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 VIIIEfficientFairly EfficientInefficient
No.Per ct.No.Per ct.No.Per ct.
Male9044.69446.51119.4
Female3,00830.84,54346.51,892.05
Total3,09837.74,63746.51,9039.7