however, where no such common understanding exists, and where the home-town agency has to work through people with little social training or with training of a type which definitely unfits them properly to approach the deserting man.  It is a distressing experience to know that a man has slipped through one’s fingers, been frightened off or alienated, by poor work at the other end.  Are there any ways to reduce the number of these mischances?

Even with the closest co-operation among case workers of ability in different cities the results are not always as favorable, for obvious reasons, as if the person who knows the family were the one to find and interview the man.  More and more it is realized that money and time spent in going to nearby cities to do one’s own investigating is well spent.  There used to be a feeling on the part of the kindred society whose territory was thus invaded that this action argued lack of confidence in its work; but as the importance of the personal contact has been more widely recognized this feeling has disappeared.  It may be said that a worker who goes to a strange city is handicapped by her lack of knowledge of local conditions.  This is of course true, and it may easily be a question of how great an advantage will be gained by the journey.  The worker from the man’s home town can, however, go far toward overcoming the handicap of unfamiliarity with the place, as well as toward dispelling any sense of injury in the mind of a professional colleague, by calling first at the office of the local agency and talking the problem over thoroughly, consulting the map and getting what hints the local agency may be able to furnish.  The first question to ask oneself, therefore, is “Will it not be worth while to go myself?”

If for geographical or other reasons this is impracticable, the next thing that should receive careful consideration is the type of letter to be written.  If the situation is very emergent (as in the case of Adolph R. cited earlier), the request may have to be sent by telegraph; but even in a telegram it is possible to convey some detail.  To try to save money by confining oneself to ten words is unwise.  If time admits, a letter is more desirable, and the principle of its construction is as simple as the Golden Rule—­give the other person all the information you would like to have if you were receiving the letter.  Where the correspondent is not a trained social worker, very specific suggestions and directions should be given as to how you wish the man dealt with if found.

There might also be laid down a Golden Rule for recipients of requests from out-of-town that missing men be traced.  “Give the request right-of-way over your regular work, and send back as prompt and as full a reply as you would wish yourself” might adequately cover the case.  A reply which contains a history of actual steps taken as well as results gained, is more satisfactory than one which does not.  Good