mothers of this class is as convincing as among the boys. A Russian Jewish mother (22,493) worked very hard to support the children. "An older sister and brother were good and industrious, the youngest girl went to work very young"; Another "mother worked hard and kept a clean home (21,020) but the neighborhood was full of saloons and cheap theaters and the youngest girl was hard to manage," so that the mother took her to court and found that it was too late to save her from institutional life.

What desertion means is indicated by the following quotations from the stories of some of these deserted families of delinquent children: (12,412, boy) The father deserted many years ago, and since then the mother has worked in a tailor shop in the day and done scrubbing at night"; (11,265, boy) The father was a teamster earning eight dollars a week but drank and deserted the family. The mother is said to be a hard-working woman who canvasses for a tea and coffee house. She gave up the home and put the boys in St. Joseph's and the girls in St. Vincent's; (11,541, boy) An American family deserted by the father who was a switchman but drank heavily. The mother worked as a scrubwoman; (22,345, girl) One of thirteen children. The father was a drunkard who had been a lawyer in Poland and deserted the family, and the mother has tried to take care of the children by cleaning and washing but was unable to do so except by the help of a charitable relief society; (22,520, girl) A family of four children supported by the mother who is a practical nurse. The father is a blacksmith but does not live with the family or contribute to their support; (17,736, girl) An American family. The father was of a good family but was a professional gambler and irresponsible. He deserted his wife and four children and the mother tried to support the family by dressmaking.

In other words, we have in these cases, the problem of the working mother. And she is found in many instances in which the father neither dies nor deserts, but is there as an added pecuniary burden. Sometimes this is not, of course, by any fault of his (10,255), since he may be just industrially unfit or else crip

pled or insane (12,133, 10,490, 12,668, 12,056). But sometimes his bad habits throw the whole burden of support on the mother (12,203, 12,873, 11,123, 11,241, 12,183, 12,558, 12,252, 10,048) and only in rare instances does she resort to divorce (10,252, 10,827, 12,498, 12,751, 12,312, 12,226).

In such cases as these, the mother and other members of the family are glad to co-operate with the agent of the court if she understands; if she does not, she at least appreciates the fact that good feeling is being shown. "The mother thinks the officer has been the making of the child" (10,476); The boy says, “She is a good probation officer" (10,920); The mother speaks of her as "a fine woman" (10,233); The sister thinks, "The officer has helped the boy a great deal" (10,369). And sometimes much constructive help is given by the agent of the court; there is the frequent visit, the friendly counsel, help in securing work (11,930), general interest in the family problems (10,369), aid in securing material relief (12,178), and, in general, much that is appreciated by the family.

In many cases the authoritp of the court as manifested by the officer is evidently all the boy needs. The officer may "frighten the boy into doing right"—with the threat of the return to court or to the dreaded institution (10,476, 10,787). On the other hand, the officer is not always wise and intelligent. In one case (12,738) in which the boy is still delinquent and has finally been sent to the state penitentiary, the officer "patched up difficulties between the boy and his parents, begged him off from the police court," generally tried to keep the situation superficially smooth. But there was evident need of radical treatment, for there was a bad gang, the mother had remarried, and the boy was evidently pretty poor stuff. The officers are, of course, greatly overburdened and often very helpless, for the court may not be able to carry out a good plan for lack of resources, sometimes institutional, but very often in aid of home life. Undoubtedly, in many instances, the ability to keep the mother at home both as the natural caretaker of the family and as the agent of the court would mean success in the treatment both of the boys

and of girls where her absence, her consequent neglect, and her fatigue, result in obvious failure.

It must be remembered, however, that this success or failure is not to be measured by keeping or not keeping the boy out of court.14 If the neighborhood is very bad, the child may have to go to an institution for a considerable period, whether his offense was serious or slight; the boy who is too low a grade mentally and physically to build on may yet avoid doing any very serious thing, and may not be the kind of boy to profit either by institutional life or by being brought before the judge. Often when he reaches the age of fourteen and goes to work, he settles down to the responsibilities of life. Whether the boy is or is not "a repeater" is then no real measure of his badness or of the probation officer's success in dealing with the family situation. In one case already referred to (10,787) in which the mother brought her twelve-year-old boy in as incorrigible "because she had to work, and could not keep him off the street"-there were ten children-he was sent to Feehanville, a Catholic institution for dependent boys, and then to the John Worthy School, a public

Only a brief word can be said here in reference to the policy of the court with regard to the disposition of delinquent cases; it seems, however, important to note here certain obvious facts relating to its general policy. It appears, for example, that often when several children are brought in together for participating in a single experience, some of the members of the group will be put on probation, while others are at once committed to institutions, although all alike seem to have been guilty of the same offense. Thus, when three boys were brought in for "breaking into a basement, though they did not steal" the eleven-year-old Polish boy was charged with attempted burglary and sent to the John Worthy School, while the twelve-year-old American and thirteen-year-old Polish companions were charged with malicious mischief, and put on probation. Again in many cases when several children are brought in separately, charged in identical terms as delinquent, they receive wholly different treatment. And, indeed, the whole theory on which the court is established makes it clear that what the child has done is, from the point of view of the court in determining what is to be done with the child, of slight importance. The weighty questions are, how did he or she happen to commit this offense and are the circumstances leading to this wrongdoing such as to indicate the probability of a repetition? And if so, can the conditions unfavorable to the child be so altered as to give him a fair chance without removing him from home? Or must he be placed in a wholly different environment? If the latter course be necessary, few alternatives to the institution present themselves.

institution for delinquent boys, but after three months he came back to the same conditions-the same crowded, motherless home, the same streets, the same gang; it is not surprising then that he was again brought in as incorrigible and this time he remains at John Worthy until he can go to work. In four cases (12,354, 10,151, 12,738, 10,682) the boys came in twice for gang offenses. Two of the four go finally to the state reformatory and seem to promise permanent criminal careers, one to the reform school, while only for one does the probation officer obtain honorable release. One boy (10,369) came in three times for pretty serious offenses, but he has settled down to work and earns $7.50, all of which he "gives in" to his mother, who is said to be proud of him. In one case (10,920) an Irish boy keeps house while the mother and sister work out. The mother is in a department store, the sister is a telephone operator. He tried to grab a pocketbook when he was twelve and went to the John Worthy School for two months; at the age of fifteen he was in a neighborhood row amounting almost to a race war; but was put on probation. Nor do the cases show that the probation officer always utilized all the resources available; so that sometimes if there was failure it was doubtless attributable rather to a lack on the part of the court than on that of the family (10,303).

Such cases as those which have been presented call attention to two needs on the part of the agents of the court. One is the need of the highest skill and finest judgment in determining whether or not the family of the child with whom the court has to deal can be helped by counsel, by such services as securing work, advising with reference to the employments of the various members, aid in selecting more favorable neighborhoods, keeping track of school attendance, etc.; or whether there should be, in addition to these, material relief. Upon this point alone most expert judgment should be available. And then, when in the light of all the circumstances, of pecuniary lack, of competence, of neighborhood habit, it becomes evident that material relief is required, the ability to command that relief should be assured -whether it be termed a pension for the mother, or "adequate

aliment on condition of caring for her children," or pay for her services as agent of the court, or a grant in aid of family lifeit should be available, sufficient in amount, regular in payment, dignifying in its assurance of the community's concern for the well-being of her group.

Such provision would, of course, prove an inadequate measure to enable the court to deal with economic conditions in all the families with which it has to do, since a closer view discloses the fact that many of the wards of the court come from homes of poverty and in many instances the connection between the poverty of the family and the delinquency of the child is not difficult to trace. In this connection it is of interest to note the extent to which poverty does prevail in the homes from which the court's wards come.

A study of the children brought into court during the year 1903-4 seemed to indicate that the court dealt with families from four large economic groups. These have been called (I) very poor families, (II) poor families, (III) families in fairly comfortable circumstances, and finally (IV) families whose homes were apparently quite comfortable. No families were found that could be called "wealthy"; so a fifth division, which would have included families of that class, was omitted. No attempt has been made to subdivide these groups, for none of the returns as to employment or earnings were verified and it was felt that the data in hand were not of sufficient accuracy and detail to warrant an attempt at more elaborate or exact classification. 15 A discussion of the characteristics of the families which have been placed in these different groups will make the method of classification more intelligible. No standard of incomes and earnings was set as a dividing-line between the two groups; but they were determined rather by such items as the kind and amount of work done by the father, the standard of living as indicated by the kind of house, and particularly by the

15 Any attempt of a classification of families on the basis of economic conditions must inevitably recall the classification used in Booth's Life and Labor of the People; and it is needless to point out that our data, obtained on the basis of a single visit by the investigator, even when supplemented, as was often the case, by the probation officer, were not sufficiently complete to permit