would indicate that the child needed special attention, yet there was nothing in the records of the institution to show this. Other agencies in thirteen instances had discovered symptoms in the children that were not on record at the institution. Likewise, signs of feeblemindedness and insanity evident in the family history were not on record. There was nothing in the institution records to show that in seven cases the children were non-residents and should have been the charge of other communities. On account of lack of information regarding the social and financial standing of the child's family the institutions were not able to determine accurately the amount of money to be paid for the child's care. This information was lacking in 150 cases out of the 200 studied. For example, an uncle who was guardian of two boys paid nothing for their support, although he was vice president of a flourishing construction company. One father who was earning $182 a month had three children in one institution and was paying $9.00 a month for their care. In another institution a mother was paying $20 a month for one child and supporting herself and another child on a salary of $80 per month.

Need of investigating agency.—From the facts disclosed in this survey it is quite evident that a more careful investigation should have been made before these children were removed from their own homes. What should be the procedure, then, in such cases? If, instead of accepting children solely upon the recommendations of parents and relatives, the agencies concerned will consult the confidential exchange it will be found that many of the families from which these children come are already known to other organizations, which organizations, if consulted, will be able to give helpful information regarding the child in question. Some of these organizations may be already following a welldefined plan in the care of the child and his family. If the child is suddenly removed without consulting such an organization, needless to say this plan will in many cases be entirely upset.

After a careful check-up with all other organizations interested, the agency should endeavor to obtain any other necessary information that might be lacking. If there are no other organizations interested a careful study should be made of the child himself, his family, and his environment. He should be given, first of all, a routine physical examination, and if he presents a mental problem he should be given the usual tests applied in all such cases. His school record should be investigated and particular note should be made of his behavior in the home and the community and the effects that these environmental influences have had upon him.

If the study of the family discloses economic conditions as a reason for the child's removal, every effort should be made to set right these conditions by supplementing with relief from a family agency, mothers' allowance, insurance, workmen's compensation, etc. In cases of neglect, desertion, and non-support, assistance might be obtained through the courts to compel delinquent parents to support their children. If the family history shows evidences of feebleminded

ness or insanity, the child should be given a mental examination and the findings of tests made by a psychologist and a psychiatrist should be used as a basis for determining whether he needs institutional or private home care.

When this kind of investigation is made for each child seeking admission to an institution or a foster home, it will be found that many of them can be readjusted in their own homes; and for those who must be placed out there is at least some assurance that they can be placed in homes that will satisfy their needs.

Kind of investigating agency.-Should every child caring agency or institution be required to make its own investigation? The general opinion seems to be that it should not. It would be deemed unwise from an economic standpoint, for it would be necessary for each institution to employ on its staff one or more workers of sufficient skill and training to make such an investigation. Most institutions would be handicapped in securing the proper staff for this work because of the lack of funds.

Secondly, it would be inadvisable because those engaged exclusively in children's work invariably view the cause necessitating the child's removal purely from the child's angle of the problem, and are apt to overlook the bigger family problem and the possibility of solving it in order that the child might remain in his own home.

The method followed by most child caring institutions and agencies is one which permits a family case working agency to make all investigations of applications for placement. This method seems preferable, for family agencies have the more perfect machinery for doing the work. Their highest aim is that of preserving the integrity of the family and they are usually in close touch with all other social agencies whose cooperation may be helpful in doing this. For this reason child caring institutions feel safe in acting upon the recommendations of a family case working agency, for it is only after family case work has been thoroughly but unsuccessfully pursued that the family agency recommends the removal of children from the family.

Cooperation. There should be, however, a very close cooperation between the family agency and the child placing agency, for after it has been determined exactly what was lacking in the child's own home, the next step is to decide how this need will be met in the child's new home. A complete history, therefore, should be submitted by the family agency with each child who is in need of foster home care and the selection of the new home should be made upon the basis of this information. The child placing agency will no doubt have to refer frequently to the family agency for advice as it proceeds in the selection of the proper home for the child. The family history may be complete in every detail but there are always points that need further explanation when the occasion arises, until finally both organizations are satisfied that the child is properly adjusted.

If there is hope that the child's own home can be rehabilitated, there is

need of further cooperation between the two agencies in order that the child might be returned as soon as possible. Even when this is done and the child is returned, the family agency must exercise adequate supervision over the child to see that he might adjust himself properly in his rehabilitated home. It is quite obvious that according to this method of operation the carrying through of each case to a successful finish will depend largely upon the harmony and the smoothness of this cooperation between the two organizations. This raises the question as to the best methods under which this cooperation may exist.

Methods of cooperation.—At the present time there is a difference of opinion as to what is the best method to follow. In Cleveland, for example, the children's bureau makes all of the investigations for the admission of children to all of the institutions in the city. In this method there is an economy of effort and operating expense. There is an economy of effort, for since the bureau has complete control of the intake of all institutions, it has first-hand knowledge of the vacancies in each one. By virtue of this fact it is able to place children directly in those institutions where vacancies exist, rather than to waste time and effort going from one institution to another before a place can be found for the child. This is especially helpful in cases of emergency such as occur in times of sickness, death, and desertion. This plan affords a further advantage in communitywide planning for the care of certain types of cases.

There is economy of operating expense. Because of its centralized plan the bureau can operate with a smaller staff than would be required if the institutions had to make their own investigations. Because of its working relationship with other organizations it can summon practically all of the resources of the community to assist it in making the proper selection of children for placement. For example, the services of a central medical dispensary are available at all times.

It might be said in criticism of this method that on account of the volume of work done it is difficult to meet the immediate needs of each child when he is removed from his own home. This difficulty is met in Cleveland by placing all children needing care in an institution until such time as the proper kind of foster home might be secured or the children might be returned to their own homes. While placement in an institution might afford opportunity for the children to receive medical care, discipline, and general preparation for placement in private homes, yet it is hardly probable that all would need to be confined in the institution for a certain length of time. Some, no doubt, could be placed immediately in private homes, and thus be afforded the advantages of normal home life.

A second method is that followed by the Philadelphia children's bureau and organizations opposed to centralized investigation, who feel that an agency does better work with its cases if it handles them from the very beginning. It is held that this plan is especially desirable in large cities, where it would be practically impossible for a central investigation bureau to give its cases the personal atten

tion they demand. According to this plan each child caring agency should make its own investigations to determine whether or not the child concerned is a fit subject for placement. In this way it is argued that a more direct and personal understanding can be arrived at in each individual case, and because of this first-hand knowledge and understanding there is more assurance that those advantages which were lacking in the child's own home will be supplied in the

new one.

The difficulty with this plan is its operating expense. It is generally admitted that economy of dollars in social work is bad business if clients are thereby deprived of the advantages they should have, yet in spite of this fact most social service organizations find themselves handicapped because of this lack of funds, and any scheme which involves a greater outlay of money is to be questioned as to its practicability. This handicap might be overcome by a long process of educating the public regarding the necessity of appropriating more funds for this kind of work, but we in Minnesota who have recently emerged from a long and unsuccessful struggle with our legislature for funds to carry on even a more necessary kind of social work realize how difficult a task this is.

But even if the necessary funds are available there is still a question as to the wisdom of this procedure. If this method is to be followed it will be necessary for the case worker to see her case through to a successful finish, and in order to do this she will have to be thoroughly familiar with the technique of both family work and child placement work. But since social work has reached the stage of specialization in these two fields, it will be difficult, if not impossible, for the same worker to excel in both of them. Hence a division of the two fields seems advisable.

Perhaps it would be better to have the family work and the children's work grouped together under the one organization. This would serve as a compromise between the two methods just outlined and would seem to be a more satisfactory solution of the problem. In this way specialists in each department might function in their own field as parts of the same organization with a better understanding and a closer coordination of effort. This is the method followed today in many Catholic and Jewish centralized bureaus.

In securing material for this paper, questionnaires were sent out to six Catholic and three Jewish central bureaus operating in nine of our large eastern cities. Information was asked regarding the methods used in determining when children should be cared for outside of their own homes, and, if removed from their own homes, the kind of care they should receive. Eight of these questionnaires were returned giving practically the same answers. Each bureau has its family department and child placement department. The family department makes all of the necessary investigation before the child is removed from his own home, and continues to supervise the family from which the child has been removed, with a view toward returning him to his own home at the earliest possible convenience. The child placement department, on the other hand,

makes the selection of the foster home for the child on the basis of the information received from the family department regarding the child's history and background and does all the followup work necessary either to adjust the child permanently in a foster home or to return him to his own home at the proper time. One of the bureaus gave reasons for the division of the work as follows: "This division of the work is based upon the principle that the family agency has the resources, personal and financial, for doing the job, and has as its highest aim that of keeping the family intact. It reserves for itself the right of doing all of the case work toward this end, and except in cases of serious emergency, or where immediate removal of the children is patently indicated, it attempts to work with the family in order to obviate the removal of the children.”

All bureaus questioned seemed to feel there is an advantage in having the two departments under the one organization, for when there is question of the removal of a child both departments are so situated that they can work hand in hand for the best interests of the child. There is a better understanding on both sides of what is considered a common problem, and less danger of friction than might otherwise exist if the two agencies were separate organizations. Under this plan there is a further advantage in the easy access which the family agency has to the children's department for assistance not only in cases in which the removal of children is indicated, but also for those of their cases in which highly specialized case work with children in their own homes must be done.

Kind of care. The same facts which help us to determine when a child should be removed from his own home should guide us in the selection of a home that will be most suitable for him. This principle will permit no such arbitrary arrangement as placing those under a certain age in institutions and those above that age in private homes.

By institutional care we no longer mean care only in homes for dependent and neglected children, such as our orphan asylums offer, but care also in hospitals, training schools, and correctional institutions. If the investigation discloses that the child is crippled or is suffering with an infectious or contagious disease, he should be given hospital care. If he is definitely feebleminded he should be cared for in a special institution rather than in an orphan asylum or private home. If he presents a social problem, such as incorrigibility, he should be given a period of training in a correctional institution. And finally, if there is need of immediate removal, or care for a short period of time outside of his own home, he might be placed in an orphan asylum.

If the child's needs can best be met by private home care there are the following types of home to be considered: the boarding home, the free home, and the adoptive home. The boarding home should be used for the child who is eligible for temporary care in a private home. If this home is well chosen it will afford not only the best opportunity for the development of the normal child, but in many instances for the problem child as well. The child, for example,