As to home conditions, the character of the wife, etc., the "shop" usually know what the breadwinner of the family has told them and no more. This does not mean that work references can give no evidence of value on these matters, but that the usual tests should be applied-the identity of the original informant must be known, and any signs of bias must be noted.

An Employer sometimes states the maximum earnings at full time, or names the rate at which a workman is paid, without giving (unless specifically asked) the number of hours actually worked. "The most accurate way," says Miss Sears, "is to know what his [the employe's] last pay envelope contained." The only way to be absolutely sure of this, of course, is to see the envelope.

Letters of former employers about a workman addressed "to whom it may concern" are valueless; they express too often the good natured relief of one who is well rid of a burden, while a present employer is sometimes tempted to conceal the truth about a particularly useful employe. These two forms of bias are illustrated in the following instances:

has worked for me off

A man's Employer wrote, "This is to certify that and on for the last four years. His work has been very satisfactory, and he is a thoroughly good, all-round man, and I think you will find him very valuable." The man's foreman, when seen later, said that he was a plausible fellow who impressed everybody favorably at first, but who spent his money as fast as he got it on drink and on women. Had once said that he was married but later denied it. His Employer wrote the letter because he was "down and out," and no one wanted to give him another knock. This client had tuberculosis and needed care, but the form that the care took had to be modified by the existence of a wife and children (he had claimed to be single), and by the presence of inebriety and syphilis-conditions all brought to light in the course of inquiry.

An Italian widow with children, who claimed that their only support came from a sister of hers who worked for a tailoress for $2.00 or $3.00 a week, had her story confirmed by the sister's Employer. Later the payrolls of the shop showed that these two women and the daughter of one of them (whose whereabouts had been reported unknown) had been earning steadily from $10 to $18 a week, and that their average earnings had been between $12 and $13. Various charities and individuals had supported the family meanwhile, at the request of the charity organization society. The tailoress explained that she knew that help which was not needed was being given; but the women were so valuable to her that she could not afford to offend them.

1 The Charity Visitor, p. 31.

III. THE CO-OPERATION OF EMPLOYERS

1. Former Employers. The former employer may be an unsatisfactory writer of letters of recommendation, but when seen in his own surroundings, where payrolls, foremen, and shop mates can be consulted, or where it is possible to refer the inquirer to one or the other of these, his evidence assumes a very different character, especially when he is not too busy to hear, in a few words, the circumstances and plans that give his own statement a definite value. By showing the relation of his testimony to constructive work that is in progress, it is often possible to interest him in the future of his old workman and in the family's future too. Sometimes the former employer becomes the prospective employer. Where there is a good chance of this, he should be seen quite late in the course of the outside inquiries, to spare him a second visit, if possible, and to make his co-operation fit in with the other plans developed by consultation. The degree of interest felt and exhibited by the inquirer, and the amount of knowledge of the real situation that he shows will have a direct relation to the kind of co-operation secured.

An office for the care of the homeless and transient poor reported one of its applicants as the "raggedest creature that ever came in here." The man had only one leg, his artificial leg was broken, he last worked for a contractor as teamster, and had a record of drink. The former employer was induced to take him back and to pay $5.00 a week out of the man's wages toward $50 advanced by the agency to buy another leg. This was in May. In August the man had one lapse, was arrested for drunkenness and neglected to pay his fine. When re-arrested the Employer paid his fine and took the fellow's habits actively in hand. Three months later he was doing well, and his Employer was looking for another man to work with him— one of steady habits who would not lead him into temptation.

The former employer who has not been mentioned in a first interview, but whose name comes to light in the course of outside inquiries, is what has been called a "supplementary clue." He is often a valuable witness.

It has been said that Employers and fellow workmen know little about home conditions, but the matters about which they do know are intimately related to the home, and their items of evidence have all the more value because they are circumstantial and indirect. If we know how to piece them together and weigh them as against 1 See p. 170 on the order in which outside sources should be visited. 2 See p. 174.

other testimony, our work in the home will be better rounded. Just as the teacher who studies her pupils gives revealing evidence about home conditions and habits, though she may never have entered the home, so the Employer's facts and first-hand observations have a relation to these same things, though his inferences and opinions may be of little value.

In attempting to gauge the possibilities in the father of two boys (aged eleven and three) who was said to be neglecting them, a charity organization society received the following estimate from a naval station: Man was in the marine corps for fifteen years, was promoted to sergeantcy and in charge of a prison guard. Began to drink some, and they felt he would be better in the Philippines. While there, saved the life of his commanding officer and received commendation and a medal. On his return to this country, was again given the post of sergeant of the guard. At this time, was drinking more and more and was less reliable-mixed up in a number of scrapes. At the end of enlistment was honorably discharged. Then went into the labor department, where he held an important clerkship. Discharged for being drunk in working hours. Conduct was poor but work was excellent. Fine fellow, above the average in intelligence, and could have been advanced considerably in the service but for his drinking habits.

The same society was able to get a portion of the family background needed in planning for an Italian widow with three children from an Employer's report on the work record of her deceased husband, who was a stone mason: Not like the ordinary Italian; began with low wages but worked up to $2.75 a day. Got into debt and used to ask for extra work, so that he sometimes earned $19 or $20 a week. If the Employer wanted anyone to help him set up a gravestone always asked C, and he was ready and willing. Non-union man, no benefit society so far as known, worked at this one place until a few days before his death. Debts were contracted first, it was thought, owing to illness of little boy and of wife, who was sick a good deal. Then his brother got into trouble by buying on the installment plan, and C had to help him out.

A boy of fourteen complained to an S. P. C. C. of the treatment that he received from his father. His case was taken into court, but, under questioning by the judge, his statements were contradictory. The boy's former employer was then seen, who said the boy had lost money while working for him, and had been discharged for carrying tales about the office which were without foundation--he was very untruthful, in fact. No doubt about his neglect at home, however, as his clothes and shoes would hardly hold together, and they were obliged to fit him out themselves. The young woman stenographer, seen separately, agreed that the boy was untruthful, but added that his parents bought him no clothing whatever during the whole winter of his employment. This warning as to the boy's romancing and the confirmation of his neglected condition would both have been useful in preparing the case for its first presentation in court.

The same S. P. C. C. was dealing with a non-support case, involving four chil

dren under the age of six. The proprietor of a garage reported that he had given work to the children's father at the request of a former employer who knew and felt sorry for the family. No signs of liquor during the eight weeks that the man worked for him, but he often failed to come to work. Shiftless and lazy. Was warned that if he did not do the work properly he would be discharged. But for his carelessness might have had the work indefinitely. (This last statement had a direct bearing upon proof of non-support.)

2. Present Employers. Workers in family and in child-saving agencies agree that inquiries of the present employer are difficult and to be avoided if possible, unless the head of the establishment or its foreman is known to be one who can be interested. Complete avoidance of the risk, however, would work great hardship to innocent people.

Upon a complaint from a wife with two children that her husband drank and did not support his family, a letter of inquiry was written to the office by which the man was employed, stating the wife's grievances. This brought a request for further particulars, but soon after a second letter came stating that the man had been discharged because they could not keep anyone in their employ who drank. The discharge may have been hastened by the inquiry, and the possibility of some such action ought to make agencies very careful about sending letters to unknown Employers, though a simple request for the man's work record might have been harmless enough.

Probation officers find that they have to be very careful about seeing the Employers of their boys and girls. With some firms the mere discovery that a child has been brought into court leads to immediate discharge. There are others, however, who take more interest in a boy on probation than in one who needs no oversight. Obviously, an important part of a probation officer's equipment is a knowledge of the attitude of the factories and shops of his district toward their young people.

In non-support cases requiring court action the evidence of present employers is even more important than that of former employers, for the prosecuting agency must be able to give the man's exact earnings, the duration of his employment, the number of times that he has been absent from work, and the supposed causes of absence, as well as the occasions and amounts of wage attachments for debt. Often the man exaggerates the number and amount of these attachments.

An S. P. C. C. received a complaint that a father was leaving four children, ranging in age from four to eleven years, alone at home not only in the daytime but all

night. The father's present employer was not seen before the trial, and the judge decided that the neglect was not wilful, because, when a witness testified to the fact of night absences, the father claimed that he had been away only one night, when he had changed shifts with another man. After the trial, the contradicted witness obtained a letter from the man's Employer giving thirty-six dates on which he was recorded as having done night work during the last six months.

The following are instances of co-operation with present employers whom it was possible to interest and from whom useful information was had:

A public department for the care of dependent children had as its wards two children aged eleven and nine whose mother had eloped with a man not their father, the whereabouts of the father being unknown to the guardian of the poor who committed the children. A journey the length of the state by the department's visitor brought no trace of the father, save a statement that he used to be well known in a certain town. The police station of this town reported that the man had been favorably known for years, and had formerly worked there for a barber. This barber knew the present employer's address, which happened to be in the city in which the children's department had its headquarters. Personally seen, this Employer gave the man a good name; said that he worked faithfully and well, had little initiative, and drank very occasionally. The Employer was interested in the story of the children, offered to increase the man's wages at the first opportunity and to encourage him to make a home for his children. This last the father has not done, but he has paid for their care regularly for three years.

A charity organization society was able to interest a group of present employers in a family in which the chief breadwinner had developed tuberculosis. The Employer of the man had known nothing of his illness. He undertook to move the whole family to the country and to aid in other ways. The firm employing the oldest boy gave a good report of his work and prospects. The girl's Employers increased her wages upon hearing of her father's illness, but gave reasons for thinking that she would do better at other work in the long run. The case reader who studied this record says, "Its investigation also seems to show what I miss in many othersthe possibilities in the particular work, and the suggestion (where this is the case) that the employe might do another kind of work better."

Since it is a delicate matter to establish relations with present employers, necessary though their help may be in the treatment of certain cases, a good general rule is to seek their help late in our inquiry, when it must be sought at all.

3. Prospective Employers. Sometimes a prospective employer is so well known to a social agency and so interested in its work that his establishment becomes an experiment station for the testing of unknown capabilities, the training of handicapped or difficult people, and the interviewing of unemployed men whose work