deceived.

Out of twenty or more case workers in different cities whose experience
was sought on this point, nearly all felt that the warnings against
possible collusion which used to be given to young workers no longer
needed to be emphasized. Testimony in the other direction is, however,
advanced by the National Desertion Bureau, which found that about 10 per
cent of the applications made in 1910 to the United Hebrew Charities of
New York for relief because of desertion were collusive.

It should be said, however, that one form of collusion is common to the
experience of case workers--that of the wife who knows where her
husband is, or has a very good idea, but does not want him to return
and so keeps her knowledge to herself. "In two of our regular allowance
families," writes the case supervisor of a family agency, "we
discovered--one quite incidentally, one after the allowance had been
discontinued for other reasons--that the wife had had reports regarding
the man which we might have followed up had we known of them earlier. It
could hardly be called collusion--it was mere indifference." A probation
officer writes:

"At the present time we have under investigation a family where the
man has been away from home for two years and his whereabouts during
the last year have been known to his wife. He has been living in a
suburb of the city and working steadily during that time. The woman
has received adequate aid from public and private organizations. She
has been content to accept that rather than notify the authorities
and have her husband required to meet the responsibility. The man on
his part was aware that his family was being supported, and while
there was no agreement between the parties regarding it,