, why weren't the Reillys as good as some of the other families that got help; Mr. Reilly did not drink or gamble, he had never been untrue to her, or she to him; they were both fond of their children; when Mr. Reilly quit his job, he had had a better place in view or he had needed immediate cash. She told in detail of some of the hardships in the early lives of herself and Mr. Reilly. In further support of her position she mentioned also that she had two "very respectable" brothers, to quote her own words, in another city. The visitor listened until Mrs. Reilly had completely spent her anger; then said that what Mrs. Reilly told her interested her very much. Now that Mrs.