WOMEN'S BUREAU SURVEY OF PROGRAMS IN 19 CITIES

In order to obtain information on current programs relating to the establishment of standards for household employment, the Women's Bureau in July and August of 1946 made a survey of such programs then in effect in the United States. Background information was obtained from a Conference on Household Employment held by the Bureau in March 1946. At that time various aspects of the subject were presented by specialists on legislation, training, and placement. Representatives of a Household Employers' League and of a Domestic Workers' Union discussed their organizations. Later consultations were held with the USES and U. S. Office of Education to obtain information and suggestions and to avoid duplication of effort.

On the basis of the foregoing and data obtained from earlier work in the field of household employment and from reports of Women's Bureau Regional Representatives, intensive study was planned of 19 selected cities in which active programs on standards, training, and placement were reported.23

The cities selected for particular study varied in both size and geographical location. According to the 1940 census, 7 had a population between 300,000 and 500,000, 5 between 500,000 and 1,000,000, 4 over 1,000,000, and 3 of less than 300,000. Although all sections of the country were represented except the Northwest and Southwest, one-half of the cities were situated in the Midwest.

In the 19 cities, representatives of the Women's Bureau interviewed members of the local committees on household employment and individuals active in various branches of the field, such as home economics teachers, vocational school supervisors, and placement directors of schools, USES, or other agencies. Information was sought on the history and character of the committees, purposes for which they were organized, types of problems they handle-whether standards, training, or placement-the effectiveness of the program, the kinds of job orders received by placement agencies, characteristics of applicants, and the extent to which the standards developed were met by other local placement and training agencies. Copies of standards for household work, with explanations of how they had been developed, were obtained whenever possible.

The cities visited were: Akron, Atlanta, Buffalo, Chicago, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Detroit, Indianapolis, Louisville, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, New York City, Oakland, Philadelphia, St. Louis, St. Paul, Syracuse, Rochester, and Washington, D. C.

The results of these visits are summarized in this report. An effort has been made to evaluate the objectives and procedures of the local program and to suggest action for employers and employees. In the appendix are given copies of statements of standards and copies of forms used in various programs.

The programs described, while representing considerable local activity, are far from having attained the scope and authority needed to handle successfully the total problems of household employment. They do not, moreover, deal with the problems of smaller cities and towns or of rural areas. But it is hoped that describing what happened in the 19 cities will help individuals and groups elsewhere to define their own problems and to develop minimum standards adapted to their situations.

The present report deals only with programs relating to the private household employment of workers by individual employers. Other types of programs such as the Homemaker Services established by social agencies, in which those agencies act as employers, sending workers into homes that need their services-are excluded from this report.

LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS AND THEIR OBJECTIVES

In practically all 19 cities visited the same basic difficulties were found. Employers were dissatisfied because of the continuing shortage of household workers and the inadequacy of many of the workers who were available, while employees were aware of the disadvantages of household work compared with industrial occupations.

The wider implications of the problem were shown in the failure to obtain needed help in homes particularly requiring it for children, old or ill people, or where there were employed women whose work was interrupted because of lack of help. Employed household workers lacked job satisfaction and security.

Action on four fronts was considered necessary to improve this field of employment, so that competent women would be attracted to it and conditions satisfactory to the employer, employee, and community prevail. The objectives generally agreed on in the communities were: (1) Establishing standards of work and working conditions; (2) adequate training; (3) developing scientific placement techniques; and (4) improving the status of the employee. As the community programs developed, it became clear that these four objectives were closely related, and that permanent and effective programs for one of them required development of the others. It was also apparent that a long-range planning program was needed to deal with the problems raised.

Various types of organizations were found in the cities surveyed to

be dealing with one or all of these problems. The most common type of organization was the general community household employment committee, found in 12 of the 19 cities. For the most part, guidance and leadership in the preliminary stages of organizing such committees came from the industrial departments of the local YWCA's. It was realized, however, that the complications and technicalities of developing an effective program for improving existing conditions of household employment require the assistance of various groups-professional, employee, employer, and the general public. Consequently, the committees tended to expand and take in new areas of interest. In their more mature stages they endeavored to include individuals trained in placement, economics, domestic science, education, social work, and related fields, and members of church, social, and civic groups, as well as representative employers and employees. Such representation, found in 12 cities, insured a variety of viewpoints, awareness of special local conditions, and a likelihood of community support and acceptance.

In Atlanta local organization began when staff members of the USES consulted with individuals in the State and city vocational training departments, the Urban League, and the YWCA. These meetings led to the formation of an Advisory Committee on Household Employment composed of 14 members representing various additional local groups such as the Junior League, the colored and white branches of the YWCA, and the Department of Education.

The Greater Cleveland Committee on Household Employment was established in October 1945 on the decision of a meeting called by the Womanpower Committee of the War Manpower Commission.24 Many of the members of the committee had been interested in an earlier Employment Committee organized in 1941.

Representation on the committee was of practically all groups in the community that had a very direct or even a secondary interest in or contribution to make to the committee's work-social service, public service, educational, women's, and civic organizations, and housewives, employers, and employees.

In Cincinnati the organization in which work on household employment was centered was the Household Training Center Board, which had been functioning for many years. Widespread interest and cooper

"The Greater Cleveland Committee included representatives of the following groups: Business and Professional Women's Clubs, Cleveland Council of Churches, College Club, Consumers League, Family Service Association, Federation of Catholic Women's Clubs, Federation of Jewish Women, Federation of Women's Clubs, Flora Stone Mather Alumnae, Garden Clubs, Institute of Family Service, Jane Addams Vocational School, Junior League, League of Women Voters, Occupational Planning Committee, Personnel Women, Rocky River Women's Club, Smith Club, Urban League, USES, Domestic Service Unit, Vocational Guidance Bureau, Womanpower Committee of the War Manpower Commission, Women's City Club, YWCA Industrial Division. Other housewives, employers, and employees, not representatives of organizations, were invited on the Committee.

772323°-48-3

ation were maintained through the unofficial representation on the board 25 of public, social service, civic, and other agencies, and private individuals in Cincinnati.

Other types of committees than the general community committees were those definitely representing a special interest or approach, for example, the Household Employers' League of Chicago, composed entirely of employers. Others were unions or clubs of employees only, such as the active Domestic Workers' Union in Washington, D. C. In addition to such groups, separate agencies and individuals specializing in some branch of household employment also were developing techniques and methods designed to improve practices in their own special fields, usually in training or placement.

The work of the committees included consideration of standards, training, placement, and status, but attention concentrated mainly on the formulation of standards for working conditions. These standards, however, in turn often affect placement and training techniques and aid in the improvement of status.

STANDARDS

General Community Committees' Standards

The 12 general community committees which were found among the 19 cities all recognized the need for a common base for employers and employees on which to establish agreement with respect to conditions of employment and the value to the community in having such standards widely accepted. At the time of the survey six 26 of these committees had formulated standards, four more 27 had developed tentative standards, and two 28 were currently working on this question.

Wages. All the general community committees accepted the basic principle that standards of wages and other working conditions must be established for household employment in the same way that standards have been established in other types of employment. The comparability, in many respects, of household employment to occupations in the service industries was noted.

United States Employment Service placement supervisors were consulted by most of these committees concerning wage rates being paid in the service industries as well as the rates currently offered

25 These agencies were the Adult Education Council, American Association of University Women, Board of Education Department of Guidance and the Vocational High School, Department of Welfare Division of Aid to Dependent Children, Junior League, League of Women Voters, USES, University of Cincinnati, School of Household Administration, Women's City Club, Women's Club, YWCA Board Industrial Department, and YWCA West Side Branch (Negro) and housewives, employers, and employees not representing organizations.

26 Syracuse, St. Louis, Cincinnati, Minneapolis, St. Paul, Oakland.

"Detroit, Cleveland, Philadelphia, Atlanta. (A copy of the formulation of standards finally adopted for Philadelphia has since been received and is included in the appendix.)

18 New York, Rochester.

household employees. The Syracuse, N. Y., committee in addition conducted a wage study, using the New York State Cost of Living Study as a guide in arriving at suitable wage rate standards. As a result, wages proposed usually matched those offered locally for service jobs demanding comparable skills. No two of the wage recommendations made by the six committees which had formally adopted standards were the same. The Minneapolis and St. Paul committees suggested a $10 minimum for the semiskilled resident worker on a 54hour week, and Syracuse suggested $15 for a 50-hour weekly resident beginner. The highest weekly wage, $31.20 for skilled workers who live in and work 48 hours per week, was proposed by the Cincinnati committee.

In recognition of the preference for day and part-time work on the part of many workers, hourly and part-time rates were also es- ' tablished. Hourly rates showed less divergency than weekly rates. Both Syracuse and Chicago agreed that 75 cents an hour should be paid the experienced responsible worker, while rates in Cincinnati ranged from 45 cents hourly for the unskilled to 65 cents hourly for the skilled.

Hours. The committees were unanimous in recognizing the need to define the workweek strictly in terms of regular working hours, distribution of hours, daily reporting and dismissal times, and the measurement of "hours on call." Usually 2 "hours on call," when the worker was not performing household tasks but was available for answering the telephone and for emergencies, were considered as the equivalent of one actual working hour.

Five of the six committees establishing hours suggested 50 to 54 hours as the normal workweek for the resident worker. Cincinnati alone advocated a 48-hour week for resident employees. Either compensatory time off or extra pay was recommended for overtime. Only one city restricted the length of overtime. Syracuse limited overtime to 12 hours weekly, which would result in a maximum 62-hour week.

Other Standards. Standards generally covered also the length and frequency of a vacation period, holidays, absences due to illness, and the provision of suitable quarters, food, and home privileges for resident workers. The written agreements, also suggested by practically all committees, included, in addition, accurate job descriptions and regulations concerning termination notices and health examinations.

Certain special recommendations should be mentioned. The St. Louis, Syracuse, and Cincinnati committees recommended periodic re-evaluation of the job and of the worker with a view to wage increases. The Cincinnati standards recognized the principle of