to normal life, there must come a better appreciation of the other's motive and viewpoint.

Prejudice against the unknown seems to be a very common failing, and this is true of organization as well as individual. The remedy for prejudice is knowledge and acquaintance. It is easy to sympathize with one who has told you his aims and has shown that he thoroughly believes in his work, and easy to respect the opinion of one who is truly in earnest. Not only will this acquaintance bring about more friendly interest through better individual case work, but it will lead to broader social usefulness.

When we know the health agencies, it is natural to refer health problems to them; so may their contact with their own problem be enlarged. Church and settlement workers establish social contacts; hospitals and dispensaries, medical contacts. The results of these should be available, although they may be unrecorded or unindexed. Frequently it will be possible only to learn of the present situation. But the better developed agencies keep records of all interviews in connection with cases, so these results will become a part of the families' written history.

The registration value of poor record organizations as well as of good ones depends entirely upon their openmindedness, the fullness of their reports, their eagerness to share their knowldge and their willingness to profit by the experience of their fellow workers. Through case conference workers learn to analyze the results of their own labor, as well as that of others.

The recognition of imperfection is the first step toward improvement. The raising of standards must follow and become evident in better co-operation, improved case work (including records) and a larger sense of community responsibility.

When registration is not followed up or inquiries are met with grudging response, the social service exchange may well consider refusing to receive registrations from such organizations; this, of course, only after an earnest effort has been made to change the attitude of the agency. Registration of this kind will usually come from the endeavor to meet with a requirement in order to secure endorsement as a basis for financial support.

Chamber of commerce or other municipal bodies may well be urged to learn from the exchange to what extent it is being used, and base approval on these reports.

Any attempt to keep the letter of this law of registration without the spirit should be discouraged. Upon the stronger organization rests the task of helping the weaker secure the means for better record keeping. By inquiring for facts learned and treatment given during contact with the family over a period of years, and by asking about plans for the future, it is possible to aid workers in their efforts to convince their boards that such information should be kept in permanent form.

All agencies can make the exchange of greater value by urging others to use it fully. If it is found that the lack of response from any organization has not been corrected, the exchange should be notified.

The social service exchange should be ready, not only to report back on registrations, but to make sure that they are being followed up. From the agencies it should learn how fully the information is used and in what way the method may be better adapted to certain needs. It should be ready to call case conferences, where this is not otherwise arranged for. It should be ready to assist organizations to install or change their record systems, or to direct them to another agency better equipped. It should always remember that the exchange was created and now lives for the purpose of working with all who are earnestly trying to solve the problems of this complex social day.

NOTE

The following description of the social service exchange, the topic of the present symposium, is given on request by the chairman of a national committee on the subject, Miss Bessie E. Hall, registrar of the Cleveland Associatied Charities:

The social service exchange is now universally recognized as the best plan for promoting the interchange of information between agencies whose interest may be centered on the same family.

The central exchange keeps a card index of all cases handled by the several cooperating agencies. Each card carries only identifying information,—the surname, first names of man, woman and children, address, ages, occupation, and a few other pertinent facts regarding each family or individual known to any of the agencies using it. On this identification card is recorded the name of each organization that has notified the exchange of its interest in the family. Each agency thus notified is given the name of the agencies whose names appear on the identification card, and they in turn are all notified of the interest of the new agency.

The exchange carries no treatment or history facts. It employs no visitors, has no extended knowledge of the families whose names appear in the files,—it is simply a guide to show where such information can be found. A person or agency consulting the exchange does not bring a family to the attention of any agency, nor give publicity of any kind to its condition. Information is given only to those who have a clearly defined social interest. This is an essential rule.

An efficient social service exchange has three main purposes. First, and most important, it safeguards the family's welfare and relieves it both from-the embarrassment of unnecessary investigations and from the confusion of conflicting plans of treatment. Second, it brings about a better understanding between the various social agencies as to the nature and extent of service each is prepared to render. Such understanding is bound to result in improved standards of work. Third, it tends to prevent duplication of effort, and thus saves time and money.

There are some sixty exchanges in the United States and Canada. The majority of these are financed and managed by the local charity organization society. In view of the fact that the exchange is a community activity, it is being financed in several cities as a feature of the central council or welfare federation.

VALUE OF REGISTRATION IN THE CONFIDENTIAL EXCHANGE TO ORGANIZATIONS WHICH KEEP ADEQUATE RECORDS

Robert C. Dexter, General Secretary, Charity Organization Society,

Montreal

The important word in the subject that I have been asked to discuss, is adequate. It is doubtful if any organization which keeps no record at all, not even a card catalogue, would wish to register its cases with the exchange, and I do not feel that the exchange should accept such registration. The question then resolves itself into what constitutes an adequate record, and here we may have difficulties. For myself, I believe an adequate record to be a record sufficiently complete for the purpose for which it is intended. It would be easy to consider the word adequate from a charity organization point of view only, rather than the viewpoint of the social service exchange. May I, however, call your attention to the fact that a record adequate for a family agency like the charity organization may be unnecessarily detailed for an infant welfare station, for example.

Having settled that an adequate record does not necessarily mean a complete C. O. S. record or hospital social service record, but simply a record sufficient for the service for which it is intended, the first consideration is, who determines the adequacy? This can be answered quite definitely, that the standards of work in each field must be made by the workers themselves. Such standards have been slow in coming in social work; however, we have certain definite standards in some groups and the adequacy or inadequacy of the record must be determined by those standards. For instance, the Russell Sage Foundation and the usage of the larger charity organizations in the country determine standards for charity organization societies. The usage of the juvenile courts in Boston, Chicago and other centres determine the adequacy of juvenile court records. The usage of the home service section of the Red Cross determines the adequacy of records kept for soldier's families, etc.

Value in Common to Record-Keeping Agencies

The value of registration to organizations which themselves keep adequate records, of other organizations which also keep adequate records, would seem to be obvious. The exchange of information, the sidelights from the specialty of each organization, are invaluable. The fact that the records differ considerably is all the more reason why the exchange of information is of service. It is questionable whether the value of registration can be so great as to obviate the necessity of separate investigation by each agency. Unless two agencies are doing identically the same type of work and have the same standards, a relatively rare phenomenon, I doubt whether registering will entirely do away with duplicate investigations. It will do away, however, with investigations on many points. For instance, the names and ages of the family, past addresses, verifications of marriages and birth records, employers, etc., are facts which most social agencies keep, and which are exchangeable and prevent unnecessary inquiry. On the other hand, such important parts of the record as health conditions, moral surroundings, housing, wages, family history, not only vary from time to time, but are emphasized differently by different agencies, depending on the type of service rendered, and each agency must make its own evaluation for the purpose of its own treatment.

Of course, another value, which is so obvious that it just needs mentioning, is the fact that registration often prevents initiating action by one agency, as another which can perfectly well perform the services required is already in the field.

Registration by Non-Record-Keeping Agencies

The real question for discussion, however, is the value of registration of organizations which do not keep adequate records to other organizations which do, or in other words, should the exchange accept registrations which are classified as inadequate? This matter we have given a good deal of thought in Montreal and we have come to the definite conclusion that we would be willing to accept registration from any agency which keeps any record at all, whether that record be a card catalogue, an index in a book, or a complete C. O. S. case history. On the other hand, we have decided that we could not take registrations from agencies where the only record is to be found in the memory of individual workers.

Many agencies which register with us do not keep case records as complete as those of the C. O. S. This is particularly true of some of our numerous, far too numerous, war relief activities. Some of these keep more or less complete records, but none nearly as complete as the typical social case history. Some of the governmental agencies, for example, are required to secure only certain definite information, and very rarely go beyond that; others are entirely voluntary agencies, with untrained visitors who are not in a position to secure complete case histories. In our exchange, however, we have had registrations from both types of agencies and we have found them of great value to us. If a case is registered from the Board of Pension Commissioners for instance, we know that we can obtain an accurate history of the man's military service and physical condition; if registered from the Canadian Patriotic Fund we know that there is probably someone in that organization who knows a good deal about the family in general, although it may be necessary to obtain most of the information by word of mouth. In either case we know that a member of the family is, or has been, in the C. E. F., and we can obtain a statement of government money coming to the family.

Particularly in war times, with special agencies springing into existence, it is not only advantageous but absolutely necessary that the confidential exchange should receive registrations from agencies whose type of record does not correspond to a full case history.

The same reasoning which finds the registrations of war time agencies valuable, approves the registration of infant welfare stations which only keep facts regarding the health of the baby and the mother, or registration of institutions for homeless men which keep little more than individual identifying information.

The mere fact of registration itself is often valuable; for instance registration with a tuberculosis clinic suggests certain health problems, and registration with religious societies of different faiths might be significant.

The losses through such registrations are, of course, mainly the loss of time in the exchange in taking them and the loss of time on the part of the agency which keeps adequate records in looking them up. There is also a certain psychological factor which is prejudicial to the use of the Exchange on the part of the better type of agencies, if their returns from the exchange only bring in agencies which can give very little information. I think, however, the fault here is that those of us who are connected with agencies keeping full records sometimes expect too much of other agencies which are doing only specialized types of work. If we take from them what they can give us I think we will find it to be of value.

Value to Agencies Which Keep Poor Records

On the other hand the value to agencies which even for their own purposes keep inadequate records, of constant contact with other agencies which keep complete records, is inestimable. We have not yet succeeded in convincing all the workers on the Patriotic Fund, for instance, that they should keep case histories, and their official records generally consist only of a brief initial investigation and of letters on the cases. At the same time, the constant refering back for information to individual workers has convinced some of them that a case history should be kept, and certain district workers now have case histories similar to those kept by the C. O. S., or the home service section of the Red Cross. Agencies in Montreal have developed a type of record adequate for their own purposes instead of a cumbersome book, for example, because of the constant pressure brought through other agencies registering in the exchange.

A point which has a definite bearing on this question is whether the exchange shall be simply an exchange, or a keeper of records of a sort itself. If the exchange is to be itself a keeper of records or a source of information, then it must insist that records adequate for its purpose shall be kept by the organizations registering. If, however, it is to keep to its own program of being simply a clearing house, then it needs only to insist that records adequate for the purposes of the registering agency be kept, and other agencies should expect only such information. The improvement in technique resulting from constant contact is one of the biggest factors in the development of social work, and an important contribution of the exchange. This will not be made, however, if the exchange itself insists on family histories adequate from the viewpoint of any particular agency.

VALUE OF REGISTRATION TO ORGANIZATIONS WHICH DO NOT KEEP ADEQUATE RECORDS

Miss G. L. Button, formerly Secretary, Monmouth County Branch, Nezv Jersey State Charities Aid Asociation, Elizabeth

Does registration stimulate better case work? Does registration minimize the necessity for improvement? My subject is the value of registration to organizations which do not keep adequate records. Registration may be made of real value to