A final source of misunderstanding is the double nature of the social worker’s task. Not only in relief work but in other lines as well he is not free to do as he would, he cannot always command the means. He can decide what he thinks would best be done but then he has to consider what sort of approximation to that best the resources of his association or community allow. The Webbs, in outlining a proposed reorganization of the English relief system, say that “Nothing has contributed so much to make the visits of the Poor Law Relieving Officer odious as the _mixture_ of his inquiries--as to the sickness of the person who is ill, or the lunacy of the person of unsound mind, and at the same time, as to the means of the family and as to what relations could be made to contribute.”[72] This stewardship for public or contributed funds and for doing things quite irrelevant to any intention of social work do more than anything else to make it seem “scrimped.” Social work, then, may take heart of grace. It is, once again, being condemned chiefly on misunderstanding and for the rest on its mere shortcomings. All human undertakings must expect that and try to amend and carry on. It may summon its courage and meet the last charge, the one that seems to make it most uncomfortable, a charge that not only says it bails the sea with a sieve and locks the door when the horse is out of the stable, but goes farther and ascribes motives--“the social worker is called an apologist for the status quo; he is called a little brother of the rich; he is accused of taking tainted money;”[73]--and why? Because social work continues in what its critics consider “remedial” work instead of addressing itself to wholesale and summary prevention.