Most of the agencies that have tried foreign-speaking visitors feel that in spite of these disadvantages it is a gain to the agency to have such visitors on the staff. This is especially true with those agencies that have or have had visitors with educational equipment that is comparable with that of most of their English-speaking visitors. One agency, for example, has only one foreign-born visitor, a Russian who speaks several languages and had a teacher's-training course in Russia. The superintendent reports her "gratifyingly successful in her work with foreign families." The Charity Organization Society in another city is divided in opinion about the foreign-born visitor. During the panic of 1914-15 they had a Russian man who had had a good technical education at the University of St. Petersburg, and two years in a medical school in this country. The assistant case supervisor of that organization reports that he not only accomplished a great deal with the unemployed men in the district, but also helped the district workers to understand the Russian, Slavic, Lithuanian, and Bohemian families in the district, and "demonstrated what the possibilities might be if we could have foreign-speaking people with requisite training and the proper spirit to work intensively with the families." On the other hand, the superintendent of this organization, who was not with them in 1915, says that their experience with foreign-born case workers has not been successful, and suggests as an alternative the instruction of American case workers in foreign languages. The New York society agrees that better results are obtained by having native-born case workers learn the language of the group with which they are to work. They have found it possible to have native-born workers learn Italian, and have found them better workers than any Italians they have employed who were people of less background and training. STANDARDS OF LIVING Secondly, there is the problem of building up in the family asking and receiving aid, domestic standards appropriate to the life in the community. This raises, first, the question of the responsibility of the case-work agency for the adjustment of the family life to such standards in household management and in child care as might be formulated on the basis of expert knowledge of community needs; secondly, the question as to ways in which such adjustment may be accomplished if the agency feels under an obligation to undertake it. A number of the thirty-three case-work agencies which discussed this subject indicated that they thought this task one that should not be assumed by the case-work agency. Four agencies said they were doing nothing in this direction, though one of these was looking forward to the employment of a visiting housekeeper. One agency said that there was no difference in this respect between the care of native born and foreign born, and that all families were given such instruction as occasion demanded.