xt7ghx15qh9g https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7ghx15qh9g/data/mets.xml Ohio United States. Work Projects Administration. 1936 ii, 7 leaves; 27 cm. UK holds archival copy for ASERL Collaborative Federal Depository Program libraries. Call Number Y 3.W 89/2:13/2-15 books English Washington, D.C.: Works Progress Administration This digital resource may be freely searched and displayed in accordance with U. S. copyright laws. Ohio Works Progress Administration Publications Unemployed -- Ohio Public service employment -- Ohio Reasons for Failure to Accept Assignments to Works Program Employment in Urban and Rural Communities of Ohio. text Reasons for Failure to Accept Assignments to Works Program Employment in Urban and Rural Communities of Ohio. 1936 1936 2019 true xt7ghx15qh9g section xt7ghx15qh9g [I rpw ‘ , _ i. a -_7 . w w. s ,, , x w i , - -~ .W. _, . " ‘ ~ WV " 3“ .1
‘ ~ " ,, fl 4 ' UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY ‘
" W filj/fl" Ullillll‘lfllllllllilullllmll‘lHl|||||ll|H|Nll‘lHlHllill’ I
E l V . 1
,, :2 /fl, Jgt‘ 3 [“425 unwise, A . 8703
I .x’ / d ' J .
‘ WORKS PROGRESS ADMINISTRATION .
" Hazjry L. Hopkins, Administrator _ , ‘,
Corrington Gill , > V " Howard B. Myers, Director i
5 Assistant Administrator _ . Social_Resea.rch Division 1%
I. a V I ,, , . ’2
. i “BEAR! {mum g ‘
mg!” of KENTUCKY '
~ Mi - )
H H “WNW; "NH :3 r; f'itl'f'f} LBS/Ki !
Ui‘mé‘mtfléfi m Miliizfumé . é
- _ . RESEARCIHBQLLETIN
' €
REASONS FOR FAILURE TO ACCEPT ASSIGNMENTS TO WORKS PROGRAM EMPLOYMENT
IN URBAN AND RURAL COMMUNITIES OF OHIO ‘
. ! .
' j. .
April 5, 1936 ' Series II No. 15
1
i
. .‘ V , ‘I

 .A . V _ , V\,, . _ 'VW
8703
Preface
A series of studies was undertaken by the-Division of Social Research .
in December 1935 to ascertain the validity of reports that large num-
bers.of relief clients certified as eligible for Works Program employ~
» ment were refusing to accept jobs to which they had been assigned.The
series of studies was divided into two parts; the first included in—
quiries in Cincinnati, Toledo, and the rural and town portions of |
Stark and Athens Counties, Ohio. The second part, to be discussed i7
a subsequent research bulletin, consisted of studies in 13 citiesl
‘ distributed throughout the country. f
The reassignment forms used by the W. P. A.labor offices and the orig~
inal assignment forms used by the United States Employment Service,
_ the National Beemployment Service, or the state employment services
provided a means of ascertaining the names of clients who had at any
time failed to accept referral to a W.P.An job or failed to report to
" a job to which they had been referred. From these forms random sam» .
ples were drawn for Mmapurpose of intensive study. After necessary ,
information regarding family composition, usual occupation, and re~ .
cent income for each referred worker, had been transcribed from the
W.P.A. records and from relief agency files, the Specific reason for
the client's failure to take a W.P.A. job was obtained by means of a
'home interview. Whenever the validity of the reason given by a client
was open to doubt, it was followed up by interviews with family case
workers, employers, and doctors.
These studies of failures to accept W.P.A. assignments are somewhat
similar to the series of surveys conducted in the summer of 1935 for
the purpose of ascertaining whether relief clients were refusing to
take private jobs. Analysis of failures to take Works Program jobs
is considerably simplified by the fact that all assignments are made
through official agencies and that the hours of work, conditions of
employment, and rates of pay are matters of record..
The study in Cincinnati was conducted by Edward J. Webster, that in
Toledo by Daniel Scheinman, and that in the rural areas of Stark and
Athens Counties by Bryce Ryan, members of the Special Inquiries Sec~
tion. The three sections of the Ohio study are presented in this
bulletin in summary form; a somewhat fuller statement is presented
for the Cincinnati findings followed by brief descriptions for Toledo
and for the rural areas, since it seemed unnecessary to repeat in de~ g
tail the points upon which the findings were similar. 5 .
I
l7 The cities are: Atlanta, Georgia; Baltimore, Maryland; Bridgeport . 3
Connecticut; Butte, Montana; Chicago, ’Illinois; Detroit, Michigan; ;
Houston, Texas; Manchester, New Hampshire; Omaha, Nebraska; Paterson, [
New Jersey; St. Louis, Missouri; San Francisco, California; Wilkes~ ‘
Barre, Pennsylvania.
Prepared under the
supervision of
A. Rose Eckler, Chief
Special Inquiries Section

 ‘ i
. —i— l
8703 ,
SUMMRY 1
Taken in relation to the total' ance of assignment slips to those , '
number of assignments to W.P.A. jobs, who should have been classified as i
the preportion of unsuccessful as~ temporarily unassignable. ' ' a
signments is not unduly large. In ,
Toledo 70 percent and in Cincinnati Only a negligible number of cases '
68 percent of all assignments to W. involved clearly unjustified refus~ ,
' P. A. jobs resulted in placements, ale to work. In Cincinnati three %
, while 30 and 32 percent respectively out of the 546 cases studied refused t
‘ of the assignments were unsuccess— to work. Seven out of 430 Toledo 9
‘ fUll[ cases were considered to involve g
___ __ clearly unjustified refusals of W.P. ‘
, Cincinnati Toledo A. employment. No case odourred in g
(as of Now (as of the rural sample studied in “Stark .
22, 1935.) Dec. 2 and Athens Counties which was clear~ 1
1935) 1y unjustifiable. The unjustified t
refusals in the two cities, as com~ E
, , , pared with the total number of as-— if
' Total Assignments 19,901 16,572 signments, show that only three out i
' of every 500 persons assigned in E
Unsuccessful Assign~ Toledo and one out of 500 in Cincine 3
ments ~ 6.516 5,054 nati were deliberately and unjusti~ E
fiably refusing W.P.A. assignments. i
Percent Unsuccessful 32 30 In a few cases where doubt existed i
, as to the validity of the client's 1
Analysis of samples drawn from reason, definite decision was prac~ ‘ f
the failures to report shows that tically impossible, but in any event 9
Vthese were not refusals of jobs, as the total number of doubtful cases i
they have been erroneously called, was small. J
since in practically all cases the x j
client was unable to accept the job The chief factor accounting for 5
for some entirely valid reason, such the inability of workers to accept y
as "already employed at a private WGP.A. jcbs was private employment. t
job", ”notification of job not re— The average preportion of such cases . j
ceived“, or "unemployable". The imr in the total of unsuccessful assign~ d
possibility of keeping complete up— ments investigated was about 40 per— é
to~the~minute records on all certi— cent. The percentages in the three fl
fied workers accounts for the issu— communities were: Cincinnati, 30 ” '
percent; Toledo, 41 percent; and ;
e ;/ Comparable figures are not avail- Stark and Athens Counties, 52 per f
. able for the rural sections of Stark cent. Since one of the objectives i
‘ and Athens Counties. The fragmentary of the Works.Program is to further 5
5 - data that do exist indicate a pro— the return of workers to private em~ f
5 portion of unsuccessful placements ployment, the end is already accom~ W
- somewhat higher than that recorded plished in these cases. it
in either Toledo or Cincinnati. Data ‘-
5 for various other communities, howe Difficulties in the process of 4
ever, reveal a generally lower prOv notifying clients of their assign— tp
. portion than that in the two Ohio ments provided the next most impor» Q
I cities. tant group of reasons. Workers who :F
,3

 é --ii-r- 8703
=’ a
had moved and could not be located, sons were believed valid in practi~ i
2 who were temporarily away from home, cally all the cases interviewed on _ S
1 whose local addresses had changed, the grounds that the clients who i
f who had not received notification,or gave them showed their inability,and '
5 whose notification came too late, not their unwillingness, to take W. a
; constituted 25 percent of the cases P.A. employment. 3
of unsuccessful referrals studied in f
, Cincinnati, 19 percent in Toledo,and There wOuld have been fewer un— a
5 16 percent in Stark and Athens Coun— successful referrals if prompt re~ _ i
j ties. ~ ports had been available so that all i
: men with regular private employment g
‘ About 12 percent of the rnrkJrs couli have been classified as tenmo~ g
g interviewed had been unable to take rarily unassignable, addresses cor~ i
f the jobs assigned them because of rected promptly, and records of dis— 3
3 temporary or permanent disabilities. abling injuries and illnesses kept 3
1 Some of them were temporarily ill at up to date. However, the Works Pro— i
3 the time of referral and others had gram procedure was devised to avoid §
3 been erroneously certified as eligi— the periodic family visits required 2
g ble for Works Program employment de— under usual relief procedure; he- ‘
E spite disabling physical handicaps. visions in W.P.A. district office ]
3 Still others had become unemployable records must await official notifi~ 3
3 since certification. Taken as a cation from relief agencies and 5
3 whole, these cases consituted 113 federal or state employment offices. a
f percent of the sample in Cincinnati, Upon the regular burden of keeping a
i 11 percent in Toledo, and 12 percent official :ccords up to date there f
g in the rural and town portions of was superirposed, during the few p
{ Stark and Athens Counties. weeks prior to December 1, 1935 the l
E task of placing more than two mi1~ 1
l . ' Among the other reasons for fail— lion men unon W.P.A. projects, and d
; ure to accept jobs were; already en~ clearance of records among agencies a
; gaged in W.P.A. or relief work; no was subordinated to other operar 9
§ _longer a member of relief household; tions. Urder these circumstances, a
E excessive distance to job or exces— the fact that two out tof every 3
g sive tranSportation costs; needed to three men assigned were success~ F
5 care for dependents at home;deccased; fully placed on Works Program jobs 1
1 , in school; and in jail. These rea— is believed to represent a creditar A
‘ ble record. C
i 2
B
I
i ,
‘:
l v;
x
I is;
E ‘D
1 i
i . r
i w
l
- - tn

 A l
L —l~ 8703 5
‘ REASONS FOR FAILURE TO ACCEPT ASSIGNMENTS TO WORKS PROGRAM EMPLOYMENT ;
3 IN URBAN AND RURAL COMMUNITIES OF OHIO ‘
I QINCINNAQI 1
3 From the inception of the Works _ Physically unfit...............70 g
program to November 22, 1935 there Permanent disability......25' f

1 were recorded in Hamilton County, Temporary disability.....,l4 g
Ohio, 13,385 placements on W.P.A. 'Unfit for job assigned....31 g

jobs and 6,516 referrals for which {
placements were not made.‘ Since a Ineligible.....................35 g
number of the records of such re— Deceased...................8 i
ferrals were in process of clearance Non—relief cases.......... 4 {

when this study was undertaken, some No longer a member of i

of them were not at that time availa» relief household......;..18 i

ble in the Labor Inventory office. A In jail................... 3 }
random 10 percent sample was drawn ‘ F

from the Available 5,460 caseslfl Of Assigned ovcupation inferior x

the 546 cases so selected, all were to usual...................... 7 1
within the corporate limits of Uin— g
Cinnati except 65, or 12 percent, T:rneport'310n.................18 l
which were distributed in outlying No transportation facili- g
towns of Hamilton County within a ties....................... l f

‘ radius of 20 to 25 miles from the No funds for transporta~ .
city. tron.... ..... ............ 2 i

_ ’ Transport.tion costs too ‘ y

: In the following table is shown a nlihio .1,

_classification of the 546 unsuccess~ . .

ful assignments according to reason Other reasons..................18 i

I for failure: Insufficiency of income from g
. W.P.A. employment.......... 5 fl
Total............................546 Refusal to accept sub~ ' f

‘_ Employed.....................264 union wage................. l f
\V In private industry.....l65 Lack of necessary equip~ 5
On W.P.A. jobs.......... 87 mcnt...................;... 2 d

‘ In 0.0.0................ 5 Anticipating private em~

On locaD relief adm. ployment................... 3 a
staff.................. 5 Unable to leave home........l {

‘ In school................... 1 i
' Failure of notification..... 138 Women assigned t0 man's . ’ V
Moved from City,,,..,,,, 52 301)........................ 1 i
1 Moved from state........ 16 Error in referral records... 4 V
‘ _Temporarily away from g

home................... 5 Refused without cause to

. Incorrect local ad— accept referral............... 3 f
dress.................. 44 ”

Notice delayed or mis— Employed. Of\ the 546 placement V i
carried................ 20 failures in the study. 264:. or 48 ;

_~ percent, represented persons already ’Q

1/ There is no reason to believe at work. The 165 in private indus— i

1 that _the cases awaiting clearance try, the six in the Civilian Con- ;
would differ in any important way servation Corps and the six employed a

i from those already in the Labor In~ on the local relief staff may be ac— f
ventory office. counted for by the simple fact that, fi

f

 g - * I}
I .
l _ 2 - 8703 i
E 3
E regardless of their employment sta— of changes on which the local relief *
i tus, their names remained in the administration might be expected to ' i
E , file of those certified for W.P.A.em~ have incomplete information. It fol— i
. ployment. or "eligible" for it, in lows that the Ohio State Employment 1
E that they had, presumably, been on Service would have no information 5
I relief sometime between May 1 and covering these cases unless the in~ ?
‘ November 1, 1935. However, could dividual workers reported changes of t
‘ all records have been kept strictly address directly to that office. A f
to date, most of these cases would large number apparently neglected to 3
have been classed as temporarily unr make such reports. fl
assignable, and hence would not have t
received referral notices, The 87 The declaration by 20 workers g
cases of workers already employed on that their referral notices had 3
; W.P.A. jobs illustrate the failureof‘ either been delayed or not received - :
j reports to clear promptly.Sufficient might occasionally be open to ques— ?
‘ information was not sechred to re— tion, but the number of such claims 3
. veal precisely what happened in each was so smfill that indiscriminate :
1 case when the first referrals were suSpicion would seem to be unwarl
: sent out; but the basic facts are of ranted. The statements of some of _
. later record and are indisputable—— these workers were amply verified, .
namely,these persons had taken W.P.A. and none of the eight who were known T
, jobs. to have received later referrals re— ' '
1 fused to accept them. {
‘ Failure of Notification.Referra1s :
.' were sent to 16 persons who had left Employebglity‘fnvolged. Twenty; t
1 the state, to 52 who had left the five of those certified for work and l
1 city,and to six who were temporarily referred for placement were perma— !
1 away from home. In 44 cases notifi— nently' unemployable and nro'oi'wbl‘r ;
. , cations. were unsqccessful because should not have been certified for 1
sent to incorrect local addresses. Works Program employment. The facts J
‘ The basic explanation of these 118 concerning temporary unemploye ‘
‘ cases is that the Ohio State Employ— ability—~usually due to minor ill— i
ment Service had not been informed ness or ingury» were, as a rule, 3
_, of such address changes for its re— readily established. However, delays 9
; cords. Although incorrect local ad— in presenting and filing physician's
‘ dress has in this report been re- statements were frequent. Thirtyeone
_ garded as the .primary cause for workers were physically unfit for j
' failure of notification in only 44 the particular job to which they .
cases, the total number of discrep— were assigned. In 21 of these cases E
‘ ancies in address discovered in the foremen and workers concurred. In
‘ field was much larger. Counting 10 cases, the workers considered , v
‘ only one per case—~in numerous in— themselves able to work at the rs— ‘
1 stances interviewers found it nec— ferred job but were overruled and
3 essary to trace two, three, or even rejected by the foreman.
‘ as many as four addresses—~there ' . Q
. were 177 discrepancies. Nevertheless, Ineligible. Referral notices 1
. in all but 44 Of these Cases notifi— were addressed to eight deceased 1
cation reached_the worker. persons. Four others to whom re— }
ferrals were sent had never been on i
, However, these discrepancies re- relief. Eighteen had ceased to be E
present a seven months' accumulation members of relief units prior to May A
. 1%

 4
* *3— 8703 ' ,
1, so that they should not have been Other Reasqps. In five cases, 3
1 certified for Works Program Employ~ which, for special reasons, would t
T ment§/. Such information as was se— require continuation of direct re— g
t cured indicated that they were not lief grants by local welfare agen— ,
I interested in W.P.A. employment.fln$e cies, income from part—time private 3
} other persons were in jail. employment was such that those re- .
E eponsible for the supervision of
i Inferior Jobs. Seven skilled these cases advised against accep~
§ workers declined inferior jobs (i.e. tance of W.P.A. employment. In only
2 jobs below their trades). Notwith— one case, that of a structural iron
i standing the fact that many such worker who declined a job at a sub~
: workers have accepted common labor union wage, was the union wage scale
; aesignments, the, reasons why some the issue. Two workers lacked nee-
E are reluctant to do so are cogent. essary equipment for the jobs to
1 First, they fear that if they once which they were assigned, one having
§ accept an "inferior" job they may no tools and the other having no
i not be reassigned. Second, they are clothing suitable for outdoor work.
i . apprehensive that such occupational Three hal already been promised em~
i change will be detrimental to their ployment in priVate industry and
1 status both in the unions and in the were awaiting calls to work. One,
; trades to which they belong. from a whose wife was in the hospital, was
[ number of interviews with such men, obliged to remain at home and care
g it was evident beyond doubt that unu for four small children. One was in
f willingness to work was not involved. school. .fls a result of confusion of
E “I am good for a number of years as name, one woman was assigned to a
i an electrician", said one man, ”but man's jot. Four cases involved *
i if I get out of my trade, I won't clerical errors which were later de—
2 _ last very long in anything else." tected and corrected. §
‘ - ,
t Transportatign. One worker, who Refused__flithout Cause to Accept -
i lived in an outlying town, was as— Refergalg, Only three of the 546 l
i signed to a project which could not workers refused without cause to ac- '
1 be reached by local transportation cept referrals. Two of these, who 5
i facilities. Two others lacked funds were singlc'homeiess men,immediate1y f
I for transportation and were unable left the state. The third simplTr t
; to secure them in time to accept said, "I Will not work," and further ,
: their referrals.‘ In 10 cases the direct relief was withheld.
‘ excessive cost of transportation was J
i the primary factor involved, the It is significant that, although ‘ f
3 range being from 40¢ to 80¢ per day. interviewers were instructed to seek‘ p
? Had the workers accepted these jobs, independent verification of the rea— t
i which were from 15 to 25 miles from sons given by workers for failing to 1
1 their homes, it would have been ncc— report or to accept referral, in
essary for them to Spend from three only seven cases was the validity of
p and a half to four and a half hours the reasons doubted, and in none if f
‘ daily iniravel. These workers re— these cases could specific facts to x
; ported at the W.P.A. office, the support interviewers' doubts be se~ j
a justice of their complaints was rec— cured. %
; Ognized, and they were all later re— 9
‘ assigned to projects nearer home. Tendency to Prefer Private Employr 3
» ment. The earnings of 14 of the 165 i
i a} Only persons receiving relief in workers employed in private industry. .
, some month between May 1 and Novem— or 8.5 percent of those so employed, t
her 1 were certified for works Pro— were somewhat less than the W.P.A. §
‘ gram employment. %
’ t

 é
., i
-‘ a4~ 8703 I
wage of $55 per month. However, if under emergency conditions. Thus, ‘
I the costs of transportation to the there were 412 cases, or 75 percent g
i , W.P.A. jobs were deducted, the dif— of the unsuccessful referrals stud- , E
ferences would, in most cases, tend ied, which were, for the various Y
. to be small. reasons given in the table on page f
. l, unassignable at the time that the
Preference for private employment 'work notice was issued.
[ was due to various reasons._ Three - . ‘
g persons, all young men,were learning As exuerience, and the passing of
g trades; two believed their jobs held the tremendous surge of ”first place~ i
i prospects of future advancement;four ments" on the Works Program makes
were on part~time jobs which prom~ possible the develOpment of a more
ised soon to become full~time perma— closely articulated administrative 1
- nent jobs; one, a street huckster, organization, it is to be expected
wished to develop his own business; that most of the difficulties re~ ‘
one had a job for which, because of ferred to will in large measure dis~
its permanency, he was willing to appearé . ‘Meanwhile, unwillingness ‘
’sacrifice both relief and.W.P.A.work to work, and refusals without cause,
eligibility; and three preferred to to accept job referrals are un~
sacrifice both relief and work elie dcubtedly of minor importance in the .
gibility in order to continue at problem.
lower wages on jobs of uncertain du-
E ration. TOLEDQ
. - Conclusions, This survey of rea~ Up to necember 2, 1935 out of the L
sons for unsuccessful referrals to total 16,572 assignments in Lucas ‘
the Works Program in Cincinnati County, Ohio, 5,034 or 30 percent, ;
' clearly refutes the claims frequent— had not resulted in placements of 1
ly inferred that workers were re~ relief clients in Works Program em~ g
t fusing to take Works Program jobs. ployment. The records on 4,200 un~ T
§ The reason for this inference was successful cases were available in i
E that prior to this study reports \ i
5 merely recorded the difference be~ ;/ Gould an adequately close and g
1 tween the number of referrals and accurate theck have been maintained i
E the number of placements, providing on all certified workers in the 3
E no information on circumstances sur— labor placement files, at least 90 ’
E rounding unsuccessful referrals. percent, or all except 54 of the 546 j
: cases, might have been cleared and E
Q The second conclusion of this no assignment notice issued. The 54 E
f study is that as a result of the remaining cases were: seven in which f
fi magnitude of the W.P.A. program and referrals to inferior jobs were re~ a
i the speed with which it was put into fused, one ‘refusal of a job at a t
i' Operation, all agencies involved in sub—union wage, 31 in which workers ,
j it were inevitably subjected to were physically unfit for the par- ;
5 great pressure. The making of as~ ticular job to which they were as— E
i signments involved the use of re— signed, 13 involving transportation g
3 cords which fell short of the usual difficulties, and. two in which ;
3 standards maintained in regular em~ workers lacked necessary equipment E
1 ployment agencies not operating for the job. i
l
V . K
1 , ' E
~¥ 777777777 , 777777 , 777777777777 , I;

 t n
{i , .5; 8703 s
fl é
d - i
5 the district office when the study It is evident from the preceding i
j began, and from these a 10 percent table that the Toledo workers inter“ .
i sample was drawn at random. Three viewed were unable to accept re~
Ԥ hundred and fifty-one cases, or over ferral to W.P.A. jobs for reasons
fl 80 percent of the sample, were 10— similar to those reported in the
‘1 cated within the city limits of To— Cincinnati survey. Fifty-three per~
; ledo, and the remaining cases were cent of those who did not accept re~
. in the adjoining townships within a ferral in Toledo were employed, as
radius of 30 miles from the city. compared with 48 percent employed in
Cincinnati. .
‘ The following table gives in de~ ;
i tail the reasons why the 420 assign— Whereas 30 percent of the workers E
' ments in the sample proved unsuccess~ included in the Cincinnati sample i
\ ful: Were unable to accept their assign— i
j ments because they already had pri~ ;
‘ Total............................420 vate jobs, the corresponding per— ,
. Employed....................232 centage in Poledo was 41. In this i
In private industry.---rl73 connection 5t may be noted that fac~
On W-P-A- jobs.......... 37 tory employment in Toledo showed
In C-C-C-.------'.------ 12 some imoiovtment in the month imme~
. On relief work... ...... 10 diptwlv precedin3_7he period of nest 4
active assignmenti .
Failure of notification..... 81 §
Tenorarily out of Forty—nLne of the 173 employed in %
{(‘m'-~'~'------~------ 5 private industry were working for a '
Hotlocated.............. 33 wage lower than that offered for W. I
Incerrect address --'--° 12 P.A. Work. Undoubtedly prOSpects of
, .Lbflces not received..... 41 permanent employgent and of eventual 1
' - higher wages influenced some to fore— ‘
Flyiicéfl? unfit............. 45 go an immediate increase in income. 1
Permanent diSability.----1O For others, however, the explanation f
Temporary disability.....24 is singly that they preferred pri— {
Physically unfit for vate employment and were willing to k
job assigned.....--.-.--ll accept a l)“er income in the effort 5
to become sclf—supporting. 1
Rejected by foreman......... l7 ,
Twenty percent of the Toledxh
All other................... 4:5 sample failed to accept assignments g
Occupation assigned in— because they had not received their ‘
ferior to usual.........13 notices of referral, had moved,could 5
Skills not possessed by not be located, or were out of town. I
Client......--.-.-.---.- 2 The notification difficulties in 5
» Distance from project. .. 9 Toledo were increased by the fact 3
Part~time employment plus that assignments were made under ;
relief better than WPA 3 ~__‘ _ E
Lack of adequate equip~ E7. Factory employment in Toledo in~ %
, ment................... 2 creased 9.6 percent between Septenr g
No longer a member of her and cctober according to figures 3
‘ 'relief household.. .... 8 in the Toledo Business Review, Hov— g
Needed at home to care ember 1935, page 6. ,t
fo~sick persons........ 2 l
Miscellaneous........... 5 , 5
t
it
t
c,l.r , . p :3

 § §

A _

“if ‘ ~6~ ‘ 870:3 ;

f l

.V i:

l: considerable pressure of time, and unjustifiable reasons for failure to ;

;’ . by the fact that several organiza— accept referral. A few examples are ' :

3 tions participated in delivering the cited below.

3‘ notices.

An auto mechanic, who was earning

“ In the Toledo study some of the $8.00 per week at odd jobs in his
workers were rejected by the foremen back yard, refused a W.P.A. job al—

: for reasons other than physical un~ though he might have accepted it and .
fitness; some of them lacked skills continued to earn the $8.00 per week.
necessary for the job, and others His refusal resulted in discontinu~ ,

, were not needed on the project.These ance of relief,and after reconsiderw }
cases have been grouped separately ation this worker was prepared to |

V in this study because they did rem accept any job offered him. I

‘1 port to the project and showed their .

3_ readiness to take W.P.A. jobs inother man refused referral to a ' 1

1 W. P. A. Eiboring job because he 3

; Thirteen Toledo workers, out of wanted a sci as a painter. It was ;

' Ithe sample of 420, refused assign— discoverec, however, that his ex~

' ments to jobs which were inferior to perience as a painter was limited to

“" their usual occupations. Twelve of three months.

I} them were white—collar and. profes~

3i sional workers who had been assigned One worker claimed he had never '

9 to laboring jobs and one was a received assignment, but investiga— . ,

f skilled worker' who had been instruc~ tion revealed that the assignment ' l

. ted by his union to refuse a job as had been fietive ed to him personally 1

, unskilled laborer. by a social worker. He Was appar~ 1

:‘ ently attempting to Conceal the fact .

‘- ' The other reasons why workers that he preferred the higher income

., . failed to report to projects in To— which he was receiving from part~ ]

f. ledo were similar to those reported .time emplcvment plus direct relief. }

= in Cincinnati; distance from project, 3

,‘ lack of skill, lack of equipment, no guffipudties in Assignment Pro~ [

j longer a member of relief household, gefiugg. Bone of the difficulties g

,1 and needed at home. In three cases encountered ii notifying clients {

‘ workers interviewed in the Toledo hare already been discussed in the 1
study ,had refused W.P.A. jobs be~ section pertaining to Cincinnati. In

3 cause their current part~time em~ Toledo the pressure of assignment J

‘ ployment supplemented by relief work during the last two weeks of g

f grants provided a higher income than November required deviations from - 1

‘ would a W.P.A. job. the regular procedures and resulted ‘ g

' in an increase in the number of in— z

4‘ 'Unjustifiable Refusals. The ab— accuracies and duplications. The t

- sence of any satiSfactory objective Ohio State Employment Service and 7
criterion for judging the justifi— the W.P.A. alternated in making as~ ,

; cation of failures to accept refer~ signments on several successive days. f

; ral to W.P.A. makes discussion of When the employment service made as~ E
this subject somewhat inconclusive. signments in the morning and the W.P. j

5 There were but seven cases, or less A. made assignments in the afternoon, 3
than 2 percent of the entire sample, neither organization could be cur— 5

i which were considered to have had rently informed as to the assign~ §

, I -

U

. (LI

4 W

i w“ , 7 ‘1

 L47... , 8703 g
: ments made by the other. Failure of notification........45 {
: Temporarily out of town.... 9 1
j STARK AND ATHENS COUNTIES Not located................l9
" Late notification.......... 4
i The third study of unsuccessful Notice not received........13
: assignments to W.P.A. employment was ’
; conducted in the rural and town dis~ Physically unfit....,..........33
i tricts of Stark and Athens Counties, Permanent disability.......12 '
j Ohio. Urban centers of 5,000 or more Temporary disability.......18
f inhabitants were excluded. Physically unfit for job I '
l - assigned.................. 3 i
2 Only a small proportion of the i
i workers interviewed were usually en~ Distance excessive.............12 ;
i 'gaged in agricultural pursuits. ‘ '
3; ' Forty—two percent of the workers in~ Other reasons..................l7
:: terviewed in Athens County indicated Errineouslv listed as l
g their usual occupation to be in the failures to report........ 4 I
; mining industry, and the usual occu~ No longer a member of ‘
,f pations of those in [Stark County, relief household.......... 3
i were for the most part in the irOn Gecupat on assigned '
j and steel industries. inferior to usual......... 1 I
,In Jail 2 A
vé . Private employment increased dur~ In school.................. 2 f
if - ing the autumn months in both coun~ MiscelleLqus.............. 5 A
{ ties, particularly in Athens where ’ . .
2 coal mining was resumed to an extent As was true in the Cincinnati and i
E unequaled in recent years. Informa~ Toledo studies, the main reason for }
f - tion regarding the employment situ— failure to accept referral was pri~ I
i ation is importrnt in interpreting vate employment. Such employment ac~ 1
E the results of this study, since the counted for more than half the cases
i increase occurred at the same time included in the sample. There were ,
fl that activity in assignment to W.P,A. in addition three farm operators who 3
i“ projects was greatest. preferred to forego W.P.A.employment i
j, ‘ in order that they might work on t
7‘ The 278 failures to accept Works their farms.
fi‘ Program employment which were stud— ‘
E ied represent a 100 percent enumer— Sixteen percent of the sample in— J
K ation of the 154 such cases in the dicated notificrtion difficulties. I
g rural and town sections of Athens This was a considerably smaller pro—
;5 County and about thr