to large as well as small cities. Miss Byington has told you why you need an exchange and how to organize it. May I add that a successful secretary may sell that intangible machinery called co-operation, but the value of the service will not be realized unless the office mechanism performs satisfactorily. Accordingly, when planting an exchange in your community, consider well your local needs and fit your theories to them; adjust forms, publicity, and extension of service to your problems. Do not adopt wholesale recommendations of exchange methods used in nearby cities. One point in Miss Byington's paper might be disagreed with, that is the need of securing co-operation by the use of the "prevention of duplication" argument. It should not be the foremost argument, but strange to say, instead of being obsolete, it is the selling point most easily understood by both trained worker and laity. If a satisfactory contact is established in this way, constant education by the exchange secretary will broaden the workers' conception of the possibility for other services.

Management of an exchange by a financial federation is to be approved, but I want to add a word of warning against the danger of permitting them to wield the "big stick." Persistent, patient effort to individuals or agencies will make them intelligent, faithful followers much sooner than by having them forced to use the exchange.

In communications and conversations make the users of the exchange feel your effort to promote co-operation. The secretary should mingle with her co-workers to understand the phraseology of the specialized groups, their technique, and their problems.

Publicity methods used in helping to stimulate or maintain interest in an exchange are monthly reports, annual reports, and circular-letter announcements regarding change of policy made by the governing board, or statement of progress made in the exchange. Such a neutral body can take the initiative in arranging case conferences in certain localities. Undoubtedly the exchange should hold an annual meeting of all exchange members; at such time they might offer suggestions for improving the service, plan new systems, develop new policies, or discuss the extension of service.

Exchange workers must develop a self-consciousness of their own, they must be well managed and well paid. They should not be considered clerical workers manipulating a card-file, but they should be recognized as assistants to the professional workers in making possible the fullest kind of service to the individual or family in a community.

JOB AND SALARY ANALYSIS IN SOCIAL WORK. CLASSIFICATION
AND DESCRIPTION OF POSITIONS IN CLEVELAND'S
SOCIAL AGENCIES

Raymond Clapp, Acting Director, Welfare Federation of Cleveland

This classification and description grew out of the annual budget study of the Welfare Federation of Cleveland. Each year, in July and August, the federated agencies prepare programs for the next calendar year. These programs, together with detailed estimates of income and expense, are reviewed by the Budget Committee of the federation during the last half of August and all of September.

Each agency has a conference with the Budget Committee at which its own program is presented, service sta are reviewed, and financial estimates carefully scrutinized. As ninety agenc udgets this fall, it will be re seen that no one committee could mittee is therefore divided into

448

ORGANIZATION OF SOCIAL FORCES

budget of $500,000 and pay-rolls exceeding $200,000, nor does it count the value of board, room, laundry, etc., furnished to employees who live at institutions. The value of that maintenance would add three-quarters of a million more to the figure. In all, there are about three thousand full-time workers in the Cleveland federated agencies and the responsibility imposed upon the budget committees of reviewing the salary and wage scales for this army of employees is no small matter, especially as decisions must be made by the committee in seven separate groups acting more or less independently of each other.

The technique of budget-making and budget-reviewing has developed from very meager beginnings in Cleveland where we have had to feel our way and be content with gradual improvement from year to year. Our budget committees have been composed of men and women who have been long identified as board members and committee people in social work in Cleveland, appointed for their knowledge and understanding of the fields of work with which their sub-committees deal. Intermingled with these experienced people, business men and others have been added each year so that fresh viewpoints may be furnished the committees and new people given the valuable education and training which service on the Budget Committee affords.

One of these business men appointed to the committee in 1919 was Mr. Richard Feiss of the Joseph and Feiss Co., well and favorably known throughout the country for their progressive attitude in dealing with their own employees. Mr. Feiss has been responsible for working out in his own business a salary and wage scale based upon an analysis and classification of positions.

Mr. Feiss felt that something could be worked out by the Welfare Federation in the way of classification of positions which would greatly assist the individual agencies in arriving at a just and reasonable basis of pay and would furnish the Budget Committee with some basis for judgment as to the fairness of the schedules presented by the different agencies.

It should be stated here with emphasis that the committee does not have in mind the establishment of an inflexible wage scale to be imposed upon all agencies alike, regardless of standards of work in individual agencies, or experience and ability of individual workers. The thought is that a study would in the first place bring to the attention of the committee and the individual agencies manifest inequalities in pay, and would make possible the establishment of reasonable minimum standards as well as the determination of proper maximums.

So far, no attempt has been made to establish ranges of pay for any positions. What we have done is to list all positions in federated agencies; group, classify, and describe them; and tabulate the number of workers in each position with the range of pay, showing general average, lowest amount paid, average starting wage, highest amount paid and average maximum for each position. The way we went about it is, briefly, as follows: The secretary gathered pay-rolls of the agencies then members of the federation. These pay-rolls listed the various positions on the staff of each agency and were on file at the federation office with other budget material. By going through these lists, notation was made of every position indicated by any agency. In this first operation, about eighty-five positions were found to occur in one or more agencie No attention was paid at that time to the salaries or wages paid in these positio They seemed to fall into certain natural groups and the first grouping was follows: executive; professional; case work (or investigational); recreational

educational); institutional; clerical. It has been recognized from the first that the standardization of executive positions and wages should be the last thing attempted if, indeed, it is feasible at all, so such positions were separated from their natural groups and placed in an "executive service."

In this first attempt, professional positions were separated from the others because standards for these positions have been carefully worked out and, in most cases, estab lished by law so that our task had been largely accomplished. This group was limited to professions recognized by law, such as physician, nurse, and lawyer.

Institutional and clerical services formed natural groups which have been recognized in most, if not all, of the classifications made by civil service bodies. The other positions were divided into the case-work group and the recreational group because of the difference in the kind of training required, degree of responsibility imposed, and method of procedure in the doing of the job itself.

The agencies themselves were roughly divided into the following groups: supervisory agencies or bureaus; case work; recreational; hospitals; public-health nursing; and institutions, this last including orphanages, boarding homes, rescue homes, and homes for the aged.

When this suggested classification was presented to the chairman and committee the distinction between professional, case-work, and recreational groups was questioned, the point of view of the committee being that, while the technique of these groups is different, the training dissimilar, and established standards varied considerably, on the other hand no one of these groups functions properly with persons of less intelligence and a smaller amount of training or a more meager background, than that required for satisfactory work in either of the other two groups. So the classification was revised: first, case-work and recreational groups were combined, forming the social service; and second, the professional service was added to the social service into what we now call, for lack of a better term, personal service. This makes three general divisions of our classification: personal service; clerical service; and maintenance service. For the reasons stated, positions of executive responsibility have been withdrawn from these groups and, for convenience, placed together in the executive service. The descriptions of these services are as follows:

Personal service. "Those positions in social service the duties of which include rendering trained service direct to individuals or families in need of relief, advice, protection, or other service for which charitable and philanthropic agencies are maintained."

Clerical service. "Those positions which involve the performance of routine specialized or supervisional work incident to organization or office management, such as handling of purchases, records, correspondence, publicity, research, and similar work."

450

ORGANIZATION OF SOCIAL FORCES

It was recognized that positions should be graded within the service. They see to fall into three grades, in each service, except the executive service where four d sions are necessary. These divisions are as follows:

In the executive service, the director group or chief executive; assistant-direct group; superintendent group, which includes department heads of large agencies in superintendents of smaller ones; assistant superintendent group.

tha

In the personal service, we originally had two groups: one, the student grow second, everybody else in the personal service, who were called the agent group. had more discussion as to what general title to apply to workers in this group on almost any other question that came up. Nobody liked the term "social worke and we finally compromised on "agent," which, at least, has the advantage of be short; and positions in the agent group have now been tentatively classified into the grades called the agent, assistant-agent, and student groups which are described

follows:

Agent group: Those positions in the personal service which include, under dire tion, the planning of, and responsibility for effecting treatment for individuals d' families, or for programs for group action.

Assistant-agent group: Those positions in the personal service which require inte ligence and ability but not the exercise of independent judgment and initiative and mi include investigation and report, or acting as assistants to persons in the agent group Student group: Those taking a prescribed course of training for any of the above

positions.

In the clerical service, we have the secretary, clerk, and assistant-clerk groups Each one of these groups, as well as every individual position, has its own description The whole classification has been printed and copies may be obtained from the Welfar

Federation of Cleveland.

Certain of the positions in the secretary group have been considered by the Cleve land Committee of the American Association of Social Workers as professional social workers and we realize fully that there will be objection to classifying any professional social workers in a clerical service. I have been especially interested in this point myself because it is the secretary group in which I have done my work.

In the maintenance service we have the maintenance chief, or foreman group, mechanic group, and the miscellaneous mechanic group.

the

The salaries and wages paid in each position and each group have been tabulated, first, as of June, 1920, and second, February, 1921. The figures for the two periods are not exactly comparable. Eight of the agencies listed in 1920 were not included in 1921, and eight not included in 1920 were listed in 1921. In June, 1920, 2,425 full

time workers received an average pay of $110.

For the purposes of tabulation a cash value was placed upon board, room, etc., when furnished to the worker in addition to her salary on the following scale:

10.00

Weekly salaries were changed to monthly by multiplying by 43. Workers by day and hour were classified as part time and not included in the salary tabulation.

In the limited time at my disposal it is possible to give only some of the high lights. With the classification as it now stands, there are 101 classified positions for each which a description has been carefully worked out; 3,275 workers in 90 different gencies have been fitted into these positions with only 16 for whom no place could be Sund; 420 of these workers are part time and 2,855 are full time. The salaries range rom nothing to $843 a month. The average monthly wage for all full-time workers $110. The number and proportion of workers in each group is as follows:

The group rank is as follows in order of average of salary as of February, 1921:

Please keep in mind that these figures represent cash salary plus value of maintenance. Comparative figures were secured from the schools, the public library, and the Department of Public Welfare which indicate that, in the supervisor, assistantsupervisor and agent groups, the average paid in federated agencies is close to that paid in the library, but under the schools and the city, while the range of pay from minimum to maximum in social work is much wider than the range of these public agencies.

A comparison has also been made with figures secured from twenty-four business firms, with the United States Civil Service, with seven Cleveland public and semipublic agencies, and with six social agencies and federations outside of Cleveland. These figures indicate that Cleveland's federated agencies pay more than social agencies in the other cities heard from, but less than business firms, and the federal and city governments.

At the request of the American Association of Social Workers, the Cleveland committee of that organization went over this classification and selected those positions occupants of which they considered to be professional social workers. They confined their selection to positions the nature of which require attention to the social implications of the task, ruling out hospital nurses, teachers, and others primarily