A History of the Ministry of Information, 1939-46
6. HOT WATER, BATHING, WASHING AND LAUNDRY
6.1 The fourth section of the questionnaire was concerned with water heating and allied subjects.
The questions were designed first to discover what methods of water heating were in use, (Question 23), what other types had been used (Question 24), what the housewives opinions of these were (Question 25), and what kind of water heating she liked best (Question 26).
Questions 27 and 28 were designed to find out how much water was used for bathing and whether more would be used if hot water arrangements were better or the supply cheaper.
Housewives were then asked if they would like constant hot water laid on and whether they would be prepared to pay for it (Questions 29 and 30). This section was similar in form to the Central Heating questions.
The Laundry section of the questionnaire dealt with clothes washing habits, with the use made of communal laundries, and also with the use made of commercial laundries and the cost of this service.
6.2 WATER HEATING
Table 53
Question 23 was divided into two parts and asked “How water was heated for baths and for clothes washing”. There were some 5,243 answers to these Questions.
Taking the sample as a whole and examining the water heating for baths first, it was found that 29.6% of all households heated water for baths in pans and kettles on the fire, on the stove, on the range or on the cooker, 25.7% of the households had a fire back boiler in their kitchen or sitting room fire place of range with a pipe supply, 15.1% used the copper or set- pot heated by coal, 10.3% the gas boiler and 7.4% had a gas geyser.
Water was heated for clothes washing in the following ways:- in 31.2% of the households the copper or set-pot was used, in 27.9% the gas boiler and in 15.9% water was heated in pans and kettles on the fire or range.
These total figures have been analysed by income, by age and by Degree-day region, the latter because water heating, like cooking, is in many homes closely associated with space heating.
6.2 1 ANALYSIS BY INCOME
The analysis by income reflects clearly on the higher standard of domestic efficiency which is possible in the higher income group, for example, in the heating of bath water, 30.3% in the higher income group had a fire-back boiler with pipe supply compared with 20% in the lower income group. Again 9.4% in the higher income group had a gas geyser compared with 4.9% in the lower income group. In contrast to this 36.9% of the lower income group households heated their bath water in pans and kettles, etc., compared with 23.5% in the higher income group.
Water heating for clothes showed the same tendency. Here again of the poorer households heated their water for clothes washing in pans and kettles, compared with 12% in the higher income group, the higher income group having a higher proportion with gas boilers and gas geysers.
6.2 2 ANALYSIS BY REGION
The main point which emerges from the analysis by Degree-day region is the fact that in the coldest region there is a much higher proportion of housewives who have fire-back boilers with pipe supply; 65% in the coldest region, 37.7% in the next, 28.6% in the next and 9.8% in the warmest region. This appears to show that in the colder regions the heating of water and as has been shown in the cooking section, and the cooking of food are more closely bound up with space heating.
6.3 HOUSEWIVES PREFERENCES FOR WATER HEATING SYSTEMS AND THEIR LIKES AND DISLIKES ABOUT THEM.
6.3 1 The most preferred type of water heating was constant hot water which was preferred by 39% of the 4,248 housewives who were able to express an opinion. The fire-back boiler with pipe supply was chosen by 33.2%. The only other systems which were favoured by a considerable proportion were the gas geyser and gas storage heater and the electric immersion heater 7.9%.
6.3 2 ANALYSIS BY DEGREE-DAY REGION
This analysis demonstrates again the interrelationship of water heating and space heating. Preference for the fire-back boiler (which implies a fire all the year round) was highest in the coldest region and lower in each of the warmer regions. The proportions were as follows:-
Table 54
| Region I | 5,000-5,500 degree days | 65.5% |
| Region II | 4,500-5,000 degree days | 49.9% |
| Region III | 4,000-4,500 degree days | 41.3% |
| Region IV | Under 4,000 degree days | 11.1% |
It should be noted that Degree-day Region I has this type of water heater. The most important other difference was in hot water which were as follows:-
| Region I | 5,000-5,500 degree days | 16.9% |
| Region II | 4,500-5,000 degree days | 31.2% |
| Region III | 4,000-4,500 degree days | 28.4% |
| Region IV | Under 4,000 degree days | 56.7% |
This result which is almost the converse of the other, shows that in the warmer region water heating, separate from space heating is preferred.
6.3 3 LIKES AND DISLIKES ABOUT WATER HEATING APPARATUS
The most important reason for liking the preferred water heating apparatus was in most cases a simple unspecified Preference showing that the housewives had no very clear reason for preferring one type of water heater to another, although the handiness of the fire-back boiler and of the gas boiler were mentioned, and these reasons were important for the gas geyser and storage heater, the electric immersion heater and the electric boiler. Cheapness was most important in the case of the copper or set-pot.
The dislikes about the same set of apparatus were perhaps more revealing, The most disliked apparatus were pans and kettles on the fire and the copper and set-pot. They were disliked because they made hard work and were inconvenient. Both the fire-back boiler and the range with boiler, but without pipe supply were also referred to as being hard work and inconvenient in many cases. The gas boiler, gas geyser and electric immersion heater were all condemned on account of expense by a large proportion of the housewives who had used them.
6.4 HOT WATER FOR BATHS
Table 55
This section of the inquiry is less satisfactory than the rest. difficulties arose on the one hand from the diffidence of the investigators in asking what they considered to be a personal question and on the other hand on the unwillingness of some housewives to answer the question clearly. The form of the question also gave rise to some ambiguity. It had been hoped that the non-personal form “How many times a week do you use water for baths”? would have avoided some of these difficulties, but it appeared not to do so.
With these provisos the main result was that information was obtained from about 4,512 families of whom 26% heated water once a week, 20% twice a week,15% three times a week and 12% four times a week.
6.4 1 ANALYSIS BY FAMILY SIZE
Family size was clearly one of the factors which caused more water to be heated for baths during the week. For example the proportion heating water four times in a week was 5.7% in families from 1-3 and 19% in families from 4-7. The larger families had a greater proportion in all the higher categories.
6.4 2 FAMILIES WITH AND WITHOUT CHILDERN COMPARED
Table 56
There was likewise a considerable difference in families with children compared to those without. The proportion heating water for baths four times a week and more is higher in every case in the homes with children.
6.4 3 ANALYSIS INTO URBAN AND RURAL
Households living in the town appeared to heat water for baths slightly more frequently than households in the country. Differences were very small.
6.5 HOUSEHOLDS ATTITUDE TO IMPROVE BATHING FACILITIES
Question 28 asked two questions “Would more baths be taken if they cost less” and “if it was easier to heat the water”?
In the first case about 60% of all housewives answered that more baths would be taken if it cost less to heat the water, whereas 68% said more baths would be taken if it was easier to heat the water.
6.5 1 ANALYSYS BY DEGREE DAY REGIONS
Table 57
There were some considerable regional differences. In all cases the households in the colder region had a very low proportion of Yes answers compared with those in the warmer regions, particularly with the warmest region. In the first case, if baths cost less in the coldest region 20.1% answered Yes compared with 73.3% in the warmest region, and in the second case, if it was easier to heat the water, 36.9% answered Yes compared with 77.8%. The differences between region II and region III were much less.
There are several factors which help to account for this.
In degree-day region I water heating is very much related to space heating and further this region has a greater proportion of households with baths than any other. The proportions were:-
| Region I | 5,000-5,500 degree days | 60.5% |
| Region II | 4,500-5,000 degree days | 43.0% |
| Region III | 4,000-4,500 degree days | 39.4% |
| Region IV | Under 4,000 degree days | 42.8% |
The number of times water v/a was also higher in region I. Region I.
6.6 Question 29 - “ WOULD YOU LIKE CONSTANT HOT WATER LAID ON IN YOUR KITCHEN AND BATHROOM WITHOUT CENTRAL HEATING? ”
Table 60
There was 4,815 answers to this question of which 86.1% were Yes and 13. 9% were No. It may be noted that the proportion in favour of this is higher than that favouring hot water plus central heating.
6.6 1 ANALYSIS BY AGE
Table 58
The analysis by Age showed the some general tendency that has been seen in almost all the other analyses, namely that the younger groups are more willing to consider improvements than the older. 93.2% of the housewives under 30 would like this arrangement compared with 80.8% of those over 50.
6.62 ANALYSIS BY REGION
Table 59
The analysis by region again shows the same tendency that the colder region Degree-day region I, is much more conservative than the warmest region, Degree-day region IV. It should be noted, however, that this conclusion 26 needs modifying to a small extent by the fact that many of the housewives 59 in Degree-day region I already have hot water laid on from their fire-back boiler and this may have influenced their answers to this section. (There were 86 of such housewives, whereas the total answering this question was 149 in this region). The proportions for the four Degree-day regions answering Yes were 51%, 82.4%, 96.5% and 91.5% going from the coldest to the warmest region.
6.6 3 ANALYSIS BY URBAN AND RURAL
There were no important differences in the analysis of housewives living in the town and country.
6.6 4 ANALYSIS BY OLD AND NEW HOUSE
Table 60
The analysis by old and new house shows that more housewives living in old houses favoured this scheme than those living in new houses. This we believe is accounted for by the fact that many housewives living in new houses have satisfactory hot water arrangements already and were unwilling, therefore, to consider a change.
6.7 PAYMENT FOR CONSTANT HOT WATER
Table 61
Question 30 asked “How much would you be prepared to pay per week for constant hot water only?” There were 3,803 answers to this question of whom 24.7% were prepared to pay up to 2/6d. , 41.2% up to 62.0% up to l/6d. and 7.6% nothing, 30.4% did not know how much they would be prepared to pay.
6.7 1 ANALYSIS BY AGE
Table 61
The younger groups were rather more willing to pay and more willing to pay a higher weekly sum than the older groups; for example, 28% for the under 30’s were willing to pay up to 2/6d. compared with 20% for the over 50’s. The Over 50 were also much more uncertain than the younger groups,39% of them did not know what they would pay compared with 27.3% of the Under 30 age group.
6.7 2 ANALYSIS BY DEGREE-DAY REGION
Differences between the regional proportions are very similar to those found in the analysis of previous questions. The coldest region has the lowest proportion who are willing to pay anything, and in general the housewives are not willing to pay so much as housewives in the warmer region.
5.3% in region I are prepared to pay up to 2/-, 16.8% in region II, 30% in region III and 25.9% in region IV. of those who are not prepared to pay anything, 51% is the proportion in region I, 10.9% in region II, 6.4% in region III and 2.9% in region IV. The number who were unable to make a decision was, however, only 7.3% in region I, but a little over 30% in the other three regions.
6.7 3 ANALYSIS BY OLD AND NEW HOUSES
Analysis by old and new house showed that slightly more housewives living in new houses were prepared to pay for this service than housewives living in old houses and a slightly smaller proportion of the former class were prepared to pay the higher fee, although the differences are quite small. This may be related to the fact that expenditure is higher in new houses.
6.8 CLOTHES WASHING AND LAUNDRY
This section is designed to discover housewives' habits in relation to clothes washing, communal laundries and public laundries.
6.8 1 CLOTHES WASHING
Table 62
Question 31 asked the simple question “Do you do all your own washing?” Of the 5,235 housewives who answered this question 73% did all their washing and 26.6% did not. (Table 74). This result may be compared with the result obtained from another inquiry June 1942 which is given below. In this analysis A is Upper Class B Upper Middle Class C Lower Middle and Upper working class, D Lower working class.
Do you send any clothes or linen to the laundry?
Analysis by Social Group
6.8 2 ANALYSIS BY DEGREE-DAY REGION
Table 62
The Degree-day region analysis showed that rather more housewives in three colder regions did all their washing than those in the warmer region.
6.8 3 ANALYSIS BY GEOGRAPHICAL REGION
This analysis shows that more housewives do their own in the North, than in the rest of the regions. The lowest proportion being in London and the South. The following are the proportions:-
6.8 4 ANALYSIS BY URBAN AND RURAL DISTRICTS
Table 63
There was a small difference in the analysis between urban and rural housewives, there being slightly more housewives living in rural areas who did all their own washing.
6.8 5 ANALYSIS BY AGE
Table 64
Age appeared to affect the answers to this question in two ways. The youngest and the oldest groups had the lowest proportion who did all their own washing, (70.7% and 70.5%), whereas the housewives in the two middle groups had a higher proportion, (75.4% and 75.7%).
6.8 6 ANALYSIS BY INCOME
Table 65
The analysis by income shows clearly that housewives in the higher group sent more of their washing away to be washed. The proportion doing all their own washing was 78% in the lower income group, compared with 69.6% in the higher income group.
6.9 COMMUNAL LAUNDRY
Table 66
Question 32 asked: “Is there a Communal Laundry or Public Wash-house within 10 minutes walk?”. This service was available to 14.5% of the nearly 4,000 housewives who answered this question. Of these 27.4% used it for all their washing regularly, 3.5% for all occasionally, 4.4% for heavy washing regularly and 2.4% for heavy washing occasionally.
6.9 1 ANALYSIS BY INCOME
Table 75
Where available communal laundries were used rather more by housewives in the higher income group than in the lower, 15.7% compared with 13.1%, and this difference was particularly marked in the group that used a communal laundry for all their clothes regularly.
6.9 2 ANALYSIS BY FAMILY SIZE
The larger families, those with from 4-7 in them, used communal laundries considerably more than the smaller families,compared with 27% and this difference was again greatest in the group who used it for all their clothes regularly, 36.1% compared with 18%.
6.10 COMMMERCIAL LAUNDRIES
Table 68
As has been seen in the result of question 31, 26.6% of the sample used laundries. These housewives were further asked what washing do you send to the These housewives directed into two groups, “All Washing”, and “Heavy Washing only”. 11.0% sent all their washing and 89.0% sent “Heavy Washing”.
6.10 1 ANALYSIS BY INCOME GROUP
Table 68
A slightly greater proportion of families in the higher income group sent all their washing to the laundry.
Households with children sent somewhat less washing to laundries than those without and large families somewhat less than small.
6.11 TYPE OF LAUNDRY SERVICE USED
Question 35 asked whether households used the finished service or the bagwash service. There were 1 ,092 answers to this question, being most of the housewives who sent clothes to the laundry as is shown in the previous question.
Of these 86.7% used the finished service and 13.3% the bagwash. There was no difference in the service used between families of different sizes but there was a small difference in those families in the higher income group who used the finished service compared with the lower income group, 88.3% compared with 85.2%.
6.12 EXPENDITURE ON LAUNDRY
Table 69
Details of laundry expenditure was obtained for some 1 ,300 households (this was almost all those who used laundries) for both summer and winter. In winter 17.9% spent up to 1/-, 31.9% 1/1d. to 7.3% 2/1 d. to 3/-, 11.9% 3/1d. to 4/- about 11% spent more than this. In summer the proportions were 19.5%, 33%, 26.2% 11.7% and 10% respectively. The families in the higher income group spend rather more on laundry than those in the lower income group. In winter, for example 28.5% of the higher income group spent 2/1d. to 3/- compared with 25.3% of the lower income group, 13.9% of the higher income group spent 3/1d. to 4/- compared with 8.3% of the lover income group and 8.6% of the higher income group spent 4/1d. to 5/- compared with 4.3% of the lower income group. There was no difference in this trend between winter and summer.
Large families spend somewhat more on laundry than small ones. The difference, however, was not great.
In winter for example, small families of 1-3 had 19% 34.3% 1/1d, to 2/— ? 27.5% spending 2/1d. to 3/- and 9.9% spending compared with 15.3%, 29.6%, 27.7% and 14% in the case of families 4-7. The position in summer was similar.