Displaced Homemakers: Programs and

Policy

October 1985

NTIS order #PB86-120276
Recommended Citation:

Displaced Homemakers: Programs and Policy–An Interim Report (Washington, DC:

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, OTA-ITE-292, October 1985).

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 85-600606

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents

U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402
Foreword

The problems of displaced adults have received increasing attention in the 1980s,

as the social, technological, and economic changes have changed the worklives

of millions of Americans. As Congress debates programs to provide training, reemployment assistance, and financial support to displaced people, it is useful to

examine the problems and performance of existing Federal support for displaced

adults.

In October 1983 OTA was asked to assess the reasons and future prospects

for adult displacement, the performance of existing programs to serve displaced

adults, and identify options to improve service and avoid displacement. As part

of that study, the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources requested

that OTA focus on problems of and programs for displaced homemakers as well

as displaced workers. This interim report on displaced homemakers will be part

of the overall assessment Technology and Structural Unemployment: Reemploying Displaced Adults.

Displaced homemakers are a large, often overlooked group of people, mostly

women, who have lost their primary source of income. Many of these people have

not worked in the commercial sense for many years, though they often have skills

developed in homemaking, past work experience, or volunteer activities. However,

the combination of little recent experience in paid work, little or no source of income and, often, falling self-esteem gives them significant handicaps in finding

new jobs to support themselves and their families, In the Vocational Education

Act of 1984, Congress added significantly to the funds available to serve displaced

homemakers.

While the impact of new funding and emphasis on the problems of displaced

homemakers cannot be fully judged yet, there are many issues Congress may wish

to address as new programs develop. For example, even with the augmented Vocational Education programs, will adequate funding be directed specifically to displaced homemakers? Can displaced homemakers, who often have no source of income support, afford training? Do the programs that serve displaced homemakers

meet their special needs (for example, job readiness counseling, peer group support, and training for nontraditional jobs)? Educational technology may play an

important role in preparing displaced homemakers for paid jobs. The full report

considers both the potential of technology to improve the work skills of displaced

adults and the effect of technology on the kinds of jobs available in the U.S. economy.

The viewpoints of people in the private sector, State and local government,

academia, and displaced homemakers’ groups were sought in conducting this study.

Several private and public organizations cooperated in providing information, data,

and advice. OTA thanks the many people—advisory panel members, government

officials, reviewers, and consultants—for their assistance, As with all OTA studies,

the information, analyses, and findings of this report are solely those of OTA.

Director

///
Technology and Structural Unemployment:

Reemploying Displaced Workers Advisory Panel

Joseph Weizenbaum, Chairman

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Kathy Alessandro

Downriver Community Conference

Paul Barton

National Assessment of Educational

Progress

Marc Bendick

The Urban Institute

Paul Boyer

University of Wisconsin-Madison

Dennis Carey

Hay Associates

Dick Greenwood

International Association of Machinists and

Aerospace Workers

Donald Hancock

Vanderbilt University

Carol Hollenshead

University of Michigan

Robert Karasek

University of Southern California

Sar A. Levitan

The George Washington University

Robert Machin

Alliance Mortgage Co.

Jill Miller

Displaced Homemakers Network

Iles Minoff

Human Resources Development Institute

Ronnie Straw

Communications Workers of America

Burdette G. Taylor

IBM Corp.

Vi Traynor

American Electronics Association

Elizabeth Useem

University of Massachusetts

Gary Wuslich

LTV Steel Co.

NOTE: The Advisory Panel provided advice and comment throughout the assessment, but the members do not necessarily approve, disapprove, or

endorse the report for which OTA assumes full responsibility.

iv
— —.—

OTA Project Staff–Technology and Structural Unemployment:

Reemploying Displaced Adults

Lionel S. Johns,

Energy, Materials, and

Assistant Director, OTA

International Security Division

Audrey Buyrn,

Industry, Technology, and Employment Program Manager

Julie Fox Gorte, Project Director

Katherine Gillman, Senior Analyst W. Wendell Fletcher, Senior Analyst

Bradley T. Shaw, Analyst Deborah R. Cichon, Analyst

Paula M. Wolferseder, Research Assistant

Margaret Hilton, Analyst 1

John A. Alic, Senior Analyst

Eric Basques, Analyst

Edna Saunders, Administrative Assistant

Andrea Amiri, Secretary

Individual Contractors

Joel Fadem

John Hansen

Bernard Ingster

Howard Rosen

Anne Covalt, Editor

Contractors

Human Resources Data Systems, Inc.

National Institute for Work and Learning

Norman D. Kurland & Associates

The Urban Institute

Industry and Trade Strategies

I Analyst from August 1983 to September 1984
Page

Overview and Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Definition and Dimensions of Homemaker Displacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Characteristics of Displaced Homemakers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Displaced Homemaker Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Design and Performance of Displaced Homemaker Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Policy Issues and Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

The Perkins Vocational Education Act and Displaced Homemakers . . . . . . . . 4

Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Intent of the Set-Aside . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

The Job Training Partnership Act and Displaced Homemakers . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Eligibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Relations With the JTPA System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Income Support for Displaced Homemakers in Vocational Training or

Education Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Options for Assistance to Displaced Homemakers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Population and Needs of Displaced Homemakers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Definition and Dimensions of Homemaker Displacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Characteristics of Displaced Homemakers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Family Size and Children at Home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

National Displaced Homemaker Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Levels of Service and Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Sources of fending . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

JTPA and Displaced Homemaker Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

The Perkins Vocational Education Act and Displaced Homemakers . . . . . . . . 22

Opportunities Under the New Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Definition of Displaced Homemakers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Design and Performance of Displaced Homemaker Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Characteristics of Displaced Homemaker Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Location of Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Characteristics of Clients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Eligibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Services Offered and Their Effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Personal Counseling.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Job Readiness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Education and Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Job Placement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Support Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

List of Tables

Table No. Page

1.

2.

3.

vi

Characteristics of Displaced Homemakers, Selected Years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Principal Sources of Funding for Displaced Homemaker Programs,

1980 and 1984 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Funding for Displaced Homemaker Programs, by Source, 1984 . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Contents–continued

List of Figures

Figure No. Page

1. Distribution of Family Income of Displaced Homemakers,

by Family Size, 1983 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

2. Sources of Displaced Homemakers’ Personal Income, 1975 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

3. Family Size of Displaced Homemakers, 1983 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

4. Number of Children at Home, Displaced Homemaker Families, 1983 .,..... 14

5. Reported Number of Displaced Homemaker Projects in the United States,

Selected Years, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

6. Services to Displaced Homemakers Under JTPA Contracts, Dollar Amount

of Contract and Women Served, April 1985.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

7. Services to Displaced Homemakers Under JTPA Contracts,

Numbers Served, April 1985 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

vii
———

OVERVIEW AND FINDINGS

Displaced homemakers are women whose

principal job has been homemaking and who

have lost their main source of income because

of divorce, separation, widowhood, disability

or long-term unemployment of a spouse, or loss

of eligibility for public assistance, Many of

these women have serious trouble finding jobs

that are adequate to support themselves and

their families. Estimates of the number of displaced homemakers range from over 2 million

to about 4 million.

This report provides the first national estimates of the displaced homemaker population

for more than 1 year. Because of the definition

and database used, the estimates are conservative—rising from 1.7 million in 1975 to 2.2 million in 1983. Different definitions and different databases have yielded estimates for single

years that are more than twice as large. The

definitions in various State and Federal laws

and programs also differ, with little consistency in those considered eligible for program

services.

Under the definition used for descriptive purposes here, displaced homemakers are women

who:

1. are between the ages of 35 and 64, and are:

●

●

●

divorced, separated, or widowed; or

married but husband is absent, seriously

disabled, or long-term unemployed; or

losing income from public assistance because the youngest child is 17 to 19 years

old; and

2. have had serious employment problems,

including unemployment, working at pay

below the minimum wage, working part

time but preferring full time, or dropping

out of the labor force from discouragement.

The number of displaced homemakers rose

28 percent from 1975 to 1983. At the same time

the population of all U.S. women in the age

group rose only 10 percent.

●

●

●

●

●

Characteristics of Displaced Homemakers

Of the estimated 2.2 million displaced homemakers in 1983, over 1 million were divorced,

separated, or had an absent spouse. Rapid

growth in this group (54 percent) accounted

for much of the increase in numbers of displaced homemakers from 1975 to 1983.

Many displaced homemakers are living in

or close to poverty. In 1982-83, nearly half

of them had family incomes below $10,000

a year (1982 dollars). At least 30 percent of

those in families of four or more were below the poverty level in 1983, compared with

15 percent of all families at that time.

A majority (61 percent) of displaced homemakers had children living at home; for 45

percent of the group, the youngest child at

home was of school age. Families were generally small; nearly three-fifths of the displaced homemakers were in families of two

or three people. Slightly over one-fifth were

in single-person families; another one-fifth

were in families with four or more members.

By definition, all of the displaced homemakers were having trouble finding satisfactory

jobs. Half were employed, but at pay below

the minimum wage or in a part-time job when

they wanted a full-time job. In 1975 (latest

data available) disproportionate numbers of

displaced homemakers, compared to other

women workers, were service workers, in

such jobs as waitress, hotel maid, or nursing home aide; they were underrepresented

in clerical, professional, technical, and

administrative jobs.

Federal support for displaced homemaker

programs began in 1976 in amendments to

the Vocational Education Act; Congress recently strengthened support in the Carl D.

Perkins Vocational Education Act of 1984.

Despite the increased support, however, Federal funding of displaced homemaker proj1
2

●

●

●

ects is still modest in relation to the eligible

population of 2 to 4 million.

In 1984, several hundred displaced homemaker projects existed across the country,

probably serving at least 100,000 women a

year. Data on displaced homemakers and the

programs serving them is sparse, but OTA’s

research and review of available evidence indicate that the number of displaced homemakers receiving employment and training

services has grown in recent years, with the

rise in their numbers and a growing awareness

that services are available. Funding to support the projects has also apparently grown,

though barely keeping up with demand.

State funds were the main support of displaced homemaker programs in 1984. This

situation may change, with the increased

funding available to displaced homemaker

programs under the Perkins Voc Ed Act.

Congress has appropriated about $63 million

under the act for services to single parents

and homemakers, including displaced homemakers, for fiscal year 1985, How much of

this will go to displaced homemaker programs is uncertain, but it is likely to be a

large share and to exceed substantially Federal funding of the past. Despite some resistance from the vocational education establishment to the idea of set-asides under the

Perkins Act (especially the set-aside for single parents and homemakers), the act opens

new opportunities to projects serving displaced homemakers.

Many of the services displaced homemakers

need can be funded under the Perkins Voc

Ed Act, but the main focus of the act is still

on vocational training. The Job Training

Partnership Act (JTPA) stresses job search

assistance more heavily. Also, JTPA is another

source of funds for services that are still very

modestly supported, despite the increased

Voc Ed funding for services to single parents and homemakers in the Perkins Act. For

these reasons, many displaced homemakers

will benefit from access to JTPA as well as

to the federally funded vocational training

system,

JTPA funds were a minor source of support

for displaced homemaker programs in 1984.

By early 1985, it appeared that use of JTPA

funds to provide services to displaced homemakers might be increasing, but they were

still not a principal source of support. Moreover, most of the JTPA-funded projects were

not specially designed to serve displaced

homemakers, but served other clients as

well. For some displaced homemakers, with

little work experience and confidence, this

is a substantial disadvantage.

A serious difficulty in serving displaced

homemakers with JTPA funds is that many

of these women do not qualify as economically disadvantaged, often because their

previous income, before they became displaced, was too high. Thus they are not eligible for JTPA Title IIA programs, which are

intended primarily to serve disadvantaged,

low-income people. Although there are exceptions to the low-income rules, not too

many service providers are making use of

them. There are no income limits to service

under JTPA Title III (for displaced workers),

but in many States, displaced homemakers

are not considered eligible because the definition of dislocated workers in the law does

not necessarily include them. Other problems are that displaced homemaker project

staff often lack information about JTPA, or

that local Private Industry Councils, which

direct JTPA programs, oppose special services for this group of workers.

The administrators of displaced homemaker and other women’s programs under the

Voc Ed Act see data collection as an urgent

issue, so that when reports are required after the first 3 years of the new program they

can show Congress the results. The act does

not specifically require regular reports on

services provided to single parents and homemakers, and the U.S. Department of Education has no such requirement. State officials

are beginning to develop a consistent, national system of data collection for characteristics of clients served in the women’s programs, services provided, outcomes, and
3

results one year later. If successful, this effort will fill a longstanding need for information about displaced homemakers and the

programs designed to serve them.

Although no systematic evaluations of displaced homemakers programs have ever been

done, a few findings can be drawn from the

experience of women who have received the

services and from experienced project directors. From OTA-sponsored interviews with 20

directors of displaced homemaker projects and

from a few other sources, the following observations emerge:

● Women seeking services from displaced

homemaker programs are a diverse group,

in age, education, and financial background,

Different kinds of services are appropriate to meet the needs of different types of

clients, especially rural women, long time

recipients of welfare, minorities, widows,

●

●

and older women. The groups least served

at present are minority and rural women.

For all groups of displaced homemakers,

a comprehensive program of services is desirable, particularly one which combines

personal counseling with job readiness

and skills training. A considerable number of displaced homemakers need remedial or brushup courses in reading and

math to qualify for training or good jobs.

Many displaced homemakers cannot take

advantage of the training and education

open to them because of lack of income

support. Most are not eligible for unemployment insurance, and few have income

from other family members. Voc Ed funds

can be used to provide child care and other

support services, and training stipends in

cases of acute economic need, but usually

have not been used in this way in the past.

JTPA funds can also be used for supportive

services and some forms of income support, but little is currently being spent for

these services,
POLICY ISSUES AND OPTIONS

In passing the Carl D. Perkins Vocational

Education Act in 1984, Congress demonstrated

a strong interest in providing Federal support

for services to displaced homemakers. Of the

approximately $63 million that Congress has

appropriated under the act for programs serving single parents and homemakers in fiscal

year 1985, an undetermined but probably quite

large share will go to displaced homemaker

programs. Records on past Federal spending

targeted to displaced homemakers are incomplete, but it probably never exceeded $8 to $10

million per year. Even so, the increased funding is a comparatively small sum for a training, education, and employment program open

to a population of millions (see section entitled

JTPA and Displaced Homemaker Projects).

Vocational education programs under the

Perkins Act were just gearing up in 1985; it was

still too early to identify all the major policy

issues that might arise under the new law. One

issue already under debate, however, is whether

and how to amplify the extremely sparse data

about displaced homemakers—how many there

are, their characteristics (e.g., age, family size,

income, cause of displacement); level and kind

of services provided to them; and program outcomes (e.g., training completed, placement in

jobs), Another issue likely to come up is whether

the State administrators in charge of the

women’s programs under the Voc Ed Act are

in fact able to exercise the authority the law

grants them, and are actually dispensing the

funds that the law sets aside for these programs

for the benefit of the targeted groups.

JTPA, the other major Federal program serving some displaced homemakers, also presents

some policy issues that merit consideration.

OTA’s review of service to displaced homemakers under JTPA indicates that it is at a modest level so far. Issues of interest to Congress

in reviewing how the JTPA program is meeting the employment and training needs of displaced homemakers might include: 1) eligibility of displaced homemakers, under both Title

IIA and Title III; and 2) relations between displaced homemaker projects and the JTPA system—i.e., State JTPA program managers, local

directors of Service Delivery Areas, and local

Private Industry Councils.

An issue relevant to both the Voc Ed and

JTPA programs is the special barriers faced by

displaced homemakers who are interested in

training or education. Unlike the majority of

workers displaced from paid jobs, few displaced homemakers have unemployment insurance for income support during even a brief

training course; and not many have income

from a spouse or other family member to rely

on. Although supportive services and training

allowances for trainees in acute economic need

are authorized in both the Voc Ed Act and

JTPA, they have not been used much in either

program. Competition for student financial aid,

another possible source of income support, is

keen; and the aid is often more readily available to young people going directly into college from high school than to displaced adults

entering or reentering training in preparation

for a job.

The Perkins Vocational Education Act and

Current, consistent national information on

displaced homemakers and the programs that

serve them is not available. States could be required to provide such information under the

Perkins Act, but the Administration has not

done so. Thus, if Congress wishes to see the

development of such data, it may have to consider ways of mandating it.

Little systematic information has ever been

collected about displaced homemakers or the

projects created to serve them. Nationwide estimates of the number of displaced homemakers

vary widely according to the definition selected

(e.g., whether women under 35 years old are

included or excluded). Many State vocational

education agencies do not have reliable data

4
5

on how many displaced homemakers reside in

their States. Even less information is available

about single parents and homemakers—the

group entitled to set-aside funding under the

Perkins Act. Systematic evaluations of the effects of displaced homemaker programs have

not been conducted, even though some programs are now more than 10 years old.

The Perkins Act does not explicitly require

any routine reporting from States on numbers

and characteristics of single parents and homemakers (including displaced homemakers) receiving assistance from Federal Voc Ed grants,

of services provided, or of outcomes. The U.S.

Department of Education is not requiring such

reports. Officials of the department contacted

by OTA say that the reports are unnecessary,

and would be inaccurate and intrusive if required. In general, the Administration opposes

Federal requirements for reporting of data not

considered essential to an agency’s mission or

explicitly demanded by law.

A number of State administrators of Voc Ed

women’s programs (the State Sex Equity Coordinators) consider it essential to collect systematic data on single parents and homemakers,

to give Congress a factual basis for deciding

whether the needs of these target groups are

being met in accordance with the law, whether

the programs serving them are effective, and

what spending levels are appropriate. Some

State officials are taking the lead in developing a data collection system that could be used

to build a consistent set of statistics, A number of States may participate in the system, but

it is not likely that all will.

An alternative would be to require a special

study on the characteristics of services provided to single parents and homemakers. The

Perkins Act directs the U.S. Secretary of Education to conduct applied research on aspects

of vocational education emphasized in the act;

one of these is effective methods for providing

quality vocational education to target groups,

including single parents and homemakers. In

mid-1985, the department had no plans underway for an applied research study on the topic

of single parents and homemakers.

The Perkins Act also unequivocally requires

a national assessment of vocational education

assisted under the law, through independent

studies and analysis and in consultation with

Congress, to be delivered by January 1, 1989

(9 months before the Perkins Act is due to expire). 1 A description and evaluation of the vocational education services delivered to target

groups, including single parents and homemakers, must be included in the assessment.

The Perkins Act places substantial emphasis on set-asides, or targeting portions of the

grants to States to special populations. These

set-asides amount to 57 percent of the grants

and, for some groups, are entirely new. The setasides, especially the 8.5 percent for single parents and homemakers, were adopted over the

strong opposition of much of the vocational

education establishment. Under the old Voc Ed

Act, displaced homemakers were named as a

target group, but no specific amounts were designated for services to them. As programs under the Perkins Act get underway, Congress

may wish to exercise a considerable degree of

oversight on whether the set-aside provisions

are being implemented in the way it intended.

A potential topic for oversight is whether the

Sex Equity Coordinators are able to wield the

authority the law gives them to administer the

single parents and homemakers programs, and

whether the set-aside funds are reaching their

intended beneficiaries. Suppose, for example,

that a State allocates Federal grant funds to

vocational education in secondary and postsecondary schools by the usual formulas, with

an extra effort to enroll single parents or

homemakers in an attempt to meet the 8.5 percent “quota” –but with no attempt to set up

special programs for the group. Congress may

wish to assure itself that States are using the

IThe act specifies that the National Institute of Education in

the U.S. Department of Education shall carry out the study. However, the Institute was not reauthorized in 1985, and the department intends to let it expire. The department proposes to carry

out the mandated study in its Office of Policy, Budget, and

Evaluation.
6

specified part of their Federal grants to “meet

the special needs” of single parents and homemakers and other targeted groups.

A different but related subject for oversight

is whether the States are able to use this large

infusion of new funds effectively. The eligible

population, though uncertain in numbers, is

certainly very large in relation to the funds. But

are those eligible aware of the programs; are

they seeking services; is the system able to absorb the new funds efficiently and provide

services that are genuinely helpful and in demand? These are some of the questions that

Congress might want to pursue.

Although Congress did not define displaced

better off, but still need the counseling, assessment, and job readiness training that a displaced homemaker project can provide. JTPA

does provide for Title 11A services to certain

groups, including displaced homemakers, who

exceed the income limits; roughly 10 percent

of funds available to Service Delivery Areas are

set aside for this purpose. According to early

reports, however, most States are not using the

lo-percent-window money to provide services

to these groups.

A few States are serving displaced homemakers under Title III, which has no income limitations. JTPA gives States a great deal of latitude in defining eligible dislocated workers,

and some consider that displaced homemakers

fit under the category of long-term unemployed

workers who are not likely to find reemployment in the same or a similar occupation.

homemakers as a principal target group for

JTPA programs, they are specifically mentioned in the law as one of the groups facing

employment barriers and therefore eligible for

some services. Because of the various eligibility criteria in the law, however, it can be difficult to use JTPA funds in projects designed to

serve the specific needs of displaced homemakers.

Large numbers of displaced homemakers are

poor enough to meet JTPA’s definition of disadvantaged, and therefore would be eligible for

service in most Title IIA projects. The problem is that many displaced homemakers, because of their lack of confidence and experience in the job market, and their sudden loss

of personal and financial support, do better in

projects designed to meet their needs, rather

than in larger employment and training projects serving a variety of clients.

In addition, if employment and training projects accept only women who meet the income

criteria for Title 11A, they exclude many others

who need and could benefit from their services. Some displaced homemakers exceed the

income limits because their loss in income was

recent, and their previous income before they

became displaced was too high. Others may be

Relations With the JTPA System

Altogether, it is hard for many projects specializing in serving displaced homemakers to

apply for and get JTPA funds. The biggest difficulties reported by project directors, in addition to the tangle of determining eligibility, are:

1) that project staff lack information and are

outside the JTPA system, and 2) that Private

Industry Councils are not interested in funding special programs for special populations.

The “outsider” problem may well disappear

over time. But the disinclination of PICs to

fund projects for special groups could pose a

continuing difficulty for displaced homemaker

projects, since most of the projects are founded

on the idea that their clients need a special set

of services,

The eligibility and special population problems might usefully be considered together. If

projects serving only displaced homemakers

are able to get JTPA Title IIA funding, and if

States allow services to 10 percent of the clients

of these projects without regard for their income, then many of the barriers that displaced

homemakers face in taking advantage of JTPA

services would be lowered. This might be an

appropriate subject for legislative guidance

through JTPA oversight.
7

Alternatively, Congress might wish to encourage or direct States to fund displaced homemakers projects under Title III. This would

simplify the eligibility problem, since there are

no income limits in Title III. A number of

States have expressed interest in serving displaced homemakers under Title III, and some

have sought information from the States which

are already doing so, such as Florida, Pennsylvania, and New York. On the other hand, if

more effective delivery of Title III services is

developed, participation of mainstream displaced workers might rise markedly, as discussed in chapters 5 and 6 of the full report.

Quite possibly, funding for the Title III program might have to be increased if another

large group (2 to 4 million displaced homemakers) were unequivocally made eligible.

The Vocational Education Act Amendments

of 1976 (now superseded by the Perkins Act)

mentioned displaced homemakers specifically

as a group eligible for income support during

training, in cases of acute need, but anecdotal

reports indicate that it was seldom provided.

The Perkins Act does not mention displaced

homemakers in connection with income support, though there is a general provision for stipends in cases of acute economic need which

cannot be met under work-study programs.

The Perkins Act does state that set-aside grant

money may used for supportive services, including day care and transportation costs, for

single parents and homemakers in training; it

may also be used for the purpose of scheduling and organizing training programs to make

them more accessible to single parents and

homemakers.

Under JTPA Title 11A, 30 percent of spending may go for a combination of administrative costs and costs of supportive services and

needs-based income payments, There is a 15-

percent limit on the administrative costs, so

that at least 15 percent is theoretically available for supportive services and income payments. The limit can be waived under certain

circumstances, such as a high local unemployment rate. Under Title III, there is a similar but

less stringent limit on costs of supportive services, wages, allowances, stipends, and administration; the limit applies to no more than half

of the combined Federal and non-Federal funds

available to a Title III program. In the transition year, substantially less than the limit was

spent for supportive services and income payments; 10 percent of Title 11A funds and 6 percent of Title III funds were spent for these purposes. It is not known how much, if any, of what

was spent went to displaced homemakers.

Should Congress wish to encourage the provision of income support to displaced homemakers in training, Voc Ed grants and JTPA

programs could be used to deliver this service.

The unemployment insurance (UI) system, which

has sometimes been proposed as both the funding source and delivery system for extended

income support during training for mainstream

displaced workers, is not available to most

displaced homemakers. Legislative guidance,

through oversight hearings, is one way in

which Congress might encourage or direct

greater emphasis on income support for displaced homemakers in the Voc Ed and JTPA

programs. However, because of the dearth of

data about numbers of displaced homemakers

demanding services, and how many are interested in training, a solid information base does

not exist for estimating participation and costs

of increased income support.

Assuming income support were provided to

displaced homemakers in training at the level

of average UI payments ($119 per week in

1984), the cost would be about $3,100 per person for 26 weeks, or $6,200 for a year. Program

costs might be estimated at $31 to $62 million

for every 10,000 people who took advantage of

the program. Such costs are high in relation

to present levels of funding; the Voc Ed grants

set aside for single parents and homemakers

were funded at approximately $63 million for

fiscal year 1985. Assuming 15 percent is the

practical limit for supportive services and income payments under JTPA, about $33 million

was available for these purposes under Title
8

III in fiscal year 1985, and approximately $280

million under Title IIA.

Considering the lack of experience with an

income support program for displaced homemakers in training, its possible high cost in relation to present sources of funding, and the

scarcity of information about displaced homemaker programs, a full-scale national program

may be premature. An alternative might be for

Congress to require the Department of Education to develop improved information on existing displaced homemaker programs supported by Voc Ed grants, including numbers

of clients and services provided. At the same

time, Congress might wish to consider special

funding for a small pilot program, offering income support to displaced homemakers enrolled in training courses needed for employment. Evaluation of the pilot project could help

in identifying likely participation rates and

costs for future projects.

OTA’s assessment of experience so far with

Federal programs offering assistance to displaced homemakers identifies several problems

that have already arisen and others that may

arise in bringing employment and training

services to this group. If Congress wishes to

encourage greater delivery of services to displaced homemakers, it might consider the following actions:

● Encourage the collection on a nationwide

basis of data on single parents and homemakers, including displaced homemakers,

served under the Carl D. Perkins Vocational Education Act. One option would

be congressional direction to the Department of Education to collect data from

States through routine reports, or to undertake a special study. This might be done

●

●

●

●

in one of several ways—through legislative

guidance in oversight hearings, by direct

communication with the Department of

Education, or through the appropriations

process.

Assure that State Sex Equity Coordinators

who are in charge of Voc Ed women’s programs have the authority to establish the

special programs for single parents and

homemakers that are called for in the law,

and that the set-asides in Federal funds

which the law provides for this group are

reaching the intended beneficiaries in a

way that “meets their special needs.”

Clarify that projects serving only displaced

homemakers may be funded under JTPA

Title 11A, and assure that States are allowing the use of lo-percent-window money

to serve groups that face special barriers

to employment (including displaced homemakers), without regard to income.

Consider taking action that would either

clarify to States that they may consider displaced homemakers eligible for services in

Title III programs, or would direct them

to do so. Clarification might be accomplished through legislative guidance in

oversight hearings. A direction to States

to consider displaced homemakers eligible for Title III would probably require a

change in the law.

Consider providing income support to displaced homemakers in job training and

education programs. One option would be

to first require better information on existing displaced homemaker programs, including participation rates and types of

services provided. While this information

is developed, Congress might also wish to

consider funding a pilot project that would

provide income support to displaced homemakers in vocational training needed for

employment.
POPULATION AND NEEDS OF DISPLACED HOMEMAKERS

Displaced homemakers, like workers displaced

from factory and office, have lost their accustomed source of income, and face painful readjustment and employment problems. They

are women whose main job has been home and

family, but must now support themselves because of divorce, separation, widowhood, disability or prolonged unemployment of their

spouse, or loss of eligibility for public assistance.2 Although definitions of displaced homemakers differ from one State, one law, and one

program to the next, and estimates of their

numbers vary accordingly, it is clear that this

group of displaced workers is large and growing, Estimates of the number of displaced homemakers range from over 2 to 4 million.

The usual image of the displaced homemaker

is a woman of middle years who has spent most

of her adult life caring for her home and family full time; who has little experience with paid

work, certainly none recently; and who has

been thrust on her own either by widowhood

or by divorce, in an age when divorce after 20

or 30 years of marriage has become socially

acceptable. The term “displaced homemaker, ”

coined by Sommers in 1975, implied forcible

exile of a full-time homemaker into a labor market for which she was ill-prepared. Too young

for Social Security, ineligible for welfare or unwilling to ask for it, with too little work experience to receive unemployment insurance, these

women were seen as falling through the cracks

of government social service and income support systems.3

This picture, while not inaccurate, is incomplete. Many of the definitions of displaced homemakers appearing in State or Federal laws are

more broadly inclusive, especially in adding

women as young as 22 years old; women in

‘Although a few men may fit the definition of displaced homemaker, the analysis in this report is confined to women.

31.aurie Shields, Displaced Homemakers: Organizing for a Nevt’

Life (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1981).

poverty (not necessarily ever married) who are

about to lose public assistance as their main

source of income, as their last child reaches

18 years of age; and women whose husbands

are too disabled to work or have been unemployed for 6 months or more, Some definitions

are quite restrictive about work experience outside the home, ruling out women who have

worked in paid jobs in the past 5 years. Others

limit the definition to women over 35 or 40

years old.

The figure most often cited for numbers of

displaced homemakers is 4.1 million, an estimate developed by the Women’s Bureau of the

U.S. Department of Labor in 1976, Based on

the Survey of Income and Education of 1975,

the estimate counted women 22 to 64 years old

who were widowed, divorced, separated, or

married with a disabled spouse; or who received Aid to Families with Dependent Children and whose youngest child was 16 or 17

years old; and who had worked less than 500

hours the previous year or had not worked at

all for 5 years or more. The Comprehensive

Employment and Training Act Amendments

of 1978, which named displaced homemakers

as a targeted group eligible for services, used

a similar definition, but changed the employment proviso, requiring that the displaced

homemaker must be unemployed or underemployed and experiencing difficulty in obtaining or upgrading employment.

For this report, OTA has used a somewhat

different definition of displaced homemakers

and a database—the Current Population Survey (CRS)—which permits comparisons from

one year to the next.4 The Survey of Income

and Education (SIE), though rich in detail, was

4

This definition was provided to OTA in a report prepared

by the Urban Institute, as a basis for estimates of numbers of

displaced homemakers. See Carolyn Taylor O’Brien and Demetra

Smith Nightingale, Programs for Displaced Homemakers in the

1980s, report to the Office of Technology Assessment (Washington, DC: The Urban Institute, 1984), Much of the material

here is drawn from the report, Estimates in the report are based

on data in the March Current Population Sur~re~ (CPS) of 1976,

1980, 1983, and 1984. The CPS is a month]} surt’ey conducted

by the Census Bureau of a sample of 60,000 households.

53-307 0 - 85 - 2

9
10

a one-time effort, not repeated since 1975. By

using the CPS, OTA was able to provide the

first national estimates of the displaced homemaker population for more than 1 year. Partly

because of differences in definition, and partly

because of unexplained differences between

the CPS and the SIE databases, OTA’s multiyear estimates of the displaced homemaker

population— rising from 1.7 million in 1975 to

2.2 million in 1983—must be regarded as conservative.

Under the definition used here, displaced

homemakers are women who:

1. are between the ages of 35 and 64 and

are divorced, separated, or widowed; or

are married but their husband is absent,

seriously disabled, or long-term unemployed; or

receive income from Aid to Families

with Dependent Children (AFDC), Social Security, or child support, but expect to lose it because the youngest child

is 17 to 19 years old; and

2. have had serious employment problems.

This definition distinguishes between former

homemakers who encounter real difficulty in

finding work, as they enter or reenter the job

market, from those who do not. Even wives

who have been working may find it very hard

to make the transition from secondary to primary or sole wage earner. Often a wife’s income is relatively meager; in the late 1970s the

average working wife contributed about onequarter of the total family income. For the purpose of defining displaced homemakers, indications of difficulty in finding work are current

unemployment plus having been unemployed

for at least 26 weeks of the previous year or

out of the labor force; working part time when

a full-time job is preferred; receiving pay below the minimum wage; or dropping out of the

labor force because of discouragement about

the prospects of finding a job.

The definition rejects the criterion that a

woman be totally out of the labor force for a

number of years. Most women have some work

experience, particularly once their youngest

child enters school. A woman who works for

—

a few weeks in the Christmas rush or part time

during school hours to boost the family income

may still be at a loss if she has to provide full

support for herself and her family. To exclude

women with any recent work experience from

the definition would leave out the majority of

former homemakers, especially women of lower

and middle income levels, who are most likely

to have combined some paid work with homemaking. Also included are women who must

seek a job because their husbands are unable

to work—either the husband did not work at

all in the previous year, mainly because of illness or disability, or he was unemployed (looking for a job but could not find one) for at least

26 weeks out of the previous year.

In this definition, the term “displaced” is reserved for women between 35 and 64, on the

argument that both younger and older women

are likely to have more options and resources

than those of middle years. Women over 64 are

generally eligible for some form of Social Security or pension. Younger women, with recent

training or work experience, are often more

employable; if they have young children, they

may qualify for public assistance; and they are

more likely to remarry. On the other hand, it

may be argued that younger women with young

children face even more difficult employment

and income problems than displaced homemakers of middle years. Many displaced homemaker programs do in fact serve women younger

than 35, and many others do not inquire too

stringently into the work history of former

homemakers seeking help in finding a job. Definitions of displaced homemakers constructed

to fit an existing database, and used for the purpose of estimating numbers and characteristics of the displaced homemaker population,

may be different, and perhaps less flexible,

than definitions used by service providers.

On the basis of the definition outlined above,

there were 1.7 million displaced homemakers

in 1975, 1.9 million in 1979, 2.3 million in 1982,

and 2.2 million in 1983 (the most recent year

for which figures were available when this report was written) (see table 1). It is quite likely

that these numbers, though large, are understated, Another estimate for 1975, using virtu-
11

Table 1 .—Characteristics of Displaced Homemakers, Selected Years (numbers and percentages)

Numbers in thousands Percentages

1975 1979 1982 1983 . --- . --- . --- . --- 1982 1983

Marital status:

Married, disabled or

unemployed spouse . . . . 641.0

Divorced/separated/spouse

absent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 653.0

Widowed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 438.4

Never married . . . . . . . . . . . . . . N/A

Total, ....,..,.........,.. —

Race:

White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,311.0

Black. ...,....,,. . . . . . . . . 392.1

Other. ,., ..,., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29.2

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . —

Age:

35-44 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 504.5

45-54 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,.,,.. 615.2

55-64 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 612.6

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . —

Family income: a

Less than $10,000/yr . . . . . . . . . 734.6

$10,001-$20,000/yr . . . . . . . . . . . . 595.0

$20,001-$30,000/yr . . . . . . . . . . . . 239.8

More than $30,001/yr . . . . . . . . 163,0

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . —

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,732.2

911.3 769.9

1,005.6

433.0

13.4

—

1,750.3

409.6

61.8

—

860.8

701.3

659.8

—

1,033.7

605.6

343.1

239.5

—

2,221.6

739.1

769.2

409.1

3.5

—

1,494.5

385.6

40.5

—

619.7

674.9

626.2

—

755.3

600.2

303.0

262,3

—

1,920.5

37.0 38.5 39.0 34.7

978.1

438,5

11.1

—

37.7

25,3

N/A

100.0

40.1

21.3

0.2

100.0

41.8

18.8

0.5

100.0

45.3

19.5

0.6

100.0

1,811.5

453.2

74.1

—

75.7

22.6

1.7

100.0

77.8

20.1

2.1

100.0

77.5

19.4

3.2

100.0

78.8

18.4

2.8

100.0

907.8

746.1

685.1

—

29.1

35.5

34.4

100.0

32.3

35.1

32.6

100.0

38.8

31.9

29.3

100.0

38.7

31.6

29.7

100.0

1,055.6

698,3

314.4

270.7

—

42.4

34.3

13.8

9.4

100.0

39.3

31.3

15.8

13.7

100.0

45.1

29.9

13.4

11.6

100,0

46,5

27.3

15.4

10,8

100.0

2,338.6 — NIA—Too few In this category to be estimated from the Current Popu/atior? Surveys

a1982 constant dollars

SOURCE Carolyn Taylor O”Brlen and Demetra Smith N!ghtlngale Programs for D/sp/aced Homemakers In the 1980s, report to the Off[ce of Technology Assessment

(Washington, DC The Urban Instflute, 1984~ based on Current Population Surveys, 1976, 1980, 1983, 1984

ally the same definition, but drawn from the

Survey of Income and Education, produced a

figure of 2.2 million displaced homemakers;

this compares with the figure of 1.7 million for

1975 presented here.5 Also, the definition used

here excludes women younger than 35, an arguable point. Even so, the 1983 figure of 2.2 million represents about 6 percent of all women

in the age group for that year. The rise in numbers of displaced homemakers is striking--a 28-

percent increase from 1975 to 1983. At the

same time, the population of all U.S. women in

the age group rose only 11 percent.6

Comparisons with other groups of displaced

or unemployed workers shed some light on the

significance of the displaced homemaker problem. For example, the number of mainstream

workers displaced from paid jobs was probably

well over 2 million in 1983,7 In the same year,

displaced homemakers numbered at least 2,2

million, according to the conservative estimates developed for OTA based on CPS yearly

surveys. The average number of unemployed

American workers in 1983 was 10.7 million.

From 1984 through mid-1985, the number of

unemployed workers hovered around 8.2 to 8,5

million.

Of the estimated 2.2 million displaced homemakers in 1983, over 1 million were divorced,

7The number of displaced tiorkers eligible for JT”f]A Title I [ I

ser~’ices in 1984-85 is uncounted and uncertain, but an estimate

ma}’ be based on numbers in years when a sur~e~’ was done.

In the 5 years 1979-83, 1 I,5 adult workers lost their jobs due to

plant closings or relocations, abolition of shifts or positions. or

slack work. It is IikeI\’ that most of these workers met the de fi -

n itlon of eligih i] itj’ i n Title I I 1, and that It’ell o~’er 2 million were

eligible in 1983. There is 1 ittle e~’idence that the pace of displacement slowed markedl} in 1984-85, See chs, 3 and 4 of the final

report for details.

sBoth estimates were prepared by the Urban Institute. See Jean

F;. Vanski, [)emetra Smith Nightingale, and Carolyn Taylor

O’Brien, Emplo~ment lle~’elopment Needs of Displaced Hon]cmakers (Washington DC: ‘rhe Urban Institute, 1983); and O’Brier

and Nightingale, op. cit.

“[’h is i nc I udes c it’ i} i an women outside of institutions.
separated, or had an absent spouse (see table

1). Rapid growth (54 percent) in this group accounted for much of the increase in numbers

of displaced homemakers from 1975 to 1983.

In 1982, at the depth of the recession, there was

a bulge in the category of married women with

disabled or long-term unemployed husbands;

but with the beginning of recovery in 1983, the

bulge flattened out. Equally striking was the increase (71 percent) in numbers of women at the

younger end of the range, those between 35 and

44 years old. Black women are overrepresented;

18 percent of the displaced homemakers in

1983 were black, compared to 12 percent of all

women in the age group. Finally, many of these

women were close to poverty, In 1982 and

1983, nearly half of them had family incomes

below $10,000 a year.

Income8

Most of the evidence indicates that displaced

homemakers, like other female heads of households, are disproportionately poor. In 1982,

their mean family income was reported to be

$15,000, compared to $25,000 for all families.

However, this figure may well overstate the actual income status of displaced homemakers.

The same is true of the data in table 1 which

show the distribution of family income among

groups of displaced homemakers. Reportedly,

25 to 29 percent of these women received family incomes of $20,000 or more per year between 1979 and 1983. This percentage is surprisingly large considering that, by definition,

these displaced homemakers were unemployed

or underemployed.

One possible explanation is that the income

figures are out of date—that they represent

former, not present, family income. In various

years, some 54 to 58 percent of the women with

incomes in the two upper income brackets

($20,000 to $30,000 and over $30,000) were in

the category of married with husbands either

physically disabled or persistently unemployed.

The reported family income is based on the

previous 12 months, and therefore could in81ncome figures in this section, unless otherwise noted, are

in constant 1982 dollars.

elude earnings from a period when the husband was still employed.

An additional factor (probably less important) is that some of the higher incomes reflect

alimony or child support payments. Earlier

studies show that quite a small minority of displaced homemakers (about 15 percent) receive

alimony or child support.9 Indeed, of all divorced women in 1975, about 14 percent were

awarded alimony and 47 percent child support

—but fewer than half who were entitled to support ever received regular payments.10 Yet, for

the minority of women who receive them, child

support payments may sometimes be an important source of family income—at least for a

time, Analysis of the CPS data shows that about

half the divorced and separated displaced

homemakers in the upper two income brackets

who were receiving some child support at the

time of the survey were likely to lose that income soon because their youngest child was

approaching 18 years of age. The two factors

described above probably account for a good

deal of the higher-than-expected incomes of

about one-quarter of displaced homemakers;

limitations in the data and analysis of the data

make it difficult to be more precise.

Altogether, it is likely that the reported

figures understate the financial adversity experienced by displaced homemakers, Even so,

the figures indicate that the majority face serious problems. In 1983, at least 30 percent of

displaced homemakers’ families were below

the poverty level (then at about $10,000 a year

for a family of four). This compares to a national figure of 15.2 percent below the poverty

level in 1983.11 Figure 1 illustrates the distribution of displaced homemaker family income,

by family size,

QVanski, Nightingale, and O’Brien, op. cit.

locaro] Jones, Nancy Gordon, and Isabel Sawhill, ‘‘Child SUPport Payments in the United States, ” Working Paper 992-03

(Washington DC: The Urban Institute, 1976),

1 I Thirty percent of displaced homemaker fami] ies of four or

more had incomes below the poverty level, which equaled about

$lG,000 (1982 dollars) in 1983. It is likely that smaller families

were below the poverty level in at least the same proportion,

although displaced homemaker incomes \vere not broken out

below the $10,000 level for the OTA analysls. (The poverty level

in 1982 dollars was about $5,000 for a one-person family, and

about $7,5oo for a three-person family.)
13

Figure 1.— Distribution of Family Income of

Displaced Homemakers, by Family Size, 1983

1

E 70 -

z 60 “

F 50

z 40 “

: 30 -

~ 20 -

10 -

0

Under $10,000 $10,000- $20,000- Over $30,000

$20,000 $30,000

Family income

SOURCE. Demetra Smith N!ghtlngale and Carolyn Taylor O’Brien, Est/rnates of

the D/sp/aced Homemaker Popu/at/orr report to the Off Ice of

Technology Assessment (JVashlngton, DC The Urban Institute,

1 985)

Another indicator of the economic situation

of displaced homemakers is personal income.

An analysis of 1975 data from the Survey of

Income and Education found that the average

personal income of displaced homemakers in

that year was $4,317 (current dollars), which

was $155 less than a full-time job at the minimum wage would have paid.12 Employed women

of the same age and marital status had an average personal income of $8,749 in 1975. The

most important source of income for displaced

homemakers is their own earnings, as shown

in the same study. Seventy percent of displaced

homemakers earned money in 1975, and over

half of their personal income came from earnings.13 Figure 2 shows the source of displaced

homemakers’ personal income at that time,

based on data in the Survey of Income and

Education.

Some sources of income varied quite substantially among groups. For example, about

one-third of divorced or separated white women

reported receiving some alimony or child supIzvanskl, Nl~htlnga]e, and O’ B rien, op. cit. The Current population S’urt’ej?s, on which the present analysis is based, show

family income. The 1976 Survey of Income and Education, on

which the earlier analysis was based, showed personal income.

In 1982 dollars (the basis for most income figures in this discussion], the average personal income for displaced homemakers in 1975 was about $7,730. Personal income as defined in the

earlier analysis included earnings, public assistance, Social Security benefits for minor children of widows, alimony and child

support, Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and veterans’ benefits, interest and dividends, and pensions.

I q Ibid,

Figure 2.—Sources of Displaced Homemakers’

Personal Income, 1975

53.1%

Interest/dividends 7,6° o

SOURCE Jean E Vanskl, Demetra Smith Nlghtlngale, and Carolyn Taylor

O’Brien, Ernp/oyrnenf Development Needs of D/sp/aced Home

makers, report to the U S Department o f Health and H u man

Services, Admlmstration on Aging (Washington DC The Urban

Institute, 1983)

port payments in 1975, with the amount averaging about $3,000 a year (current dollars) per

recipient. Only 16 percent of divorced black

women, and 9 percent of separated black women, got alimony or child support; the average

amount received was about $1,300. The displaced homemakers most dependent on public assistance were divorced and separated,

with 24 to 31 percent of white women in these

groups receiving welfare payments, and 40 to

56 percent of divorced and separated black

women. For the group of displaced homemakers as a whole, alimony and child support accounted for about 9 percent of personal income; public assistance provided about the

same share.

Family Size and Children at Home

Families of displaced homemakers in 1983

were typically small (families are defined as related individuals living in the same household).

About 22 percent were in families of four or

more people; approximately the same number

were the sole family member in their household (figure 3). As figure 1 indicates, the

smallest families were generally the poorest.

About 70 percent of the one-person families

had incomes below $10,000 a year (1982 dollars). However, 30 percent of the larger families (four people or more) had family incomes

below the $10,000 level.
14 —

Figure 3.— Family Size of Displaced Homemakers,

.

1983

.

One Two

,

1

I

Three Four Five or more

Family size

SOURCE. Demetra Smith Nmhtingale and Carolyn Taylor O’Brien, Esf/rnates of

the D/sp/aced H;mem-akers Popu/af/on, “report to the Off Ice of

Technology Assessment (Washington, DC The Urban Institute,

1985)

All of the 2.2 million displaced homemakers

in 1983 were, by definition, at least 35 years

old, and 1.36 million were over 45. Even so,

a majority (61 percent) had children at home.

Figure 4 shows the distribution of numbers of

children living at home with a displaced

homemaker mother. Typically, the children in

the families were of school age. Only 3 percent

of displaced homemakers (as defined here) had

children under 6; for 43 percent, the youngest

child at home was 6 to 18 years old, and for

15 percent the youngest was over 18.

Employment

By definition, all of the displaced homemakers were having trouble finding satisfactory

jobs. The Urban Institute study of displaced

homemakers as of 1975 was able to provide

these details about employment at that time:

Over half were underemployed, most of them

working full time but below the minimum

wage, and the rest working part time although

they wanted a full-time job. Twenty percent

Figure 4.—Number of Children at Home, Displaced

No

SOURCE

children

One

child

T wo Three Four

children children or more

children

Number of children at hom e

Demetra Smith Nlghttnaale and Carolyn Taylor O’Brien, Es f/mafes of

fhe L3/sp/aced Homem-akers Popu/at/on, report to the Office of

Technology Assessment (Washington, DC The Urban lnstltute,

1985)

had been out of work at least half the preceding year, or out of the labor force because of

discouragement. Fifteen percent were currently out of the labor force but intended to

look for work within a year, and another 15

percent were about to lose AFDC or other income related to dependent children.

The jobs these displaced homemakers held

(currently or recently) were by and large poorly

paid. Forty-two percent were service workers,

in such jobs as waitress, hotel maid, or nursing home aide. By way of comparison, only 22

percent of all female workers were in service

workers jobs in 1975. Displaced homemakers

were far less likely to have clerical jobs than

other women workers—17 percent compared

with 35 percent. At the middle and top end of

the job scale, 21 percent of all women workers had professional, technical, and administrative jobs in 1975; only 13 percent of the displaced homemakers were in these occupations.
NATIONAL DISPLACED HOMEMAKER PROGRAMS

Government programs to assist displaced

homemakers are no more than a decade old,

California’s 1975 law established the Nation’s

first program designed specifically to serve

women who had lost their main source of income due to a husband’s death, desertion, or

divorce or to loss of eligibility for public assistance, and who consequently had to find paid

work to support themselves and their families.

The first Federal legislation to assist displaced homemakers was the 1976 amendments

to the Vocational Education Act, which directed that States could use Voc Ed grants provided by the Federal Government to meet the

needs of displaced homemakers. Next, the 1978

amendments to CETA specifically named displaced homemakers as facing disadvantages in

entering the labor market, and made them a target group for employment and training, In

addition, for fiscal year 1980, Congress provided a special $5 million fund under CETA

for 47 demonstration projects serving displaced

homemakers.

JTPA, passed in 1982, weakened Federal assistance to displaced homemakers; it made

services to this group optional, instead of targeting them for special attention as CETA had

done. Two years later, however, in the Carl D.

Perkins Vocational Education Act of 1984,

Congress strongly increased Federal support

for displaced homemaker programs. The new

law authorized about $84 million in fiscal year

1985 for Voc Ed grants that are specifically designated for services to single parents and homemakers—including displaced homemakers—

and thus opened a large new source of Federal

funds to displaced homemaker programs. Yet

even with the increased Voc Ed funding, Federal support for employment and training services targeted directly to displaced homemakers

remains at a very modest level for a program

open to several million eligible people.

about funding for displaced homemaker programs is incomplete, it appears that State support has grown over the past few years, and

in 1984 was the major source of money for

these programs.

Exactly how many displaced homemaker

projects exist across the country—in community colleges, in vocational technical schools,

in community-based organizations such as

YWCAs, in city or State agencies, or in independent centers—is uncertain, but there appear

to be several hundred, The Displaced Homemakers Network, a national information exchange for the local centers, lists 425 such

centers, but this is not a complete count.14 It

appears that the number of projects is expanding modestly, after a sharp decline in 1981-82.

As figure 5 shows, displaced homemaker projects multiplied between 1978 to 1980; the number listed with the Displaced Homemaker Network rose from 50 to 407. With a drop in CETA

funding in 1981, projects listed with the network also fell, to 337. By 1984, the number had

once more risen.

lqThe 425 centers ]isted by the Network are those that replied

to a 1984 survey, which was sent to over 900 organizations on

the Network’s mailing list. OTA analyzed the survey results. Of

the projects that replied to the survey, 364 from 46 States and

the District of Columbia provided enough usable data that their

Meanwhile, by 1985, 24 States had enacted

their own laws in support of displaced homemakers, with 19 appropriating funds for pro- Year

grams to benefit them, Although information SOURCE Surveys conducted by the Displaced Homemakers Network

1980 1981

—

1984

15
16

The number of people served by the programs each year is likewise uncertain, but is

probably at least 100,000. Displaced homemaker centers replying to a 1984 survey by the Network reported that they serve anywhere from

15 to 3,800 clients per year, with an average

of 200 to 230 per program. According to the

survey, increasing numbers of women are seeking services. A large majority of respondents

said that both their funding and the number

of clients they serve had risen over the previous year.

Interviews with directors of 20 displaced

homemaker projects in the spring of 1984

painted a less favorable picture—one of expanding demands for services but no corresponding increase in funds.15 Sixteen of the directors said the number of clients they served

had grown steadily; four reported their client

load had remained relatively stable. Economic

conditions had something to do with the demand for services. For example, one project

director linked the rise in number of participants to layoffs in the steel and auto industries,

which pushed homemakers into the breadwinner role. Four directors noted that outreach efforts were related to the growth in demand for

services. Many displaced homemakers do not

know that they can be defined as such, much

less that there are programs designed to help

them. Publicity in the community about the

programs draws in these women.

As for funds, about equal numbers of the 20

project directors said their budgets had increased, decreased, or remained stable; one

had been on a roller coaster, with budgets fluctuating between $300,000 and $40,000 over the

past few years. Nearly all the project directors

said there were displaced homemakers in their

communities who were not being served, mostly

because funds and staff were lacking. Two directors reported that they have continued to

serve more clients each year as funding was

cut, but are concerned about the quality of service as staff and resources are stretched thin.

lsThe interviews Were conducted by the Urban Institute under contract to OTA. Results are reported in full in O’Brien and

Nightingale, op. cit.

Others turned away applicants, or put them on

a waiting list.

The typical displaced homemaker center

runs on very modest resources. Half of the 307

centers which reported their levels of funding

to the Network survey said they operated on

$41,000 a year or less, and two-thirds on

$62,000 or less. Only one-sixth of the projects

reported receiving as much as $100,000 a year.

Almost certainly, these figures are understated.

Many of the projects reported only cash funding, omitting in-kind contributions from community colleges or vocational technical institutes where they were housed. Nonetheless, on

the whole, the survey supports the conclusion

that these are lean programs, staffed by one or

two full-time and one or two part-time people,

with a few volunteers.

From the incomplete information available

about displaced homemaker programs, it appears that Federal funds were their mainstay

a few years ago, that these funds declined from

1981 to 1984, and that other sources—mainly

special State funds—have recently been modestly increasing. With the passage of the Perkins Vocational Education Act late in 1984, a

substantial new source of Federal funds became available for services to displaced homemakers.

In 1980, CETA was the main source of Federal funds for displaced homemaker programs.

As shown in table 2, two-thirds of the displaced

homemaker centers surveyed by the Network

in 1980 reported that CETA was a provider of

funds for them. About one-quarter cited Voc

Ed grants (these are generally made up of twothirds Federal money and one-third State). Thirtyone percent named State funds.

In 1984 the funding situation was quite different. Only 16 percent of the centers reported

receiving funds from JTPA, CETA’s successor.

Special State funds were now cited by nearly

half the centers as a source of support, and Voc
17

Table 2.— Principal Sources of Funding for Displaced

Homemaker Programs, 1980 and 1984

Percent of programs reporting

funds from source

a

Funding source 1980 1984

Vocational Education . . . . . 26% 43% b

CETA ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 N/A

JTPA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . N/A 16

Special State funds. . . . . . . 31 48b

Private c . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . N/A 37

Foundations and

corporations . . . . . . 10 N/A

Other public funds . . . . . . . 11 N/A

College . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . N/A 8

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . N/A 25

N/A—Not avadableor not applicable

apercentages add to more than 100 because most programs report more than

one source of funding

bAbout 12 to 15 programs reported what were probably VOcatlOnal Education

funds as State funds If these apparent misstatements were corrected, the per.

centages would be more even —State funds 44 percent and Vocational Education 46 percent

cprlvate sources In 1984 Included corporations, foundations, and Ct’wltable

Organ lzatlons such as United Way

dother’, In 1 g84 included such sources as fees for services and Informal fund

ralslng actlvltles such as bake sales

SOURCE 1980 and 1984 surveys by Dtsplaced Homemakers Network, OTA analysis of 1984 survey

Ed funds by more than 40 percent.16 Private

sources—foundations, corporations, and charitable organizations—had gained in importance, and were now mentioned by over onethird of respondents, compared with one-tenth

in 1980.

The actual amounts of funding from various

sources over the past 4 or 5 years are harder

to pin down. The Federal Government has

never tracked either CETA or JTPA funds to

their destination in local displaced homemaker centers, nor is there any information of this

kind available for Voc Ed funds after the 1981-

82 school year. From indirect evidence, it

seems safe to conclude that JTPA/CETA funding shrank absolutely as well as relatively from

1980 to 1984, In the first place, CETA was a

bigger program than JTPA. At CETA’s high

point in fiscal year 1979, appropriations were

$10.3 billion, and were still as great as $7,6 billion in 1981. By contrast, JTPA appropriations

1~1 t is ~, robab]e that special State funds were somewhat olrerreported as a source of funding and \’o(: Ed underreported; some

IZ to 15 of the respondents recorded what were probably t’oc

Ed funds as State-provided. If correction is made for this prohable misstatement, it appears that the percentage of programs

recei~’ i ng \roc Ed funding and special State funding are about

the same,

for 1985 were $3,8 billion. Furthermore, JTPA

does not target displaced homemakers as CETA

did. Nor did Congress ever add to the $5 million it provided for national demonstration displaced homemaker projects in 1980. Indeed,

only 15 of the 35 national demonstration projects operating in 1981 had obtained funds from

other sources (mostly CETA and Voc Ed) to

continue after the demonstration period, During 1981 there was also an apparent overall decline in the number of displaced homemaker

programs, from 407 to 337,

By 1984, Vocational Education grants were

the main source of Federal funds for displaced

homemaker programs, This source also probably declined in amount after the 1981-82

school year. Between 1979-80 and 1981-82 (the

last year for which data are available) the Federal share of Voc Ed contributions to displaced

homemaker projects rose, from $3,1 to $4.4 million. Afterwards, in all likelihood, it declined,

since total Federal Voc Ed grants (of which

grants for displaced homemaker services were

a small part) were cut by one-third from fiscal

years 1981 to 1983.

The Perkins Vocational Education Act of

1984 represents an important change in direction. Its authorization of as much as $84 million in one year for services to single parents

or homemakers (including displaced homemakers) makes it likely that Voc Ed grants will

be a much larger source of funding for displaced homemaker projects than in the past.

So far as is known, the Voc Ed grants for services to this group never before totaled more

than $4.4 million per year. Although the target group for the Voc Ed grants is now broader,17 it is expected that displaced homemaker

programs will be a major recipient, Moreover,

the new law designates where Federal contri1 TThe drafters of the law used the term ‘‘homemakers’ rather

than “displaced homemakers” to give more latitude to States

in providing services. Women who might foresee the necessit y

to find work outside the home can be helped to start training

or a job search, rather than waiting till divorce, widowhood, or

some other factor forces them to do so. The inclusion of ‘‘single parents” in the target groups opens the program more emphaticall~’ to men, and removes any requirement of marriage

or dissolution of marriage, or of inexperience in the labor market, The effect is to open the program both to all working single

parents and to parents (mostly mothers) on welfare.
18

butions are to go, in a way not done before. Previously, States were allowed to use Federal Voc

Ed grants for assistance to displaced homemakers; some chose to give virtually nothing to

these programs. The new law imposes mandatory set-asides for single parents or homemakers. Although displaced homemakers are not

explicitly named in the set-aside, they are included in the category.

Results from the Displaced Homemaker Network’s 1984 survey suggest that at that time no

more than about one-quarter of the financial

support for displaced homemaker programs

was coming from the Federal Government. Table 3 shows the amounts and sources of funding reported by 307 programs in the survey.

(Comparisons with 1980 are not possible, because information on amounts of funding by

source was not collected in the 1980 survey.)

Ten percent of the programs’ funding came

from JTPA, and another 19 percent from Voc

Ed (recall that about two-thirds of this is Federal money). “Other” sources of funding—for

example, fees or informal fund raisers such as

bake sales–were reported to provide as much

money to these programs as JTPA. States

emerged as the biggest contributors, providing

about half of the projects’ funds.

These figures should not be taken too literally. A few JTPA-funded projects were unable

to distinguish services to displaced homemakers, so their records were not entered and their

possible contributions went unrecorded. Also,

JTPA was still less than 2 years old at the time

of the survey; more recent evidence (discussed

below) suggests that by 1985 a larger number

of projects—but still definitely a minority—

were able to take advantage of JTPA support.

Moreover, some of the funds credited to special State funds in the survey returns may actually be Federal block grant or revenue sharing money. On the other hand, States were not

specifically credited with their share of Voc Ed

money.

It is interesting to note that displaced homemaker projects which reported getting JTPA

funding were quite heavily concentrated in a

few States. Of the 57 projects reporting some

funds from JTPA, nearly half (28) were in just

four States: Ohio had nine, Kentucky eight,

Montana six, and Wisconsin five. This suggests

that someone in those States—possibly the

State JTPA director or directors of training

projects at the local level—took early advantage

of the options JTPA offers for supporting displaced homemaker services.

Overall, the survey results probably give a

reasonably accurate impression of where the

money came from in 1984. Information from

other sources was consistent with the survey

findings. Six of the twenty project directors interviewed by the Urban Institute said that they

currently had JTPA support, but of those, three

mentioned sharp reductions in level of funding in the changeover from CETA to JTPA. (At

least one director, however, foresaw an opportunity for increased funding through JTPA.) Six

project directors also specifically mentioned

that their Voc Ed funds had been shrinking, in

Table 3.—Funding for Displaced Homemaker Programs, by Source, 1984

Amount of funds Percent Number of Average funds per Median funds per

Funding source in $1,000 of total programs reporting program in $1,OOOb program in $1,000

Vocational Education . . . . . . . . $3,787.1

—

19“/0 133 $28.5 —

JTPA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,025.3 10 45 44.0

Special State funds . . . . . . . . .

—

10,078.7 51 151 66.7 —

Private. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,590.1 8 64 24.8 —

College . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 278.1 1 19 14.6

Other. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

—

2,149.6 11 72 29.9 —

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $19,908.9 100%0 307 $64.9 41.0

a“programs repo~ing” in this table means those that reported the amount of funds received, by source. The sum of programs reporting is more than the total number

of programs reporting, because most programs had more than one source of funds

b“Average” IS the arithmetical mean.

C“prlvate” sources Included corporations, foundations, and charitable organizations such as United way.

SOURCE” 1984 survey by Displaced Homemaker Network and OTA analysts of the survey
19

some cases drastically. (These comments

made before the passage of the Perkins

In general, States seem to have taken

were

Act.)

over

a major role of provider for displaced homemaker programs. Although support has weakened in some States (e. g., California’s law expired in 1983 and was not renewed), it is rising

in others. In the 19 States providing funds as

of 1985, the typical contribution was something

between $100,000 a year to $500,000, although

six States provided more than $500,000 and

two over $1 million. The number of projects

funded ranged from 3 to 25.18

Some States have found ingenious ways to

fund the programs, For example, Idaho, Montana, and North Dakota have inaugurated several new displaced homemaker centers with

funds derived from a tax on divorce filing fees.

Minnesota and Washington earmark money

from marriage licenses as well as from divorce

filing fees. New Jersey is considering setting

aside $1 million a year from the State lottery

for displaced homemakers. New York has a

funding scheme, begun in 1979, which allocates to displaced homemaker programs

money from a special account in the State’s unemployment insurance trust fund. (The account is made up of interest and penalties on

delinquent taxes due to the fund from employers.) Contributions from this account have

risen steadily, reaching $1.6 million in 1984-

85. The State supports 14 displaced homemaker centers from the account; three of them

opened in 1984.

Some of the States with unusual sources of

funding for displaced homemaker programs

are considering supplementing or perhaps replacing them with regular legislative appropriations, so as to have a more reliable level of

funding. In New York, for example, the special UI account that funds displaced homemaker projects is being depleted. Some States are

finding that divorce filing fees are a rather

small and irregular source of funds,

The two major sources of Federal support for

services to displaced homemakers are Voc Ed

lsDiSp]aCe~ Homemakers Network, Dispiaced Homemaker

State Legislation (Washington DC: The Network, 1985),

grants and JTPA. Even before passage of the

Perkins Act, Voc Ed grants were the bigger

contributor. With the major changes in the new

law, Voc Ed grants are likely to assume still

greater importance. For two reasons, however,

access to JTPA services remains important for

displaced homemakers. First, although there

is a good deal of flexibility in both the JTPA

and the Voc Ed programs, JTPA more strongly

emphasizes job search assistance and prompt

employment, while the primary focus of Voc

Ed is on training, For many displaced homemakers, getting a job as soon as possible is imperative. Projects that have placement as their

central goal may serve their needs best.

Second, despite the increased funding designated for services to single parents or homemakers under the Perkins Act, the amounts involved are still relatively small for a training,

education, and employment program open to

millions of people. No estimate has been made

so far of the number of single parents or homemakers eligible for Voc Ed programs which are

authorized at approximately $84 million a year,

and have been funded at about $63 million for

fiscal year 1985, The population of displaced

homemakers is estimated at about 2 to 4 million; if the two-thirds of the fiscal year 1985 Voc

Ed grants for single parents or homemakers

were spread over this group alone, they would

amount only to about $10 to $21 per person per

year. For comparative purposes, consider the

JTPA Title III program for dislocated workers,

funded in fiscal year 1985 at $223 million and

open to roughly 2 million workers. If every

eligible person took advantage of the Title 111

program, the funding would amount to about

$110 per capita. Another comparison may be

made with the general CETA programs which

served a population of about 16 million disadvantaged workers in 1980 and were funded

at about $4 billion, or approximately $250 per

capita. 19

The foregoing comparisons are only illustrative. It is unrealistic to suppose that every eligible person will be served in an employment

IQThe funding of $4 billion for fisca] year 1980 refers Onl}r for

the general training and employment programs open to all eligible disadvantaged workers; it omits programs for special populations such as the Job Corps and the Native Americans, migrant

and seasonal farmworkers, and dislocated workers programs.

Total CETA funding in 1980 was $8,1 billion.
20

and training program. (In fact, about 1,377,000

disadvantaged workers participated in CETA’s

general employment and training programs in

1980, at a cost of approximately $2,900 per person. Under JTPA Title III, 96,100 workers participated during the 9-month transition year,

October 1983-June 1984, at a cost of $768 per

worker.) The point remains however, that despite the remarkable new infusion of Federal

funds for services to displaced homemakers in

the Perkins Act, funding for these programs is

relatively thin.

By early 1985, it appeared that use of JTPA

funds to support services to displaced homemakers might be increasing, but was still not

a principal source of support. In the first

months of that year, the Displaced Homemaker Network queried the 425 projects listed in

its directory on their experiences with JTPA.

Replies came from 176 projects, of which 55

reported that they had JTPA-funded contracts

and 121 said they had not.20 This compares

with replies to the Network’s 1984 survey the

previous year, in which 355 projects reported

sources of funding and 57 said they got some

funds from JTPA.

The amount of JTPA money devoted to services for displaced homemakers in the 55 projects is uncertain, because only one-quarter of

the projects’ contracts served displaced homemakers exclusively; three-quarters served other

clients as well. About half the projects reported

they were serving small numbers of displaced

homemakers—l to 20 over the life of the contract, which was usually a year. Figure 6 shows

the distribution of dollar amounts of JTPA contracts in the 55 projects, and figure 7 the distribution of numbers of displaced homemakers

served.

ZODisp]aced

.—

 Homemakers Network, Services to Displaced Homemakers Under JTPA, Preliminary Figures 4/85 (Washington DC:

The Network, 1985).

Figure 6.—Services to Displaced Homemakers

Under JTPA Contracts, Dollar Amount of Contract

and Women Seined, April 1985

Dollar amount of contract

$20,001-$60,000

300/0

Women served by contract

Displaced

homemakers

only 27°10

Group

including

displaced

homemakers

and others

73%.

Note: Total may not equal 1000/. due to rounding

SOURCE. Displaced Homemakers Network.

Figure 7.—Services to Displaced Homemakers

Under JTPA Contracts, Numbers Served, April 1985

50 “

4

40 “

30 “

20 - /

10 -

0

t 4 [ I

1 –20 21 –50 51 – 100 101 – 150151 – 500

Number of women

SOURCE: Displaced Homemakers Network.
21

These data indicate that the typical JTPAfunded project serving displaced homemakers

serves other clients as well. This works well

for some displaced homemakers but, as discussed later in this report, many of these

women benefit from services designed expressly to meet their needs. Unlike workers displaced from factories or offices, a great many

displaced homemakers lack recent work experience; often they are less confident, and less

attractive to employers, than someone with a

long stable history at a paid job. The sudden

loss of personal and financial support that displaced homemakers have undergone can also

compound the job readiness problem. They

may do better in special projects than in larger

mainstream employment and training projects,

or in general women’s programs. So far, most

JTPA-funded projects do not serve displaced

homemakers as a special group,

A serious eligibility issue arises in the use of

JTPA Title 11A funds for displaced homemakers. The Title 11A program is intended primarily to serve economically disadvantaged people; the problem is how to serve displaced

homemakers who do not qualify as economically disadvantaged, According to the law, the

term economically disadvantaged includes

people who are on welfare or receiving food

stamps, or whose family income in the previous 6 months was either below the federally

established poverty level, or was no more than

70 percent of the lower living standard income

level (whichever was higher). Often a newly

displaced homemaker’s family income for the

previous 6 months, when she still had her husband’s income support, is too high to meet the

JTPA requirement. Even though her income

may have been drastically reduced by the time

she applies for services, she is still ineligible.

Also, many displaced homemakers need assessment, counseling, and job search assistance

services even when their income continues to

exceed the JTPA limits.

It is possible to serve people who are not economically disadvantaged under JTPA. Title III,

for displaced workers, has no income limits;

but the definition of displaced worker in the

act does not necessarily and obviously extend

to displaced homemakers. Several States do

serve displaced homemakers under Title III,

reasoning that many of them fit the definition

of long-term unemployed. (See ch. 5 of the full

report for a discussion of eligibility for Title

III programs.) Florida has even included Title

111 services to displaced homemakers in the 2-

year coordination plan that States must submit

to qualify for JTPA funds. Florida’s plan allows

increased costs per placement for displaced

homemakers, taking into account their needs

for more extensive training and services.21 

Title 11A, which has the largest appropriation of any part of the law, makes some provision for people who are not economically disadvantaged, but face employment barriers.

Roughly 10 percent of Title 11A funds can be

spent for service to these groups. Displaced

homemakers are among the ten groups named

in the law as examples of those eligible for the

lo-percent-window money. Anecdotal evidence suggests that although some States are

in fact using the 10 percent money to serve

hard-to-employ groups (including displaced

homemakers), most are not. Instead, they are

saving the money to pay back the Federal treasury in case any of the people they have already

served as eligible are disallowed on audits. People who are above JTPA’s low-income level

may also qualify for a portion of the employment and training services which State education agencies provide with JTPA money, under

cooperative agreements with JTPA agencies,

Some States (Wisconsin is an example) have

taken an active lead in using this education setZ1 pau]a Roberts, Center for Law and Social Policy, memora ndum to People Interested in Women and JTPA on an analysis,

by the Coalition on Women and JTPA, of the Governors’ JTPA

Coordination Plans for Program Years 1984-86.
2 2

aside money for service to displaced homemakers.

Theoretically, all displaced homemakers,

without regard for income, were eligible for—

but not necessarily entitled to–JTPA Title 11A

programs that were funded at about $177 million in fiscal year 1985. The remainder of the

general program for disadvantaged adults and

youth, funded at $1.5 billion, was also open to

those meeting the income limits. Some services

under Title III, funded at $223 million in 1985,

were also available to displaced homemakers,

without regard to income. The JTPA funds actually spent on services to displaced homemakers is not known, but is surely no more than

a small fraction of these amounts. As table 3

shows, projects replying to the Displaced

Homemaker Network 1984 survey reported receiving $2 million in JTPA funds. This figure

is undoubtedly too low; many projects did not

report amounts of funding, and also JTPA was

a new program in 1984. However, the Network’s 1985 survey on experiences with JTPA

indicated that it was still true that only a moderate number of displaced homemaker projects, and a modest amount of services, were

paid for by JTPA funds.

In interviews, directors of local displaced

homemaker projects repeatedly mentioned the

low-income requirement as a drawback of

JTPA funding. They added that in some States

restrictive definitions as to who is a displaced

homemaker puts up more barriers to entry to

JTPA projects. (The Federal Government leaves

it to the States to define displaced homemakers, both for the Voc Ed program and JTPA.)

One displaced homemaker center reported that

it sent 200 income-eligible women to a JTPA

Service Delivery Area for employment and

training assistance, and only 17 were enrolled,

because the State definition of displaced homemaker was so restrictive as to how much the

woman could have earned over the past few

years .22

Answers to the Network’s 1985 survey offer

additional insights into why more projects do

not tap into JTPA as a source of funding. Of

Zz]nformation provided by Displaced Homemakers Network.

the 121 projects which reported they had no

JTPA contracts, 11 had tried for one and been

turned down. The rest did not bid. The reason

most commonly given was lack of information—a feeling of being too far removed from

the local JTPA system to try for funds. The

main reasons given by the 110 projects which

not bid, and the numbers of projects givthe reasons, are as follows:23

Lack of information: our project is not sufficiently tied into the local JTPA system

(39).

Displaced homemakers not targeted: the

Private Industry Councils (PICs) which are

responsible for direction of local JTPA programs are not funding programs for special populations but are “mainstreaming”

service delivery instead (36).

Services not being funded: PICs are giving contracts for vocational skills training,

which is not our project’s focus (30).

Eligibility: displaced homemakers are not

being served under the 10 percent “window” for people who face barriers to employment but are not low income (29).

Performance-based contracts: Many JTPA

contracts do not pay the contractor until

the client is placed in a job, but our project

cannot wait that long to be paid (22).

Community-based organizations: these organizations, which often provide services

specifically designed for displaced homemakers, are not getting contracts (20).

Eligibility: displaced homemakers are not

qualifying as economically disadvantaged

(19).

Performance standards: the job placement

rate set by the U.S. Department of Labor

for JTPA training, and adapted by States,

is too high (16).

Under the Perkins Act, Federal Voc Ed grants

may continue to be a larger and more reliable

source of funding for displaced homemaker

ZsDiSp]aCed Homemakers Network, Services to Displaced ~omemakers Under JTPA, Preliminary Figures 4/85 (Washington DC:

The Network, 1985).
23

programs than JTPA. In the Perkins Act, Congress unequivocally designated funds for the

use of single parents or homemakers, including displaced homemakers. Two programs under the act have mandatory set-asides for this

group:

8.5 percent of basic grants to States—the

major program funded by the act, authorization of $835 million for fiscal year

1985—must be spent for services to single

parents and homemakers;24 and

50 percent of the services in a new, smaller

program to encourage retraining and reemployment of adults—authorization of

$35 million but not funded by Congress in

fiscal year 1985—must be delivered to single parents and homemakers.

In addition to the programs that can directly

benefit displaced homemakers, two more provisions of the act are of particular interest:

3.5 percent of basic State grants must go

to sex equity programs, which are designed to eliminate sex bias and stereotyping in vocational education, to help prepare young women for well-paying jobs,

and to help prevent the emergence of more

displaced homemaker problems in the future; and

community-based organizations, which

often serve displaced- homemakers very

effectively, may get special funding—authorized at $15 million but not funded by Congress in fiscal year 1985—to provide vocational education support programs.

The women’s programs in the Perkins Act—

both the set-asides for single parents and homemakers and the sex equity programs for girls

and young women—are tied very specifically

to the goal of helping women overcome barriers to entering or reentering the job market.

To make use of set-aside grants, displaced

homemaker projects presumably will not have

to compete with other worthy aims or target

groups, nor will they have to persuade skepti24u P t. 7 percent of basic State grants may be used for State

administration expenses. Of the balance remaining, 57 percent

is designated for specific uses, including the 8.5 percent for single

parents and homemakers.

cal PICs or State JTPA managers that there is

a place for employment and training projects

designed to meet the particular needs of former

homemakers. That, at least, is how the program

is supposed to work, In reality, there may be

some hitches.

When the Perkins Act was under consideration by Congress in 1984, most State directors

of vocational education strongly opposed designation of specific uses for Federal Voc Ed

grants. They much preferred contributions on

the block grant model. In the event, however,

Congress reserved 57 percent of basic State

grants for specific uses. Targeted groups and

programs, besides single parents and homemakers and sex equity programs, are the economically disadvantaged (22 percent of basic

State grants), adults (12 percent), the handicapped (10 percent), and criminal offenders in

correctional institutions (1 percent).

In mid-1985, States were still sorting out how

to comply with these designations. Some State

Voc Ed administrators were planning to establish or add support for projects designed to

serve displaced homemakers. In others, it was

not yet clear what the response would be to the

law’s requirement that States use the specified

part of their Federal grants to “meet the special needs” of single parents or homemakers.

Overall, despite some initial confusion or reluctance on the part of some education officials

to change past ways of allocating funds, the

Perkins Act undoubtedly opens new opportunities to projects serving displaced homemakers. Despite the broadening of the population

to be served, to include single parents as well

as homemakers, there is little question that

States will have more Voc Ed funds than ever

before to serve displaced homemakers. A Maryland official reported, for example, that her

State was allocating $100,000 of Federal Voc

Ed funds to adolescent parents—but was reserving $867,000 for displaced homemakers,

for whom no more than $200,000 had ever been

available in any year before.

At this writing (September 1985), Congress

had appropriated $784.5 million for basic State

grants under the Perkins Act for fiscal year
24

1985; about $63 million of this was set aside

for services to single parents and homemakers.

Congress did not provide funds in fiscal year

1985 for the new adult training and employment program authorized under the act, half

of which would be directed to serving single

parents and homemakers, nor did it provide

the special funding for community-based organizations.

Various sections of the Perkins Act spell out

a broad range of fundable activities. In one

place or another, it authorizes the use of Federal grant money to provide most of the services that displaced homemaker program directors see as necessary for their clients. The main

purpose of the law, however, is to support vocational training, and it is training that receives

most emphasis. The bulk of Federal Voc Ed

funds are provided in basic grants to the States,

of which 8.5 percent (after a deduction for State

administration costs) is reserved for single parents and homemakers. States may use this portion of basic grants only for the following purposes:

●

●

●

●

●

●

paying for vocational education and training, including basic literacy instruction,

that will furnish single parents and homemakers with marketable skills;

making grants to educational agencies and

post-secondary schools to expand vocational

education services to single parents and

homemakers, so long as the expansion will

result in providing marketable skills to the

target group;

making grants to community-based organizations that have proven their ability to

provide effective vocational education to

single parents and homemakers;

assisting single parents and homemakers

with child care and transportation expenses;

scheduling programs to be more accessible to single parents and homemakers; and

providing the target group with information about the vocational education and

support services open to them.

The basic State grants that are not specifically designated for target groups may be used

for many other purposes related to vocational

education, such as:

● counseling, including self-assessment and

career planning and guidance;

● placement services for students who have

successfully completed vocational education programs; and

● stipends for students who have “acute economic needs” which cannot be met under

work-study programs.

The new program in the Perkins Act (authorization of $35 million) which offers special encouragement for adult training, retraining, and

employment development programs was not

funded.25 This program was designed with an

emphasis on cooperation with employers and

placement in jobs, and half of it is designated

for single parents and homemakers. Among the

services this new program may support, if and

when it is funded, are:

education and training programs designed

cooperatively with employers, such as apprenticeships, on-the-job training, customized training;

entrepreneurship training;

counseling and job search assistance; and

information and outreach to encourage

participation by eligible adults, especially

women, older workers, people with limited

English proficiency, the handicapped, and

the disadvantaged,

Finally, the Perkins Act emphasizes training

for young women in secondary and post-secondary schools in nontraditional occupations,

setting aside 3.5 percent of basic State grants

for the program. The purpose is to give young

women an alternative to low-paid, traditionally

female jobs.

Although displaced homemaker projects using

Voc Ed funds are usually located in community colleges or vocational-technical institutes,

zsln a supplementary appropriations bill passed in August 1985,

the Senate voted to appropriate $15 million in fiscal year 1985

for the adult training and employment program, but the House

did not, and the provision was dropped in conference.
25

they do not have to be. For example, some community-based organizations, such as the YWCA,

receive Voc Ed funding for displaced homemaker projects. Although the Perkins Act authorizes special funding (up to $15 million in

fiscal year 1985) for Voc Ed support programs

to be provided by community-based organizations, Congress did not fund this part of the

act in fiscal year 1985.26 Even if the section is

eventually funded, States are not required to

deliver services through community-based organizations. One service authorized by the Perkins Act, which does not seem a likely candidate for funding by States, is stipends to Voc

Ed students. The 1976 Voc Ed law, which the

Perkins Act replaced, specifically named displaced homemakers as possible recipients for

stipends, but very few were ever provided by

the States.

. The law requires that every State receiving

Voc Ed grants designate one person to administer the program for single parents and homemakers and the sex equity program, and spend

at least $60,000 a year for administering the

women’s programs. In most States, the administrator is the Sex Equity Coordinator, a middle-level official in the State Voc Ed hierarchy.

How much real authority this official is given,

and how effectively she or he uses that authority, will determine to a considerable degree

whether the opportunities the law opens up are

realized.

Altogether, the list of services that may be

offered under the new Voc Ed act is impressively broad and flexible, yet the focus on vocational training is clear. The services most

prominent in JTPA—training in job search

techniques, job development and job matching,

on-the-job-training—are not emphasized to a

great extent except in the new adult training

program which was not funded in fiscal year

1985, Relocation assistance is not offered at all.

Neither is education toward an academic degree. The fact that most displaced homemaker projects funded by Voc Ed funds are physically located in educational institutions, and

often are run by someone on the school’s staff,

probably discourages many displaced homemakers who urgently need a job from applying

for services. JTPA, insofar as it serves displaced homemakers, plays a different and complementary role.

Data Collection

An issue of special concern to Sex Equity

Coordinators in 1985, as States were gearing

up to implement the new law, was data collection. Information about displaced homemakers and programs set up to serve them is extremely deficient. In 1976 the Women’s Bureau

of the Department of Labor attempted a nationwide count of displaced homemakers, and the

1983 report of the Urban Institute for the U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services,

Administration of Aging, made another national estimate, with additional information on

services available to displaced homemakers. As

mentioned, the estimates developed for OTA

for four selected years from 1975 to 1983 are

the only existing national estimates covering

more than 1 year. In addition, many States

have no idea of how many displaced homemakers they have, or the extent of services that may

be needed.

Systematic evaluations of displaced homemaker programs—some of which are over 10

years old—do not exist. Even noncomparative

reports on outcomes of individual projects—

how many participants went into training, how

many got jobs, what kind of jobs at what kind

of wages—are scarce. Studies of program impacts, similar to those for displaced workers

served under the Manpower Development and

Training Act of 1962, or for disadvantaged

workers under CETA, have never been done.

The largest study in existence was descriptive,

not evaluative; it gave an account of the national demonstration displacement homemaker program (consisting of 47 projects) funded

under the special CETA demonstration grants

in 1980.27

Ze]n a supplementary appropriations bill passed in August 1985,

the Senate voted $15 million for Voc Ed support services to be

provided by community-based organizations, but the House did

not, and the provision was dropped in conference.

ZTDeborah Kogan, Lois Greenwood, and Mary Venci]], Assessment of the National Displaced Homemaker Program, A CrossProject Analysis (Berkeley CA: Berkeley Planning Associates,

1981).
The Perkins Act does not contain specific reporting requirements about single parents and

homemakers, It requires that States submit to

the U.S. Secretary of Education a vocational

education plan, initially covering 3 years and

afterwards 2 years, which includes an assessment of the special needs of target groups, and

assurances that the State will comply with the

requirements of the law in meeting those needs.

The U.S. Department of Education does not require any reports, other than the general assurances contained in the State plans, on what

States are doing to serve single parents and

homemakers,

The Perkins Act directs the Secretary of Education to conduct applied research on aspects

of vocational education specifically related to

the act, including effective methods for providing quality vocational education to single parents or homemakers (among other target

groups). In mid-1985, the Department of Education had no plans to carry out a study of this

kind. The department must conduct a longterm national assessment of vocational education under the act (including services to targeted groups), but the final report is not due

until January 1, 1989, 9 months before the expiration date of the Perkins Act.

Meanwhile, many of the State Sex Equity Coordinators see an urgent need for systematic

collection of information on how many people qualify for services under the women’s programs, how many actually are served, what

their characteristics are, and what happens to

them after they receive education, training, and

employment assistance. The coordinators see

these data as essential for writing State reports,

at the end of the first 3-year planning cycle, to

explain to Congress the effects of the new law,

and the new emphasis on service to single parents and homemakers. Accordingly, at their

1985 annual meeting (which they organized

and convened themselves) a group of State

coordinators laid plans for an unprecedented

program of consistent, nationwide data gathering. The Voc Ed departments of the cooperating States will pay for the program, which is

being developed under the leadership of the

Maryland and Wisconsin Sex Equity Coordinators.

The Maryland Department of Vocational

Education has set aside funds for developing

a computer program which will include these

major items:

● a count of single parent/homemaker/women

clients, including those in regular vocational education classes (so far as possible)

as well as those in special programs;

● a profile of clients, including factors such

as age, education, amount and source of

income, number and age of children, adolescent parentage;

● an account of the services the client

receives—what type, how often, how many

hours of service;

● outcomes after service, including details

on quality of employment such as wages,

occupational category, full- or part-time

work; and

● a l-year follow-up on outcomes.

Maryland officials expect the system to be

in place by July 1, 1986, and anticipate that at

least 30 States will buy into the program. The

result will be a rich and consistent set of data

covering many if not all States.

At the same time, the national Displaced

Homemakers Network is offering to every State

a relatively inexpensive service, worked out

with the U.S. Bureau of the Census and based

on the 1980 census, to provide a profile of single parents and homemakers within the State

—and within Metropolitan Statistical Areas if

desired. Characteristics of the population to be

covered include age, race, education, income,

type of displacement, number of dependent

children, and labor force participation.

Definition of Displaced Homemakers

In the Perkins Act, “homemaker” is defined

as an adult who has worked as an adult primarily without renumeration to care for the

home and family, and for that reason has diminished marketable skills. The law adds, however, that the U.S. Secretary of Education may
27

not prescribe the manner in which the States

comply with “the application of the definition. ”

The law further specifies that State plans shall

provide assurances that in serving single parents and homemakers, the State will emphasize assistance to those with the greatest financial need; and in serving homemakers the State

will give special consideration to “homemakers who because of divorce, separation, or the

death or disability of a spouse must prepare for

paid employ merit.” This is the guidance the

law provides as to who gets service as a “homemaker, ” and who is at the front of the queue.

Since the Perkins Act is barely in operation

yet, it is hard to say whether differences in

State definitions of homemakers will make for

marked differences among States in who gets

served. As noted above, anecdotal evidence

suggests that differences in definition are important in determining who receives services

under JTPA. In some States it is proving quite

difficult for displaced homemakers to get assistance under JTPA, because even if they pass

the hurdle of income qualification, they may

still not meet a restrictive State definition of

displaced homemaker.
DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE OF DISPLACED HOMEMAKER PROJECTS

Displaced homemakers entering the job market need all the same services as workers displaced from paid jobs, and often more. Generally, these women lack the long stable work

history of displaced workers, and some have

no work experience at all outside the home.

A substantial number (about 15 percent) are

mothers receiving public assistance who are

about to lose their eligibility because their last

child is nearing the age of 18. Some of these

women are seriously handicapped in getting

a job because of lack of skills or education,

Other displaced homemakers have held good

jobs or had an excellent education, but their

skills may be rusty or obsolete, or they may lack

confidence after a long spell out of the job market. Many who have developed valuable skills

in volunteer jobs need help in exploiting those

skills for a paid job. In addition to the practical difficulties of finding work, many displaced

homemakers must struggle with feelings of

abandonment and personal inadequacy. The

majority have gone through divorce or separation, or are widowed.

Anecdotal evidence suggests that the displaced homemaker projects of the last 10 years

have helped many of these women gain confidence, learn job search skills, get training, and

find jobs. Because systematic studies of the

project results are lacking, this kind of evidence

is the best we have. Likewise, knowledge about

what program elements are most important

and successful in assisting displaced homemakers comes mostly from accounts of women

who went through the programs and observations of project directors. The national Displaced Homemakers Network, which is in

touch with hundreds of individual projects

throughout the country, has distilled information on what constitutes a comprehensive program of services to displaced homemakers (see

box A). State officials dealing with displaced

homemaker programs (often the Sex Equity Coordinators in the States’ vocational education

systems) are also sources of information on

what works best in helping these women find

adequate jobs.

OTA has added some recent informed observations to these accounts. In 1984, an OTA contractor interviewed by telephone 20 directors

of selected local displaced homemaker projects

throughout the country, discussing the kinds

of services the projects offer and their effectiveness. Although they were not a true statistical sample, the projects were of different

types and sizes in a variety of geographic locations. OTA’s contractor also conducted brief

telephone interviews with the person responsible for overseeing displaced homemaker programs (usually the Sex Equity Coordinator) in

each of 16 States. Another source of information about the operation of displaced homemaker projects is the 1984 survey conducted

by the Displaced Homemaker Network and

analyzed by OTA.

From these various sources it is possible to

draw a few conclusions, at least tentative ones,

concerning displaced homemakers and the

programs designed to serve them.

In size and structure, the projects vary a great

deal. The range of funding among programs

in the Network’s survey is from $2,000 a year

to $862,000, and clients served range from 14

to 3,800. In some States (e.g., Texas and Oklahoma) services are offered mostly through

the State vocational-technical school systems,

Others fund programs in many kinds of organizations, including women’s groups and YWCAs.

Some, like New York and New Jersey, encourage the development of special purpose projects targeted to such groups as Hispanics, Haitians, rural women, and older women. Some

concentrate on outreach. For example, Wisconsin makes special efforts to reach women on

Indian reservations and in black neighborhoods. Washington State has a toll-free number where women can call for help.

The greatest points of similarity among these

projects are in defining the clients they wish

2 8
2 9
30

to serve—women whose main job has been

homemaker but must now take on the role of

family provider– and in providing the special

help that their clients need to bridge the gap

between home and work.

Half of the projects in the survey were located in educational institutions—community

colleges or vocational-technical schools—where

they could draw directly on the educational

and training programs of the host institution.

Community-based organizations such as women’s centers or YWCAs housed approximately

one-quarter of the projects. The rest described

themselves as “independent” or “other” (e.g.,

a university counseling program, or a State

agency).

Characteristics of Clients

The population is quite diverse. The 20 directors of local projects reported in interviews

that the age of their clients ranges from 16 to

67, with the majority between 35 and 55. The

average age tends to be lower in the south and

in rural areas, where women tend to marry

younger. According to half of the project directors, their typical client has a high school

education. Others reported a wide range of

education, some serving clients who mostly

have some college or a degree, and others serving disadvantaged women, half of whom have

not completed high school. The clients also

come from all kinds of economic backgrounds,

from poverty to affluence. However, at the time

these women come to the projects for assistance, most are trying to survive on very low

incomes. The affluence is usually former, not

current.

Project directors consider it important to offer services that are comprehensive and flexible enough to meet the needs of many types

of clients; most do not offer separate program

components for different subgroups. There are

exceptions however. Three projects have set

up separate counseling and support groups for

widows and for divorced or separated women.

The groups did not work well together. Widows

were offended by the other women’s negative

attitudes about their former husbands, and

tended to drop out of the program, until they

were given a group to themselves.

A few projects have recently begun special

programs, usually supported by State funds, for

women who are receiving Aid to Families with

Dependent Children (AFDC, or welfare). One

center in Texas is providing intensive prevocational and job training for AFDC mothers.

Another in Massachusetts is sponsoring a program for welfare mothers who never completed high school which combines personal

and job-related counseling with classroom instruction in general educational development

(GED), leading to a high school diploma.

Most of the project directors felt the need to

reach out more effectively to groups of displaced homemakers who are not being adequately served, especially rural and minority

women. A project in Connecticut was able to

involve Hispanic women in project activities

through a Hispanic outreach counselor. Other

project directors expressed a desire for bilingual counselors, and also for staff who can

reach black and other minority women who

might not know about the projects, or might

be reluctant to go for help to a white, suburban college campus.

Rural women are not only hard to reach, but

have special needs for service. Many have no

local public transportation and few if any local job opportunities. Some may benefit from

special assistance in creating their own jobs

or businesses.

Most of the project directors interviewed reported that their eligibility requirements for

clients are informal. The Network’s survey underscored the point: only about half the respondents reported any eligibility requirements. If limitations existed, the ones most

frequently cited were that the client had spent

some years primarily as a homemaker, and had

lost her main source of income support. Some

projects responded that participants had to
meet either a definition laid down by a State

law, or requirements of a funding source.

As discussed previously, clients of projects

funded under JTPA usually have to meet the

economically disadvantaged criterion which

applies to Title 11A programs. Several of the

project directors who receive funding from

JTPA expressed concern because they have to

turn away displaced homemakers in need of

assistance who do not fit the definition. Despite

the exceptions under JTPA to the income limitations, projects that have JTPA funding are

bound by the terms of their individual contracts, which may not make any exceptions.

Under the Carl D. Perkins Vocational Education Act, Federal funding to displaced homemakers has no income limitations, although

States in their vocational education plans must

provide assurance that they are serving displaced homemakers who are in financial need.

The range of services provided by different

displaced homemaker projects varies from

counseling and referral only to comprehensive

multi-component programs which cover all

aspects of the home-to-work transition, from

intake and assessment to follow-up after placement in a job. As a guide to project managers,

the national Displaced Homemakers Network

has compiled a comprehensive list of the services that it considers to meet the unique needs

of displaced homemakers (see box A).

Services provided in displaced homemaker

programs overlap and interconnect, but for the

sake of simplicity can be grouped as follows:

Personal counseling: includes one-to-one

or group counseling, peer support groups,

and workshops on self-awareness and assessment.

Job readiness: includes skills and aptitude

assessments, job counseling, academic

counseling, provision of labor market information, referrals to other local job

search agencies, assistance in preparing

resumes and filling out job applications,

and mock interviews.

Education and training: includes courses

in brush-up on the basics, GED preparation, English as a second language, onsite

skills training, on-the-job training, work experience, career internships, and referral

to educational or training programs.

Job placement: includes maintenance of

job banks, job development, job matching

and referrals to local job openings, and

follow-up.

Support services: includes seminars on

topics of practical interest (e.g., money

management, taxes, insurance), child care,

transportation assistance, emergency loans,

training stipends (if any are available) and

scholarship funds,

Most of the 20 project directors agreed that

a comprehensive program including everything but onsite training is ideal, but the

majority had neither the staff nor funding to

do it all, They had to save their efforts for what

they could do best, and what they believed to

be most successful. Most did not claim to know

what works best for their clients. In the absence

of any national full-scale program evaluations,

they rely on their own experience (the majority

of the projects are 5 or 6 years old) and the experience of others, which they share through

regional conferences and through the Displaced Homemaker Network.

There follow some notes on how services to

displaced homemakers may be delivered most

effectively, based on the observations of these

experienced project directors plus the findings

of a few studies28 and year-end reports from

a few States with displaced homemaker programs of their own.

Personal Counseling

Nearly all of the program directors emphasized the importance of this component; all of

them offer it. The Berkeley Planning Associates study of the national demonstration displaced homemaker projects especially noted

Zesee especia]]y KOgan, et al., op. cit., the descriptive study

of the 47-project national demonstration displaced homemaker

program.
3 2

the need of displaced homemakers for restoration of a sense of self-worth and confidence

building.

Peer support is almost universally considered

a highly effective form of counseling. Most of

the directors observed that peer support or

other forms of counseling need to be continued

throughout the program, in conjunction with

other services such as job readiness and skills

training, A very few program directors disagreed;

they believed that the most urgent requirement

for displaced homemakers is to find a job, after which other problems tend to take care of

themselves. The majority, however, considered

it essential to provide continuing emotional

support.

An example of a successful program based

on continuing support is the Safety in Numbers program sponsored by the Displaced

Homemaker Program at the Mississippi Gulf

Coast Junior College. Designed for students 25

and older, the program’s classes are composed

entirely of beginning adult students of similar

age so they can help one another with the necessary home and school adjustments. Included

in the basic curriculum are English, math,

reading and study skills, and the psychology

of personal adjustment.

Job Readiness

This is another essential service, provided by

all 20 projects. Small, modestly funded projects

may not be able to do their own job development or job matching, but they all help to prepare their inexperienced clients for the world

of paid work. Offering job readiness training

in a classroom format appears to be very successful. It is not only an efficient use of staff

resources, but also draws on the benefits of

peer support. Further, the organized instruction—having a class to go to—helps give many

displaced homemakers a sense of purpose,

countering feelings of helplessness and isolation.

Most displaced homemaker centers do not

offer skills training or education, but refer their

clients to the appropriate educational institution. A few (5 of 20) have offered skills training for such jobs as word processor, clerktypist, nurse’s aide, and food manager, and

brush-up courses for nurses and secretaries.

Referring clients to other institutions for

training has not always worked well. Berkeley

Planning Associates found that more than half

of the projects in the national demonstration

program experienced serious difficulty in getting displaced homemakers into CETA training programs, despite their own CETA sponsorship. There were two problems: CETA had

few training slots not reserved for other target

groups; and many displaced homemakers were

confused by the red tape and delays during the

CETA intake process. The red tape problem

may also arise with referrals of displaced homemaker clients to larger JTPA projects, especially around questions of income-eligibility.

Project directors would like to offer more

training themselves, or have more influence on

design of training courses. One director mentioned the need for short-term or refresher

training in clerical skills; many displaced homemakers have far too little income support to

undertake a 6- or 8-month course. Scheduling

of courses to meet the needs of displaced homemakers is also important. For example, the

Safety in Numbers course for displaced homemakers at the Mississippi Gulf Coast Junior

College offered the core curriculum in classes

2 days a week, freeing the student for family

responsibilities on the remaining days.

Many project directors expressed a desire to

encourage or offer more training in nontraditional fields; in fact two projects recently sponsored training courses in electronics and in

plastics mold injection. Needs for remedial

education were stressed; some displaced homemakers must upgrade reading and math competencies before they can enter any kind of

skills training, or even look for a job.

Five projects that were able to establish onthe-job training, work experience, or career internships were impressed with their effectiveness. Short-term work experience was especially important for women who had either
.

33

never had a paid job, or had not had one for

years.

Job Placement

The Displaced Homemakers Network, and

project directors in general, consider job placement “a top priority and ultimate goal of program service, ” Nonetheless, limited staff and

funds make it difficult for many projects to provide all the placement services that they see as

desirable.

The majority of project directors interviewed

(17 out of 20) said their projects do some kind

of placement work, even if only informally.

Several maintain job banks and keep in close

touch with local employers or employment

agencies about possible openings. Only four

have staff job developers, who work on turning up job openings that have not been advertised or listed. Several directors indicated the

need for more staff in job development and

coordination of job placement, especially for

older clients. Projects that are able to get additional funding, either from Perkins Act

grants or from other sources, may choose to

add staff job developers or to obtain the service for their clients by contract, A number of

JTPA projects have contracts with the local

Employment Service (ES), under which ES

staff develop jobs specifically for the project’s

clients. The typical displaced homemaker project does not have the funds to offer this special service to its clients,

The kind of jobs that clients of displaced

homemaker projects find are varied, but on the

whole are weighted toward traditionally female, generally low-paid jobs in the clerical,

retail sales, and service fields. For example, a

fact sheet from the State of Minnesota indicates

that of the displaced homemaker program clients who are placed, 42 percent are in service

jobs, 30 percent in clerical work, and 14 percent in sales. This particular group actually had

better average pay than other working women

in Minnesota: the median wage was $5 per

hour for former program participants, compared to a median wage of $3.38 per hour for

other Minnesota women. Very little other information exists on wage rates for participants

in displaced homemaker programs compared

to other groups. One study of a past program

in Massachusetts found that wage gains

achieved through the program were minimal;

most clients who worked before entering the

program received the minimum wage, and so

did most who completed the program. Of the

project directors interviewed, most reported

that their clients’ wages were generally low,

hovering around minimum wage.

The most obvious explanation for displaced

homemakers taking traditional women’s jobs

at low pay is that these are easy jobs to fill, with

few skill requirements and frequent openings.

As one director acknowledged, it is not clear

that these are the right jobs for the project’s

clients, but at least they do get placed.

Another explanation is that many displaced

homemakers seem to gravitate toward traditional jobs when asked their preferences. Few

older women are interested in nontraditional

jobs, and they generally reject training because

they believe they will not be able to compete

with younger, better-educated women even after training. In any case, displaced homemakers often have little choice. Many need a source

of income immediately. Without training stipends or loans, they are forced to accept lowpaid jobs with little prospect of advancement.

For women at very low income levels, public

assistance may be the best choice financially,

although many resist going on welfare.

On the other hand, some of the placements

are in a variety of nontraditional occupations.

Some women have been helped to start their

own businesses, sometimes unusual ones; for

example, a group of women developed a cab

service in an area that did not have one. One

director reported that women used to heavy

work at home were not afraid of competing

with men in physically demanding, nontraditional occupations—for instance, one woman

took a job as a UPS delivery person.

One of the best auguries for successful placement is a sympathetic employer, familiar with

the needs of displaced homemakers and able

to provide feedback to an inexperienced work-
34

er on her performance. Previous acquaintance

with an employer through on-the-job training,

work experience, or an internship often results

in a permanent job.

Support Services

Many projects provide specialized workshops

or counseling on matters not directly related

to job search—e.g., money management, taxes,

insurance, housing and mortgages, legal rights

of women, health care, single parenting, even

automobile repair and maintenance. Few are

able to offer substantial help in the forms most

needed by many displaced homemakers—child

care, transportation, and financial assistance.

Some women who could most benefit from

training are unable to take classes without

some form of financial assistance—possibly

loans, if not grants. Unlike displaced workers,

most displaced homemakers have no unemployment insurance. Few can rely on other

family members for support.

A few project directors said they have some

resources, mostly through grants and private

donations, to provide limited financial assistance to their clients. Four programs offer

transportation assistance; three, scholarship

programs; three, limited emergency loans; two,

limited training stipends; and two, child care

at the displaced homemaker centers. In addition, some referred clients to local community

colleges for financial aid, and to the community colleges or social service agencies for child

care available to low-income women.

The Perkins Vocational Education Act of

1984 promises assistance in some of these

areas. Under the previous Voc Ed law, child

care, transportation assistance, and even training stipends in limited situations were authorized for displaced homemakers. It appears they

were rarely made available, possibly because

Federal Voc Ed funds for displaced homemakers were limited, and State administrators did

not choose to use them in this way. With the

increases in funds targeted to homemakers in

the 1984 act, support services might be more

feasible. The new law specifically allows funds

to be used for child care and transportation

assistance. It also authorizes training stipends

for Voc Ed students in general (not single parents and homemakers in particular) but only

in cases of “acute economic needs which cannot be met under work-study programs. ” The

consensus so far among Sex Equity Coordinators is that little if any Voc Ed grant money will

be used to provide training stipends.

JTPA is no more promising as a source of income support for displaced homemakers undertaking training or education in search of a

job. In passing JTPA in 1982, Congress put limits on supportive services (e. g., child care,

transportation allowances, and health care)

and any form of income payment (including

needs-based payments, under Title 11A, and

training allowances or stipends, under Title

III). Spending for these purposes, plus administrative spending, was generally limited to 30

percent of JTPA funding. Administrative expenses, in turn, were limited to 15 percent

which, in effect, kept spending for income support and supportive services to no more than

15 percent. Private industry councils and JTPA

program directors have generally kept a still

tighter rein on supportive services and income

payments than the law requires. In the JTPA

transition year (October 1983-June 1984), spending for supportive services and needs-based

payments in Title 11A was 10 percent, and for

similar services in Title III, 6 percent. Nothing is known of how much of these payments

went to displaced homemakers, but since JTPA

spending overall for this group is limited, the

amount was certainly very small.

A possible source of income for displaced

homemakers during education or training is

one of the Federal aid programs for post-secondary students. As chapter 7 of the full report

discusses, these programs are designed primarily

for financially dependent young people, not for

adults—even low-income adults. Some changes

that have been proposed in the student aid programs (discussed in chs. 2 and 7 of the full report) might make this source of income more

easily accessible to displaced homemakers.

However, the competition for student aid is extremely keen; whatever goes to a displaced

homemaker would be subtracted from the pool
3 5

available to young students (unless, as seems

unlikely, the program were enlarged).

Another possibility for some displaced homemakers is part-time studies at night. The Perkins Act offers funds to allow scheduling of

vocational education courses to make them

more accessible to single parents and homemakers. Night studies may be a useful option

for some, especially those without young children at home. On-the-job training, even though

it often does not offer genuine transferable

training but rather is a placement device (see

ch. 6 of the full report), may still be very useful to some displaced homemakers.

The problem of income support for people

who need ‘training to get a decent job with

chances of advancement is not an easy one.

There were abuses under CETA, with some

people signing up for courses mainly for the

purpose of collecting training allowances. Yet

the dilemma of a woman who has no source

of support but what she can earn, yet with too

little preparation for work to get better than a

marginal job, is a painful one. Many of these

women cannot undertake the triple job of earning a living, caring for a child, and training for

a better job. It may be in the interest of society, as well as the personal interest of women

such as these to make use of programs which

already exist for income support of serious

adult students, or to develop ones which fit

their needs.