The Journal of Negro History, Volume 8, 1923

by Various

III. Turnover, Training, and Efficiency of Negro Domestic and Personal Service Workers

The increase of 13,738,354, or 14.9 per cent, in the total population of the United States during the last decade, and a decrease of 367,667 in the domestic and personal service occupations population increases the possibilities of turnover. In 1890, the average tenure of service of a domestic worker in the United States was less than one and one-half years.[5] Ten years later the average length of service of a Negro domestic worker in the seventh ward of Philadelphia was five years less than one month.[6] Many of these workers perhaps had been for a long time in the older families of Philadelphia. Figures for a three-year period, from 1906 to 1908, show that the modal period of service of the New York Negro domestic worker was at that time from six to eleven months.[7] In 1914, among 104 unskilled Negro workers of St. Louis—cooks, laundresses, porters, chambermaids, waiters, scrubwomen, manual laborers, and the like—the greatest frequency for length of service among the men was from one to three months, and among the women from three to six months.[8] Six years later the largest proportion of Negro domestic workers of Gainesville, Georgia, showed a disposition to remain in one position less than three months, while the next largest proportion remained in one position from three to six months.[9]

Some concrete illustrations of the frequency of turnover may be referred to as further evidence. Nearly two hundred different women were sent out from the Springfield, Massachusetts, office for day work in 1915. Two years later over 500 different workers were sent out from that office, about 200 of whom were Negro women. Of these 167 white women and 124 Negro women were placed with employers less than ten times in 1917; 2 white and 4 Negro women were sent out from 41 to 50 times; 3 white and 1 Negro woman were placed fifty times during 1917. In 1918, the Springfield office reported as having filled 4,000 places with 1,000 women.[10]

In 1920 the United States Employment Office, Washington, D. C., placed 1,488 different women for day work, all of whom were Negroes except one. Of these, 458, after being given permanent positions for every day in the week, were referred again not over twelve times; 23 of them were sent out over fifty times, and 5 of them over one hundred times during the year. General housework was so unpopular during that year that few would take it. Although the turnover in day work was greater than that in any other specific employment handled by the domestic service section of that office, the 164 cooks remained in one position on an average of about three months.

There was, however, in the District of Columbia during the fall and winter of 1920 a decrease in the rate and volume of turnover for Negro day workers and hotel workers consequent upon the minimum wage law which became effective for hotels and restaurants in the spring of 1920. Many Negro women displaced in the hotels turned to day work. For this reason added to the normal increase during the first half of 1921, the number of day workers increased to 3,115. White workers did not have to apply for day work because they could secure positions in hotels and restaurants.

During an unemployment period which extended over the latter half of 1921 and the first half of 1922, when so many men were thrown out of work, the day workers increased to 4,615. There were more day workers than there were positions for them. Consequently the turnover in day work decidedly decreased, but it increased in general housework. Many who could not get a sufficient number of days' work to make ends meet were forced to turn to general housework.

The difficulty of keeping an accurate record of the turnover in general housework makes the value of figures on turnover in general housework seem very questionable. However, the length of service of 1,000 general houseworkers sent out from the Washington office for the latter half of 1921 and the first few months of 1922 gives a fairly accurate picture of the situation at that time.

Length of Service of 1,000 General Houseworkers, Washington, D. C., 1921-22

Table III
	317 remained in one position 1 week or less.
	582 remained in one position from one to three months.
	101 remained in one position 4 months and over.

Some of the conditions of the turnover at that time are illustrated by typical cases. One employer advertised for a general houseworker without laundry, with the privilege of going at night, and with hours off. Eleven domestic workers answered the advertisement in person, and no two met at the house at the same time. The employer engaged every one of them, to return to work the next morning. Every one of them gave assurance of being there, but not one of them came. Another employer with only two in family, very desirous of securing a general houseworker, called up six different employment agencies, each of which sent her a worker. Among the number there was one man. The employer put every one of them to work, each in a different room, with the idea of choosing the two best ones at the end of the day and engaging them for permanent work—thus assuring herself of securing one worker. She managed her plan, as she thought, very successfully, but the next morning she did not have a single worker.

Employers' statements on reference blanks, and reports from employment agencies indicate that the reasons generally given by domestic workers for leaving positions are that they wish a change, or the hours are too long, or the work is too hard, or the employer is too particular, or they have no time off. Time off for domestic employees is no doubt greatly limited. Negro domestic workers, however, proverbially take Christmas Day and the Fourth of July off, giving such various excuses for their absence as death in the family, automobile accidents, and the like. Just after these two holidays, large employment agencies handling Negro help are for the most part swamped with applicants.

To some extent turnover in domestic service is linked up with lack of training and efficiency of domestic workers. Because of their great need of domestic help, employers frequently engage persons who are so utterly untrained that they cannot be retained. There is a tendency on the part of employers to propose to a domestic worker that each take the other on a week's trial. Domestic workers are inclined to refuse such offers on the ground that they are looking for permanent employment. This suggestion of trying out domestic workers leads logically to the question of training and efficiency in domestic service.

Training of White Domestic and Personal Service Workers

Some facts relative to the special opportunities for the training of white household workers in England and in the United States may throw some light on the problem of efficiency. In England, following the World War and under the ministry of reconstruction, there was created a women's advisory committee to study the domestic service problem. Each of the four sub-committees appointed made a report. Among the advisory committee's final recommendations for getting the work of the nation's homes done satisfactorily and reducing waste, were technical training for domestic help and fixed standards of qualifications for them. This committee reported that in 1914 there were only ten domestic service schools in England and Wales, and four of these were in the London area. During the year of 1922 courses of three months' duration were given at some technical institutions in England in all branches of household work and management. This training enabled women to take the better posts in daily or residential work. Training in cooking and catering could be had at any technical college for three or more months as required.

To help meet the serious unemployment situation the Central Committee on Women's Training and Employment in cooperation with the Ministry of Labor set up homecraft training centers in districts where unemployment was most noticeable. At these centers a course of training was given for about three months, such as would enable women to take posts in domestic service at the end of the course. These classes were most successful. By August, 1922, about 10,000 women had received the training and the courses were still continued. These courses were given to women and girls between the ages of 16 and 35 upon their signing an agreement to be punctual in attendance, to do their best in making the classes successful, and stating their willingness to enter domestic service after receiving their training.

In the United States, in 1900, there were more illiterate persons in domestic and personal service than in any other field of employment except agriculture. The number of agricultural colleges in the different States for the purpose of developing improved farming and farmers has increased since that time, and the Federal Government farm demonstration agents are actually teaching the citizens on the plantations where they live and work. Facilities for the training of domestic help, however, have received little attention from State or Federal Government, and private enterprise in this field has been very limited.

Just twenty years ago the Home Economics Committee of the Association of Collegiate Alumnae of the United States, through the inspiration of Mrs. Alice Freeman Palmer and Mrs. Ellen H. Richards, undertook an experiment for studying at first hand the problems of household labor. Among the disabilities in domestic service regarded as fundamental causes of the disfavor in which it was held, was the low grade of intelligence and skill available among domestic service workers. This household aid company committee opened a training center and applied educational tests to its candidates and undertook to give a course of six weeks' training to each aid before she was sent out to work. The number of aids taking the training was small. Mainly because of a lack of funds, however, the experiment was given up after a trial of two years. Prior to that time the civic club of Philadelphia attempted to standardize the work and wages of domestic workers in that city.

Nearly twenty years later, a committee on household assistants was organized in New York City by the United States Employment Service. The committee succeeded in planning a household occupations course to be given at the Washington Irving High School, and made efforts to advertise the course; but since no one registered for it the committee concluded that the matter would have to be taken up and pushed by employers before it could succeed.[11]

Some of these efforts, however, have met with a measure of success. The Bureau of Household Occupations of the Housewives' League of Providence, R. I., organized in November, 1918, has conducted very successful training classes for domestic workers. No meals or lodging are to be furnished the household attendants of the Bureau. The Bureau of Occupations under the auspices of the Housewives' League of Hartford, Connecticut, has given its training courses through the generosity of some of its members. One member taught cooking, another taught waiting table, another laundry work. Classes were taught in the homes of some of the members with much success.

Training of Negro Domestic Workers

Available data shows that opportunities for the special training of Negro domestic workers have been even less than those for white domestic workers. During the latter quarter of the 19th century Mrs. L. J. Coppin, of Philadelphia, maintained a small home for the training of the Negro domestic workers of Philadelphia. In the comparatively few social settlements for Negroes there is meagre opportunity for training in domestic service. The Domestic Efficiency Association of Baltimore, Maryland, an organization of employers, has announced its plans for opening a training school for white and Negro domestic workers. This Association maintained in 1921 and 1922 a training school for Negro domestic help, in which special lessons could be given or general training for one month or more. A rate of $5 a week for board, lodging, and training was charged. If an applicant had no money the Domestic Efficiency Association advanced it on her signing an agreement to secure her position through the Association when ready for it, and to repay the debt out of her wages at the rate of at least $2.50 a week.

The domestic science training given in the public schools may be a small factor in the efficiency of Negro domestic workers, but most of the permanent domestic workers do not go beyond the fifth grade in school and thus do not go far enough to get an appreciable amount of domestic science training. Negro workers who go through the high or normal schools do not enter permanently into domestic service. This statement is based on the data indicated by the permanent occupations of 606 Negro graduates of the Sumner High School, St. Louis, Missouri, of 305 graduates of Miner Normal School, Washington, in the District of Columbia, of 15 graduates of the Gainesville, Georgia, public schools 1917-1919;[12] and on data for students applying at the Washington, in the District of Columbia, and the Indianapolis Employment Agencies. Tables IV and V below set forth these facts.

Occupations of 606 Negro High School Graduates, Sumner High School, St. Louis, Mo., 1895-1911[13]

Table IV
	Occupation	Number
	Those engaged in, or prepared for, teaching	288
	Entered college	49
	Clerical work	43
	Postoffice clerks	30
	Entered business	4
	Mechanics	17
	Women at home or married	120
	Miscellaneous	32
	Unknown	23

Although Tables IV and V direct one's attention to the limited fields of employment for Negro high school graduates, especially so since clerical and mechanical work, business and professional service, must be engaged in almost wholly among Negroes, yet few if any of the 911 graduates have entered domestic service. The young women graduates of the Gainesville, Georgia, schools 1917-19, with the exception of three, entered higher institutions of learning.

In Washington, in the District of Columbia, during the academic year 1920-22 there were among the 9,976 applicants for domestic work, 17 male and 159 female students who had attended or were attending high school; 75 female normal school students; 13 male and 126 female college students. Also in Indianapolis, in 1922, 73 female high school students and 12 female college students applied for domestic service. These large numbers of high school, normal school, and college students seek domestic service mainly for after-school hours, Saturdays, Sundays, summer months, and temporarily for earning money to continue their education, or until they can find other employment.

Occupations of 305 Negro Graduates of Miner Normal School, Washington, D. C., 1913-1922

Table V
	Occupation	Number
	Teaching in Washington, D. C.:
	Elementary	207
	Kindergarten	50
	Domestic Science	4
	Domestic Art	3
	Manual Arts	1
	Drawing	1
	Music	1
	Ungraded	1
	Teaching in Maryland	8
	Teaching in Virginia	2
	Teaching in North Carolina	1
	Teaching in South Carolina	1
	Teaching in New York	1
	Substitute teachers in Washington, D. C.	2
	Students	5
	Government Service	7
	Housekeepers	5
	Printers	1
	Private Music Teachers	1
	Physicians	1
	Insurance	1
	Y. W. C. A.	1

Table VI shows the grades on leaving school of 8,147 Negro domestic workers—men and women—of the Washington, D. C., office; and Table VII shows grades on leaving school of 471 Negro domestic workers, not separated by sex, of an Indianapolis Employment Office conducted by Flanner House in that city. Each of these workers was personally interviewed by the agent at each respective office. The reported grade of each on leaving school was placed on an application card which was filed for reference. The application cards were filled out solely on the testimony of the applicants. The agent in the Washington office handling the women did not ordinarily register men except as man and wife applied at the same time, or a woman sent her husband to the agent, or a special employer asked the agent to select male help, or teachers in the Negro schools sent boys and men who were in search of work. Therefore, the number of men from the Washington office for whom grades are given is comparatively small.

In examining Tables VI and VII below one must take into consideration several factors. In the first place, 81.2 per cent of the Washington applicants and 73.9 per cent of the Indianapolis applicants were born in the South where the standard is not so high as in the North; and many of these applicants attended school in the rural districts of the South where the schools were not standardized, and only a few schools had any domestic science instruction. Then, too, a large proportion of them left school some years ago when all of the grades or groups of a school were taught by one teacher in one room.

Those persons who could not read or write seemed to feel their illiteracy very keenly. Many of them offered excuses by saying that the "white folks raised" them; or their parents died and they had to help the other children; or they were "sickly," and the like. Those who had never been to school but could read and write a little were listed as being in the first grade. One applicant said that she had never been through any grade but she could read and write and go anywhere in the city she wished to go. Another one, an elderly woman, expressed her regrets because she never had a chance to go to school, but she had learned to read and write so that she could sign her name instead of simply "touching the pen" when she was transacting her business.

Grades on Leaving School of 7,975 Female and 172 Male Negro Domestic Workers from the U. S. Employment Service, Washington, D. C., 1920-1922

Table VI
		Male	Female
	Illiterate	8	418
	1st Grade	5	244
	2d Grade	7	436
	3d Grade	9	842
	4th Grade	17	1,073
	5th Grade	31	1,417
	6th Grade	28	1,237
	7th Grade	25	998
	8th Grade	42	1,310

Grades on Leaving School of 387 Negro Domestic Workers, Irrespective of Sex, Indianapolis, Ind., 1922

Table VII
Illiterate	1st Gr.	2d Gr.	3d Gr.	4th Gr.	5th Gr.	6th Gr.	7th Gr.	8th Gr.
21	7	11	22	44	63	51	47	120

The figures show that of a total of 7,975 female applicants for domestic work in Washington, D. C., 4,430, or 55.5 per cent, had received school training in the sixth grade or below; leaving only 29.9 per cent who had seventh or eighth grade training. Of the 387 applicants for domestic service in Indianapolis, 168, or 43.3 per cent, had received school training up to the fifth grade or below; and 219, or 56.7 per cent, had been to the sixth grade or below, leaving 43.3 per cent who had been in the seventh or eighth grade. The larger proportions of those from higher grades in Indianapolis may be accounted for by the lesser opportunity in other occupations as compared with Washington, and by the smaller number of applicants involved. In short, domestic service as a regular occupation does not attract and hold Negro workers of the higher grades of educational training and intelligence.

In order to understand exactly what is meant by saying that consideration of certain factors must be taken into account in any attempt to formulate some idea of the educational status of the rank and file domestic worker reckoned by his grade when he left school, some letters, typical of the educational equipment among the 9,774 domestic workers (applicants), should be read. These letters were written to the agent in the Washington, D. C., office by 5th grade domestic workers.[14]

Many of these domestic workers also showed their lack of training by their inability to figure out their weekly wages at the rate of $40, 45, or $50 per month. Such inability often caused them to feel and say that their employers were "cheaters." To a considerable number of them, $40 a month meant $10 a week, and vice versa; $45 a month meant $11.25 a week, and $50 a month meant $12.50 a week. They generally secured their pay twice a month—the first and the fifteenth. However, such an arrangement did not seem to clarify matters, since they thought of four weeks as making a month.

Then comes the question of the efficiency of Negro domestic workers. In Philadelphia, Baltimore, Detroit, Indianapolis, and Washington, D. C., agents find that employers of domestic labor, like other employers, do not like to write down their grievances, but many of them do make complaints to the agents over the telephone about the inefficiency of domestic help. Agents in Detroit and Indianapolis state that Negro domestic workers from the South—many of them from the farms and untrained, unaccustomed to Northern methods of domestic work—find it difficult to give satisfaction. The consensus of opinion of eleven white and Negro agents in New York City was that with respect to efficiency there are three distinct types of domestic workers in New York City. In the first place, comes the West Indian, who is unaccustomed to domestic work, and therefore unable to convince himself that he is on that plane. He makes a more or less inefficient domestic worker. Then there is the New York Negro who has difficulty in adjusting himself to domestic duties. The southern Negro, however, a decidedly different sort of laborer, makes a more efficient domestic worker than either of the other two types.

Opinions elsewhere also vary. There was a migration of Negro women domestic workers from Georgia to Springfield, Massachusetts, in 1916-1917. Many of these women were very satisfactory employees and compared favorably with northern born Negro women domestic workers of that locality, according to the 11th Annual Report of the Massachusetts Bureau of Statistics. In the United States Employment Office, Washington, D. C., where all sorts and conditions of domestic workers were handled, reports from employers on the efficiency of the new workers from the South indicated that they were unaccustomed to modern methods of housework and were less efficient than northern born workers.

In any attempt to rate the efficiency of Negro domestic workers by verbal testimonials and written references from their employers or by wages received or length of service period of the workers, due consideration must be given to factors beyond the workers' control. Some of these factors are differences in the standards of efficiency in the many homes and the temperament of employers together with the attitude of some employers toward Negroes generally. For example, occasionally, a former employer, in sympathy with the struggles of Negroes and not wishing to hinder an unsatisfactory worker from securing another position, writes for her a letter of recommendation. Sometimes another employer, because of misunderstanding of some sort between her and the worker, refuses to give any reference whatever.

In 1890, 57 per cent of 1,005 housekeepers representing the whole United States found more or less difficulty in securing efficient help. This probably was an underestimate of the true condition.[15] In 1901, out of 1,106 domestic workers from all sections of the United States, 34 per cent were rated excellent; 37.4 per cent good; 24.8 per cent fair; 3.8 per cent poor. Although these figures indicate that 96.2 per cent of the total were between excellent and fair, the Commission's report in summing up the matter states that according to the testimony of employers of domestic labor and of employment agents, the character of the service rendered by domestic laborers is in a large proportion of cases unsatisfactory. It further states that the quality of men's work is about the same as that of women's work.[16]

In New York City, employment agencies send reference blanks to former employers of domestic workers to be filled out and returned.[17] These references are kept on file as a record of the domestic worker's capability, sobriety and honesty. From 1906 to 1909 efficiency ratings taken from such blanks for 902 Negro domestic and personal service workers were as follows: 25.6 per cent very capable; 10.2 per cent fairly capable; 2.2 per cent inefficient, and 2.0 per cent not stated.[18] One employment agency in this city made 304 placements of Negro women domestic workers during January, 1923. According to those workers' references from their former employers 93.3 per cent were capable or fairly capable and honest. This high degree of efficiency among domestic workers from this one office is due probably to the fact that this office with its limited staff of secretaries makes no attempt to handle the evidently inexperienced workers. The other employment agencies in New York and Brooklyn visited in 1923 spoke favorably of the quality of service rendered by domestic workers in these cities, according to their reports from employers.

Opinions of employers are not conclusive evidence of the efficiency or inefficiency of workers, but they throw considerable light upon the question. Written references are more or less held in disfavor by the Washington, D. C., employers of domestic labor because they feel that domestic workers sometimes write their own references. This is true to a limited extent. Many of the workers come from small towns and rural sections where the employers of domestic labor do not use elegant stationery, the best English, and the most correct spelling in writing references for domestic workers who leave for the cities. Such references do domestic workers coming to Washington, D. C., more harm than good.

However, domestic workers are more and more seeking written references on leaving their places of employment because they are beginning to realize that such are generally required by employers. Often a former employer has moved away from the city, is in Europe, or has died, when the domestic worker needs most to refer to her. A prospective employer usually doubts that such an excuse, if given, is true. Of course, some workers do try to take advantage in this way, but most of them are not so unwise.

Types of written and oral testimonials of employers of domestic labor in Washington, D. C., are also informing.[19] In cases where three or more employers testified to the efficiency or inefficiency of a worker, the word "efficient," "inefficient," or "poor" was written across the bottom of his application card. The following table in some measure represents in detail the character of service reported to the United States Employment Service, Domestic Section.

Summary of Testimonials of Former Employers of 9,976 Wage Earners Engaged in Domestic Personal Service, Washington, D. C., January 1920-May 1922

Table VIII	Efficient		Fairly Efficient		Inefficient
	No.	Per ct.	No.	Per ct.	No.	Per ct.
Male	90	44.6	94	46.5	11	19.4
Female	3,008	30.8	4,543	46.5	1,892	.05
Total	3,098	37.7	4,637	46.5	1,903	9.7

No Report

	No.	Per Cent.
Male	7	.03
Female	331	.03
Total	338	.03

In this table 44.6 per cent of the males as over against 30.8 per cent of the females are reported as being efficient, while 19.4 per cent of the females and only 0.05 per cent of the males are listed as inefficient. This should not lead to the conclusion that the male Negro domestic workers of Washington, D. C., were more efficient than the female Negro domestic workers of that city, since the 202 male domestic workers do not represent the rank and file. They represent men of family responsibilities, and students working their way through high school and college. Both of these groups had a more or less definite responsibility and aim in doing domestic work and therefore were more willing, at least for a time, to accommodate themselves to conditions obtaining in it. The office received no report concerning .03 per cent of the workers. Occasionally both employer and employee were so well pleased with each other that neither was heard from unless the office in its follow-up work discovered the happy situation.

The opinion of employers that 19.4 per cent of 9,773 Negro female domestic workers of Washington, D. C., were reported inefficient does not, without other data, justify this as a scientific conclusion. Some typical examples of their inefficiency are interesting.[20] The inefficiency is due in large measure to pure ignorance which for the most part is the sequel to lack of opportunity and training. For example, the older type cook, who cannot read and write, finds it difficult, if not impossible, to carry all the different modern salad and dessert combinations in her memory and cannot supplement her instructions by the use of literature on domestic science.

Employment agencies in Chicago in 1923, moreover, have hardly told the whole truth in giving the following figures on the efficiency of 200 female domestic workers and 200 male domestic workers: Women, satisfactory 175, or 87.5 per cent; unsatisfactory 10, or 5.0 per cent; neither satisfactory nor wholly unsatisfactory 15, or 7.5 per cent. Men, satisfactory 125, or 62.5 per cent; unsatisfactory 45, or 22.5 per cent; neither 30, or 15 per cent.

Efficient domestic workers apparently regret that they are in an occupational group representing such a high degree of ignorance and inefficiency. They sometimes take pride in saying that they have never worked for poor people. Such a class of workers is represented by a Washington, D. C., domestic worker who gave as her former employers Mrs. John Hays Hammond, Mrs. Arthur Glasgow, Senator Beveridge, Senator Guggenheim, and President Wilson. She took pride in the fact that she could even show anyone a piece of the president's wedding cake.

Honesty in domestic service is so closely associated with efficiency that practically no reference for a domestic worker is complete without some statement about this qualification. In 1890 Miss Salmon raised a serious question with regard to the honesty of Negro domestic workers in the South. Her question was based on answers received from schedules sent to employers of that section.[21] In 1901, 92.6 per cent of 583 domestic labor employers representing the whole United States testified that their employees were honest and responsible. Most employment bureaus were also agreed upon the general honesty of domestic workers.[22] In 1899 the Philadelphia Negro domestic worker of the Seventh Ward was described as purloining food left from the table but as having the balance in his favor in regard to honesty.[23] In 1906 opinions of former employers of 902 Negro wage-earners in domestic and personal service in New York City were that 91.3 per cent were honest; 7.1 per cent were either honest or fairly so; 0.6 per cent were dishonest, and no statement was given for 1.0 per cent.[24]

Out of 9,638 Negro domestic workers reported upon for Washington, D. C, between the years of 1920-1922, only .2 per cent were rated by their former employers with assurance as being dishonest; 90.4 per cent were listed as being honest. There were various answers for the 9.4 per cent. Some did not remain long enough to have judgment passed upon them. Others were in a doubtful class but with no proof against them, and the like. This low percentage of dishonesty eliminates the tradition of taking food except in seven cases. The seven cases of food taking are included because they were directly reported and regarded by the employers as dishonest. Some employers, according to their own statement of the case, do not regard taking food left from the table as stealing, although such is against the will of the employer. According to the southern tradition of a low wage and taking food to piece it out, domestic workers are still virtually expected to follow this custom.

200 women and 200 men domestic workers of Chicago have the following record for honesty: Women, honest, 199, or 99.5 per cent; dishonest, 1, or 0.5 per cent; men, honest, 197, or 98.5 per cent; dishonest, 3, or 1.5 per cent.

Employment agents in other leading cities already mentioned have very little complaint against the honesty of Negro domestic workers except in the matter of taking food. Their explanation of the psychology of such dishonesty is as given above.