  Part II
I | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Branch of work | Amount required |
|---|---|
| Rehabilitation | $1,250,000 |
| Hospitals | 100,000 |
| Industrial Centers | 15,000 |
| Special Relief (General Relief) | 250,000 |
| Transportation | 10,000 |
| Administration | 100,000 |
| Total | $1,725,000 |
[115] On August 11, 1906, the balance sheet of the San Francisco Relief and Red Cross Funds showed that a total of $5,599,466.02 had been received by that body; that deducting expenditures and immediate liabilities there was an actual cash balance of $2,105,309.74. This total was not all available for the uses of the Rehabilitation Committee but was the only source of support for the Department of Camps and Warehouses, the Department of Lands and Buildings, both of which required large sums, and all other activities of the Relief Corporation.
What the estimate for rehabilitation was based upon it is difficult to say, though the original estimate of $1,500,000 may have again been in mind. By August 16, applications to the number of 4,635 had been passed upon by the Committee, involving a total disbursement of a little over $300,000 and an average grant of about $80 a case. About 10,000 applications were pending and there were still three or four thousand families in the camps who would eventually have to be assisted by the Committee. Upon this basis a total of $1,120,000 would be required, and this may have been the basis for the estimate. Prospective applications from persons living outside the camps were not taken into account.
No action was taken when the estimate was presented, but at the meeting of the Committee on August 20 the chairman again presented a detailed report regarding funds available for the Corporation. After a very extended discussion it was agreed that it would not be safe for the Rehabilitation Committee to take further action until it knew something more definite regarding the amount of money it would receive and the amount that would be called for by the applications on file. The Committee decided therefore to notify the sections, the societies that were authorized to investigate applications for relief, and the press, that after August 20 no more applications for rehabilitation and relief would be received until all the cases pending had been investigated and disposed of. After this date no official notice was ever given of the readiness of the Committee to again receive applications.
Applications for medical aid, and in special instances for food, were to be received, however, as before, at the section stations. This action, which was momentous, inaugurated the third period of work,
The superintendent of the Rehabilitation Committee at that time prepared detailed instructions for the force at the main and at the section offices. These instructions were adopted later by the sub-committees of the centralized system. The instructions provided that future applications and those pending but not yet investigated, for medicine, medical aid, special diet, food, tools, and sewing machines, be referred to the Bureau of Special Relief, and that they be considered with reference to the relative disability of the applicants, in the following order:
1. Aged and infirm.
2. Sick and temporarily disabled.
3. Unsupported women and children (families without male breadwinners and with the burden of support resting heavily on the women or children).
4. Families insufficiently supported (breadwinners unable to earn enough to provide a surplus for rehabilitation or enough even to pay running expenses).
After the four classes of cases had been investigated and reported to the Rehabilitation Committee for final action, the sections were to investigate the remaining applications. This latter group of applications
1. Household rehabilitation.
2. Special building propositions not covered by the Department of Lands and Buildings.
3. Miscellaneous cases.
[117] All applications made by refugees living outside of San Francisco were considered by the whole committee.
The immediate attention of the Rehabilitation Committee, now that the general drawing of checks was suspended, was confined to those applications already on file in which emergent action was absolutely necessary or in which grants had been promised provided certain conditions were complied with by the applicants. All applications for business rehabilitation were to be laid aside for a time with the understanding that if the Committee later secured sufficient means they should be investigated and reported on. The Committee indicated that unless disablement or sickness were involved it would be most reluctant
The plan of the Rehabilitation Committee was to go over the whole mass of applications and then draw checks in favor of the first four classes. This marked a distinct limitation upon its work. By vote of the Committee on August 30, 1906, it was decided to settle at once all unpaid grants that had been approved on August 20. By September 20 accumulated applications had been investigated and the Committee was ready to pass upon them. It is not clear from the records just when the bars were lifted and when checks were issued as heretofore upon all classes of cases approved by the Committee. There appears to have been no formal action in this matter. It is interesting to note that on August 18 the total disbursements recorded were $356,773.75 and the total applications acted upon 5,241. By September 20, 1906, the total disbursements amounted to $573,337.91 and the total cases acted upon were 10,374.
2. THE CENTRALIZED SYSTEM
In October, 1906, there was a radical change of method. On September 27, the Rehabilitation Committee was notified by the Corporation that all the sections except Section II would close by the end of September. As the section offices closed, members of the paid and voluntary staffs were drawn into the work of the central office, the paid workers to continue as investigators or clerks, the members of the district committees to serve as an auxiliary committee to the Rehabilitation Committee for the review of cases. These were steps preliminary to a centralizing of the work. On October 11, when the chairman presented his plan for a division of the Rehabilitation Committee into sub-committees, 18,196 applications altogether had been passed upon. At close of business, October 11, 1906, the bookkeeper of the Committee had handled these 18,196 cases and had paid out on them $842,076.21.
The plan for the centralized system was presented by a sub-committee consisting of the chairman and the superintendent, who was the secretary of the Associated Charities and responsible for the issuing of instructions to the district workers. It was to
| SUB- COMMITTEE | FIELD OF WORK OF SUB-COMMITTEE |
|---|---|
| I. | Temporary Aid and Transportation. |
| II. | Relief of Aged and Infirm, Unsupported Children, and Friendless Girls. |
| III. | Relief of Unsupported or Partially Supported Families. |
| IV. | Occupations for Women and Confidential Cases. |
| V. | Housing and Shelter. |
| VI. | Business Rehabilitation. |
| VII. | Furniture Grants to heads of families employed but unable to furnish their homes. |
| VIII. | Relief in Deferred and Neglected Cases. |
Committee VII was formed on January 16, 1907; Committee VIII on November 17, 1906. Each was considered as a sub-committee of the older sub-committees. Two of the six secretaries already appointed served the new committees. It may be noted here that five of these six secretaries had had previous experience in charity organization work.
The following members
| SUB- COMMITTEE | CHAIRMAN |
|---|---|
| I. | O. K. Cushing |
| II. | Dr. John Gallwey |
| III. | Archdeacon J. A. Emery |
| IV. | Archdeacon J. A. Emery |
| V. | Rev. D. O. Crowley |
| VI. | C. F. Leege |
[118] Two of these served as chairmen of Committees VII and VIII.
[119] Succeeded by A. Haas.
The methods of investigation under the new system were the same as under the old, but the change involved radical differences in treatment. It is generally acknowledged that the
During the first five months of the great relief work the most destitute had made application. This fact, and the further fact that prompt action was made possible through the creation of the Bureau of Special Relief, justified in a measure the change to the centralized system. The advantages of the centralized system as developed in San Francisco may be said to be that under it the attention of a group of workers was confined to the consideration of a specific class of grants. Such limitations brought expertness and a surer standardizing of the grants within a class. The disadvantage is that with the gain in expertness came a loss in general appreciation of the need of the individual
Some of the members, and other persons experienced in the work, consider the division of cases to have been a weakness that should be reckoned with by those who may deal with similar problems in the future. Important questions of policy were of course discussed at meetings of the Rehabilitation Committee, which in the busy season were called twice a week; but after all, it was general questions of policy, not individual cases, which were then considered. The important thing was for the Committee to have on any given day a knowledge of just how the grants in each department ran; to learn by a comparative survey whether, in view of the total sum of money which the Committee expected to handle, the amounts being granted by the different departments, case by case, ordinary case after ordinary case, were too small or too large.
Another weakness of the centralized system, and a serious one, was that it necessitated the crossing of each other’s paths by the various sub-committees. It was to be expected that by no imaginable classification of applications short of an arbitrary division along geographical lines, could confusion be avoided. As all charity organization workers know, an application for a specific form of aid may upon investigation indicate that a totally different form of relief is required. In the first two months, under the centralized system, there was much referring of applications from committee to committee, as new or changed needs were revealed; but in December, to prevent delays, it was decided that the committee to whom an application was first assigned
Considering the blurring of hard and fast lines that this decision entailed, together with the crossing of paths incident to the division of work, it is not surprising that the development of group specialists was by no means as complete as was anticipated. The sub-committees found it impossible to keep to the spheres of work outlined. There was, however, considerable variation in treatment by the different sub-committees. In the nature of the case, the first four committees had largely to do with applications for “general relief” and hence of necessity crossed paths more than the remaining committees. Among the different fields of activity, housing stands distinctive as being the most highly specialized. On the other hand, business rehabilitation and general relief were so generally cared for by the first four committees that all of them might well claim joint tenancy of these fields.
During October the policy had been adopted of making no further grants to able-bodied single people,
[120] A reiteration of former policy.
Barber shop and shack constructed of boxes
A drinking place
Early Business Ventures
The question of who should be responsible for making final decisions as to grants was reopened in the beginning of the period of centralization, and on November 1 it was finally determined that emergency cases that involved an expenditure of less than $50 might be approved by the chairman, or in his absence, by the vice-chairman of a sub-committee, provided the action were
[121] The sub-committees could at their discretion make loans instead of grants, where there was strong likelihood of repayment. Loans had been made since the beginning of the work, but for some time prior to November had been discouraged.
The fourth period of the rehabilitation work, November 4, 1906, to April 8, 1907,
[123] Late Committee decisions.—December 5, 1906. That in making applications to reopen a case, except on account of sickness, the applicant should be required to explain in writing the reason for his request.
[123] January 24, 1907. That grants as a rule should not be made for funeral expenses. When in exceptional instances such grants were made they should be limited as far as possible.
REHABILITATION COMMITTEE
HELP TOWARD THE REFURNISHING OF HOMES
Applications will be received from families who are self-supporting and who have suffered material loss from the disaster. The income and present resources must be insufficient to enable the family to get necessary household furniture within a reasonable time without incurring burdensome debt. No application under this head will be received from anyone to whom the committee has already made a grant.
Applications Will be Received by Mail Only. Write for blank to Gough and Geary streets. Mark envelope “Furniture Application.” No Application Will be Received After January 31, 1907.
During this fourth period it became apparent that future applicants must be made to realize that what they were asking for was ordinary relief. On February 13, 1907, therefore, the superintendent, who it must be borne in mind was also secretary of the Associated Charities,
As a further result of the mid-winter resolution the scope of the relief work was narrowed still more definitely. Three reasons given for a limitation of scope were:
1. That there was less than $2,000,000 in the funds, a large part of which would be called for by the applications for housing and other relief already under consideration.
2. That a considerable amount of money would have to be reserved to meet the expenses incurred by the other departments and bureaus, which included medicines for the use of the patients in the hospitals and in homes for the aged.
3. That the then prosperous condition of San Francisco precluded any legitimate need for further general relief distribution. The essential points, to repeat in part what has already been written, in a notice that was issued for the use of the sub-committees and employes, were:
1. Emergency cases. New applications involving urgent need for relief in kind should be referred direct to the Bureau of Special Relief. Applications on file requiring an immediate money grant should be referred to a sub-committee consisting of the chairmen of Sub-committees I, IV, and VI. Applications for emergency checks should be made in writing by the chairman of the committee in which the application was filed.
2. Necessity for economy. Close economy should be urged on the ground that there would be no money to expend in excess of the amounts actually required.
3. Standards for adjusting special furniture grants. No grants should be made unless it were evident that it would be difficult for the family to secure furniture within a reasonable time without incurring heavy debt.
4. Standards for adjusting grants in Sub-committees I, II, and III. All applications should be considered on a strictly relief basis; no grant should be made unless it would enable a family to become self-supporting.
5. Payments in ordinary cases should be temporarily suspended. No further checks should be issued except in emergency cases until all the sub-committees had passed on all the pending cases. Applications should be tabulated and final decision reached as to what action should be recommended.
The fact that the Rehabilitation Committee had entered upon the fifth and last period of its work is sharply marked by the discharge on April 4, 1907, of all sub-committees, except Committee V, the important housing committee. The fifth period is also marked by the fact that it coincides with the ending of the first year after the disaster, and that it properly inaugurates the definite establishment of the work on a purely relief basis.
From the beginning of April, 1907, to the end of July, action was taken in a fairly large number of cases. The Rehabilitation Committee returned to the practice in vogue before November, 1906, of considering such current applications as did not naturally
The Associated Charities, as well as other San Francisco charitable agencies, was financially crippled because the fire had affected more seriously the class that ordinarily contributes to charitable societies than any other class in the community. The general subject of grants to institutions or societies not dealing with families in their homes is considered in a separate section, but the subject of grants to the Associated Charities fitly belongs in this chapter because to it fell the work that so far had been done directly by the Rehabilitation Committee with the steady co-operation of the Associated Charities’ force of paid and volunteer workers. The mass of the population was on a fairly satisfactory economic basis, but it was wellknown that for some time to come the charity work of the city would be very heavy.
On May 18, 1907, a decision was reached by the Rehabilitation Committee which was the fruition of much anxious discussion. Its conclusions were that as $186,850 remained of the sum of $500,000 which as originally planned was to be used to re-establish the charitable organizations in the city, $145,000 of this amount, in accordance with the recommendation made by the charity advisory committee, should be entrusted to the Rehabilitation Committee to be allotted by it to certain of the charitable and benevolent organizations.
3. WITHDRAWAL
June 30, 1907, marks the close of the fifth period, when the withdrawal actually took effect. On July 18, 1907, the Corporation made an appropriation of $5,000 to the Associated Charities for the month of July, 1907, to be expended under the direction of the Rehabilitation Committee, subject to the following conditions:
1. The cost of administration should not exceed $1,000 a month.
2. The following classes of persons should be assisted to remove their cottages from the camps:
(a) Women who were supporting families.
(b) Families in which there had been severe illness or in which the breadwinner on account of some infirmity was unable to provide a home but was able to maintain one.
3. The grant to an individual case should not exceed $150 and ordinarily should not be more than $100.
4. The Rehabilitation Committee should refer all new applications to the Associated Charities; the Associated Charities at its discretion should refer back to the Committee for action such cases as were not included in the above classification.
5. The Associated Charities should nominate a committee representative of the principal charitable organizations of the city to pass upon applications for assistance in housing rehabilitation.
6. Monthly statements should be made of the assistance granted.
As the Bureau of Special Relief had closed its work June 15, 1907, the Associated Charities assumed entire control of the relief work.
Before the end of July the Associated Charities had organized a committee, called for by section 5 of the above requirements, on which were representatives from its own society, the St. Vincent de Paul Society, the German General Benevolent Society, the Hebrew Board of Relief, and the Telegraph Hill Neighborhood Association. At the same time a form letter was
The appropriations varied from month to month, but the plan as a whole remained for one year practically unchanged. There was, however, one concession: the Associated Charities was permitted in a limited number of cases to draw on the appropriation for aid to families that had not been burned out, but in which there was severe illness or an incapacitated breadwinner.
When on July 1, 1908, the Bureau of Hospitals closed its work, the work of the Associated Charities was further enlarged by the carrying into effect of the following suggestions by Miss Felton, the general secretary of the Associated Charities:
“In regard to the care of the sick, I respectfully suggest the following plan:
“That for the month of July no appropriation for the hospital work be made in advance, but that the bills presented at the end of the month, after being approved, be paid from the Relief Funds. By the first of August the number of patients in the hospitals will be very materially reduced, and I think that a grant of $1,500 per month will carry the hospital work. This would allow us 30 patients at an average cost of $50. By placing all our children in the Children’s Hospital at the rate of $25 per month and many of our maternity cases in the Lying-in Hospital at the rate of $7.00 per week, and by taking advantage of the sanitariums for some of our cases in a more or less convalescent state, we can easily bring the cost down to $50 per patient. I think it would be advisable not to restrict the grant to the care of patients in the hospitals, but to make it for the care of the sick outside of their homes. This would enable us to economize in many cases by boarding out, in private families, convalescents who might thus be cared for at a lower rate than in the hospitals. This applies especially to babies and little children. We can also make use of Miss de Turbeville’s and Miss Ashe’s Home in appropriate cases, I think, at a rate of $15 per month.
“I figure that a grant of $4,500 per month will carry the hospital work, relief in the form of groceries and medicines, the special money grants under $50, and the administration expenses of our offices. Mr. Bogart and I have gone over the expenses very carefully and have materially reduced them wherever we thought it was possible. We think this is the lowest estimate on which we can carry the work on anything like an adequate basis.
“Our administration expenses should not be considered as simply the expenses of distributing a certain relief fund, because now that we are working under Associated Charities methods, we are expending a great deal of time in actual service for the poor, in trying to secure employment and planning to make them self-supporting, thus reducing the necessity for relief. Work of this sort, of course, requires a great deal more time on the individual case than where the question to be considered is simply the granting or withholding of a sum of money.
“To administer the hospital work in the most economical manner involves a considerable amount of work to the office force, as it means planning for patients who are ready to leave the hospital and who often have no place to go or no proper accommodations. We have reduced the force since the cutting down of the housing work, and I think that everyone here is working to the utmost limit.
“I respectfully suggest that a monthly appropriation of $4,500 be made to the Associated Charities for its work, to be expended as follows:
| Hospital work | $1,500 | |
| Unemployed | 200 | |
| Material relief | 1,500 | |
| Administration expenses | 1,300 | ” |
4. CONCLUDING REMARKS
Whether the weaknesses of the centralized system as revealed by the San Francisco Relief Survey are inherent can be determined only by future experiment, for there is no way of measuring the relative value of the two systems described in this chapter.
It should be borne in mind, however, that under the district system there was severe criticism of the delay in making grants. The suggestion is offered that whenever a centralized system is desirable, a practical scheme of administration is to organize sub-committees by geographical sections while general control is retained by the central office.
By way of summary, it may be said that the district system was a natural development. It took shape when the army was in control and knew that only by the division of the city into sections could the vast problem be managed. When the social worker took hold the district system was ready to hand and was
III
CALLS FOR SPECIAL FORMS OF SERVICE
1. RELATIONS WITH AUXILIARY SOCIETIES
Upon one vital question of policy the experience of the San Francisco Rehabilitation Committee repeated the experience of the special relief committee of the Chicago fire. Upon no other point is the evidence of the relief work, following each of the fires, as clear as it is on the question here considered of the establishment of the right relation with local charitable agencies.
In the report of the special relief committee of the Chicago fire
“In the earlier portion of its work the Committee relied entirely upon the certificates of the pastors of churches and authorized officers of organized benevolent associations, for the evidence that the applicant’s condition and needs had been duly investigated, and for a correct statement of the kind and amount of relief required. To facilitate such investigations, suitable blanks were prepared, containing appropriate inquiries regarding the applicant’s property, circumstances, losses, and present condition. Experience soon demonstrated that we could not rely with sufficient confidence upon this method of investigation as affording reliable evidence of the nature and amount of the applicant’s needs; and, subsequently, the course was adopted of sending all applications which were suitably recommended to the district in which the applicant resided, for the case to be personally investigated and reported upon in writing by one of the official visitors in the employ of the Society.”
[128] See Report of the Chicago Relief and Aid Society of Disbursements to Contributors, p. 197.
It appears from the review of the original plans of the Rehabilitation Committee, that the error made by the Chicago Committee of accepting recommendations in place of making investigations was avoided. The Rehabilitation Committee, as
The United Irish Societies was given this privilege, on probation, for a period of two weeks from July 28, 1906. On July 31, 1906, the privilege was extended to the German General Benevolent Society, and on August 6, 1906, to the Conference of St. Vincent de Paul and the Italian Relief Committee.
To say that the results were unsatisfactory is but to voice the unanimous sentiment of the then created Corporation and of
The claim had been that to receive recommendations directly from these relief societies would be to facilitate the work of the Rehabilitation Committee; instead, the work was hindered. Many applications had to be twice considered, and many were duplications. Some families were in the habit of applying at every place that would receive applications, a difficulty that developed through application by the same persons at the central office and at one or more section offices. Duplications increased when applications were received at the relief societies’ offices.
As soon as the first returns showed that the records were unsatisfactory, the Rehabilitation Committee had the superintendent prepare a circular entitled “Requirements for Satisfactory Investigations for the Rehabilitation Committee.” The
“Present and past earnings of breadwinners in the family are also necessary to judge fairly as to present conditions. The same may be said regarding occupation and physical condition.”
“The same detailed statement is required under the head of Resources. It often happens that without any deception an applicant does not think of some resource which is available.”
“A request upon the card for information as to what the breadwinners are now doing, in addition to the request upon the card for present earnings, is for the purpose of ascertaining whether the breadwinners are back in their original occupations or are doing the best they can in any occupations in which they could fit.”
But the time was fast approaching when the Rehabilitation Committee should be held in the dark as to the extent of its resources. With the general suspension of applications on August 20, 1906, came an end to the very unsatisfactory arrangement with the auxiliary societies. After that time applications were received from auxiliary societies, but they were treated the same as were applications from any other source.
It is well to examine a little the records of the work of the auxiliary societies. Taking the one that worked the longest, the United Irish Societies, we find 1,046 applications received directly from it. Of this number 582 were duplications of applications already received through the regular channels. The net result for the 582 was probably delay rather than speed. Grants to the number of 858 were made for a sum of $121,742.91, an average grant in round numbers of $142 to a person. The average Rehabilitation Committee grant to May 27, 1907, had been $109.44 to a person. To make a more illuminating comparison: Most of the United Irish Societies’ applications were for household rehabilitation. The average grant of the Rehabilitation Committee for such purposes to May 30, 1907, had been $105.77. An interpretation put on the discrepancy in the amount of grants is, that as the recommendations from the societies were so disproportionately large they could not be brought, even after scaling down, to the common standard set by the
An instance should be noted of work done satisfactorily with a relief society. Immediately after the calamity the possibility arose that the associations of Jewish Charities in the large cities of the country would send their contributions to San Francisco for the Jewish committee to use as a separate relief fund. Instead, however, of attempting to organize a special relief fund, the Jewish committee, upon earnest request, agreed to do its work through the Rehabilitation Committee. The Jewish committee later was merged into the Hebrew Board of Relief, whose work was most efficiently done. This Board was never officially called an auxiliary society, but from the start it made recommendations directly to the Rehabilitation Committee. Its reports were based upon a real knowledge of families, and in a large majority of cases these recommendations were acted upon directly without a supplementary investigation.
In times of emergency it will doubtless often be expedient to make a similar arrangement. Such separation or division of work is very different from leaving to a group of auxiliary societies the responsibility of making investigations and determining treatment. So far as the San Francisco experience is concerned such delegation may be set down as a failure.
2. REHABILITATION OF INSTITUTIONS
The question of the rehabilitation of institutions was considered at one time and another by the Rehabilitation Committee by request of Mr. Dohrmann, chairman of the Department of Relief and Rehabilitation. Not until December, 1906, however, were any definite steps taken in this field. The responsibility
1. That he as chairman of the Department of Relief and Rehabilitation had power solely to make to the Executive Committee of the Corporation recommendations of grants to institutions.
2. That he wished the advisory committee on charitable institutions to take into account the losses, the wants, and the incomes of the individual societies or institutions and to lay down principles of action before recommending any grants.
3. That he particularly commended to their attention, however, the societies that would be obliged to take up the work of relief when the Corporation itself suspended such work.
4. That the advisory committee should act on the assumption that only $250,000 would be available for its work; though a larger amount might be set aside for rehabilitating institutions when the Corporation received further funds from the Eastern committees.
5. That before the incorporation, grants had been made to a few institutions by direct action of the Finance Committee of Relief and Red Cross Funds.
6. That he would turn over to the advisory committee the information he had received regarding such institutions.
The grants mentioned under (5) had been made “under pressure of unusual circumstances and without that calm and careful consideration which in my opinion should precede such action.” He urged that these grants be taken into account before recommendations for an additional appropriation to a society were made.
The suggestion was made that personal visits to the institutions applying would be advisable. The committee was
1. That aid be given, in preference, to the institutions that were most directly assisting the work of the Corporation; namely, such as were caring for the sick, the aged, and helpless children, and were helping individuals and families to become self-supporting.
2. That institutions that had been destroyed by the disaster should not be re-established if in the judgment of the advisory committee other institutions of like character existed to do the work.
3. That no institution receiving state aid should be recommended.
The committee also informally agreed with Mr. Dohrmann’s suggestion that in recommending an institution for a grant, consideration should be given to the amount that it had already received from any special or general relief fund. At this September meeting a number of sub-committees were appointed to make investigations of the institutions applying for grants. A number of applications, as has already been noted, were on file. After careful consideration and consultation with Mr. Dohrmann the committee abandoned the plan of publishing in the newspapers a notice describing its work.
In visiting institutions the committee presented the following letter:
“The bearer is a member of a committee investigating the condition of the charitable and benevolent institutions of our city with a view to ascertaining the losses occasioned by the earthquake and fire and the present pressing needs. It is hoped that out of the general relief fund something may be done toward helping the most needy institutions to carry on their work. Will you kindly give the bearer permission to investigate your institution and give any needed information? It is understood that this committee is merely advisory and is trying to ascertain the immediate needs so that if funds become available the most needy institutions will be assisted.”
Without following the members of the advisory committee on their round of visits, we shall give the gist of their report to Mr. Dohrmann, which is largely a reflection of the recommendations in his September letter. In this report, dated November 7, 1906, the committee stated that in recommending the allotment
1. To base an allotment on the apparent impairment of income for the calendar year 1907, and on the loss by fire or earthquake of necessary equipment; and further, to make the sum such as would cover the needs of the institutions for one year only.
2. To make agreement with each institution that any money not used for forwarding its work be returned to the Rehabilitation Committee.
3. To prefer the institutions that were most directly assisting in the work of the Rehabilitation Committee.
4. To favor those institutions which kept satisfactory accounts and kept them in such shape that they might be produced on demand.
The committee selected one year as the basis of time to be covered by grants, but stated as its opinion that most of the institutions would need assistance for a longer period of time. It expressed the hope that a further sum of money would later be set aside to be divided among them in the proportion of the first allotment. The recommendation was that payment be made immediately, except to the institutions that had received grants from the Finance Committee of Relief and Red Cross Funds, this latter class to be aided as soon as feasible.
The institutions aided, all of which had made application before October 10, are only a portion of those that in the judgment of the advisory committee needed assistance. The others, it was hoped, might later be given aid.
The cautious chairman of the Department of Relief and Rehabilitation, after getting advice from the outside, tested the recommendations by the following questions:
1. Does the list include all classes of charities that should be helped?
2. Does the list include all institutions and societies of each class that should be included?
3. Are the grants in proportion to the amount and value of the work done?
4. Are there institutions that should be omitted from this list
(a) because they have been subjected to severe criticism that has never been fully met;
(b) because they are not charities but run in the interest of denominationalism;
(c) because at this time they are of doubtful value?
5. Should some of the institutions included in this list be given grants only under certain conditions, to be expended under supervision?
The usefulness of this report of the advisory committee in relation to other public calamities would not be increased by a reviewing of its points and suggested issues, nor could the facts which led to the refusals be given in detail, as much of the information obtained was of a confidential character. It is well to indicate the reasons that in some cases led to refusals, without mentioning the particular societies. Up to May 11, 1907, 16 institutions had been refused aid on the grounds shown in Table 30.
[130] For list of societies aided and classified recapitulation of grants, see Appendix I, p. 405.
TABLE 30.—REASONS FOR THE REFUSAL OF GRANTS TO CERTAIN SOCIETIES, TO MAY 11, 1907
| Reasons for refusal | Societies refused |
|---|---|
| Not a charitable organization | 7 |
| Religious organization solely | 4 |
| Not a local organization | 2 |
| Not approved by Charities Endorsement Committee | 2 |
| Grant already received | 1 |
| Total | 16 |
3. BUREAU OF SPECIAL RELIEF
One of the plain lessons of the San Francisco experience is that any rehabilitation work should have as an adjunct a bureau to which may be referred cases requiring immediate relief in kind.
If such a bureau had been organized on July 1, it might have made use of the district force, the investigators sending recommendations directly from the district offices to the bureau for immediate action. True, the district offices did have small emergency funds placed in their hands by the Associated Charities,
When the Rehabilitation Committee early in July was in shape to enter on the active second period of the rehabilitation work, there remained certain shreds of the old emergency tasks. In Chapter I of this part
In order partially to meet this situation the Bureau of Special Relief was organized on August 15 following the plan made by Mr. Bicknell, of the Rehabilitation Committee, to handle applications for relief in kind, in order that these need not be delayed and that the Committee might be left free to deal with the larger problem of rehabilitation.
The Bureau, when it began its work on August 15, was prepared to give prompt medical assistance, nursing, and aid in kind to applicants throughout the city. Later in the month the Bureau was authorized to issue orders in small lots for sewing machines, tools, and furniture. The Bureau had no authority to make cash grants.
The central office was established on Gough and Geary Streets, in rooms easily accessible on the ground floor, and here were quartered the superintendent, his secretary, bookkeeper, stenographer, messengers, one or two drivers, and two or three clerks, the number varying with the volume of the work. During the greater part of the Bureau’s ten months of service, two physicians,
[133] The two physicians who visited for the Bureau also served as agents for the Bureau of Hospitals to determine the eligibility of applicants for admission to the accredited hospitals. This co-operation made a separate medical staff unnecessary. An arrangement was made with two existing societies to care for maternity cases in their own homes. This service was given with no charge upon the relief fund except for certain medical supplies.
Many cases were reported by members of the section committees with the idea that the Bureau would in the interim give care, the Rehabilitation Committee, which of necessity worked more slowly, not being able quickly to make disposition of a case. In this way the work of the Bureau supplemented that of the Rehabilitation Committee and minimized the danger of families suffering from unavoidable delays in the forming and carrying out of a rehabilitation plan. The superintendent, with the information before him, decided whether to give or withhold aid. If aid were to be granted, definite orders for relief were immediately telephoned to merchants with whom arrangements had been previously made. The orders were later confirmed by letter. The aid given by the Bureau of Special Relief finally covered shelter, food (rations or restaurant meals), clothing, furniture, tools, sewing machines, and medical aid of all sorts including special appliances, dentistry in emergency need, and, upon a physician’s prescription, special diet.
A visitor called on each family in her charge at least once a week. On a stated day each week she sent in a report which covered all families under her care, and which stated whether the help given in groceries, meat, or milk, should be continued one week longer, with an estimate of how long in each case relief would be necessary. When a family seemed likely to require rations indefinitely, it was until October transferred to Camp 6 and after that date to Ingleside camp, as the Bureau did not provide assistance indefinitely. After the middle of January, 1907, all orders were
TABLE 31.—A. AMOUNT EXPENDED MONTHLY BY BUREAU OF SPECIAL RELIEF FOR ALL PURPOSES FROM AUGUST 15, 1906, TO JUNE 30, 1907
| Period | Amount | |
|---|---|---|
| 1906 | August 15 to August 31 | $1,294.10 |
| September | 3,860.45 | |
| October | 4,632.00 | |
| November | 6,160.32 | |
| December | 9,210.66 | |
| 1907 | January | 11,284.13 |
| February | 8,940.47 | |
| March | 4,320.72 | |
| April | 2,936.06 | |
| May | 2,668.34 | |
| June | 1,249.88 | |
| Total | $56,557.13 | |
TABLE 31.—B. AMOUNT EXPENDED BY BUREAU OF SPECIAL RELIEF FOR ADMINISTRATION AND FOR SUPPLIES FROM AUGUST 15, 1906, TO JUNE 30, 1907
| Purpose of expenditure | EXPENDITURE | |
|---|---|---|
| Amount | Per cent | |
| Administration (including salaries of physicians and nurses) | $15,720.70 | 27.8 |
| Supplies | 40,836.43 | 72.2 |
| Total | $56,557.13 | 100.0 |
Certain items subsequently charged to the Bureau bring the total to $58,421.35.
[134] $58,421.35 is the total expenditure of the Bureau of Special Relief, given in the Sixth Annual Report of the American National Red Cross, pages 87 and 88. The cost of sewing machines granted by the Bureau is not included in these figures. All such machines were paid for by the Rehabilitation Committee out of its own funds.
As seen in Table 31 A the volume of work increased gradually from August, 1906, to January, 1907, and then fell off steadily to June 15.
The Bureau of Special Relief was originally organized to deal only with families living outside the permanent camps, but by degrees it became necessary for it to render to residents of the camps such services as the camp commanders and their staffs were unable to give. Upon direct request from a camp commander, for instance, the Bureau would send regular supplies to applicants who were unable to eat at the camp kitchens, or would, when the camp supply was exhausted, or unsuitable, supply clothes and such emergency household needs as stoves and blankets. The camp department was able through its surgeon to give certain kinds of medical aid. The specific responsibility of the camps was to administer them so as to give suitable housing and discipline to their complex population. It was well that the Department of Camps was able to call on such an organization as the Bureau to supply the miscellaneous needs which lay outside the routine provision of camp life.
As was said above, the Rehabilitation agents sometimes called on the Bureau to give aid while cases were pending in their department. Soon after its organization the Bureau took charge of requests for tools and other articles, the Rehabilitation agents being instructed to refer directly to it without investigation all such applications. When it was soon found, however, that most of these uninvestigated cases were in fact applications for rehabilitation, the order was reversed, so that a later request received by the Department for aid in kind should be first investigated by its agent and then referred to the Bureau through the secretary of Sub-committee I.
[135] The centralized system, not the district system, being then in effect.
IV
WHAT THE REHABILITATION RECORDS SHOW
1. INTRODUCTORY
The survey of the rehabilitation work of the San Francisco Relief and Red Cross Funds had not gone far before the need of a tabulation of all the case records became apparent. Many questions of policy and administration were involved in accurately learning what the records indicated. Of course, in many matters of detail the records could not possibly give evidence necessary to reach absolute certainty. There would necessarily be many questions whose answers must be got from those who had had most experience in the work because they, the men, could offer stronger evidence than could any record. To other questions, however, it is plain, tabulation must give the final and convincing answer. For instance, in connection with the periods of time elapsing between application for and receipt of grants, the convincing evidence is the dates on the records.
The light that they throw upon such a point is only a small part of what the case records have to offer. Such data as the average size of the grants, and not only the average size of all grants but of grants for particular purposes,—these the enumeration furnishes. Then there are the questions involved in reopening cases and in making second grants. In short, it is believed that the returns obtained from the analysis of every rehabilitation case record will serve not only as a register of the rehabilitation work after the San Francisco fire, but as a post with many signs for those who may be called upon to do a similar work in the future,—not necessarily as the result of a catastrophe having like magnitude but of one by which the destruction of a large portion of a city, its residential and its business sections, is effected. Wherever a public calamity brings such blight the lessons and returns of the San Francisco rehabilitation work will be of value.
In making the study upon which the following tables are based, an arbitrary but essentially true classification of grants is made. In each record the grant involving the largest amount of money is considered the principal grant; another grant, smaller in amount and given for a different purpose, is called subsidiary. Thus, for instance, a family receives $300 to put up a house and $100 for furniture or household rehabilitation. The housing grant is principal, the household, subsidiary. Analysis of principal and subsidiary grants has been made in order to learn how often one form of rehabilitation was insufficient to accomplish the desired end. The terms “principal” and “subsidiary,” it will be noted, have no reference to priority of grants but simply to amounts involved.
2. SOCIAL DATA AND TOTAL GRANTS AND REFUSALS
The table first presented shows the final disposition of all the applications recorded.
TABLE 32.—DISPOSAL OF APPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATION FOLLOWING INVESTIGATION
| Disposal made of application | Applications disposed of as specified |
|---|---|
| Cases in which aid was allowed | 20,241 |
| Cases in which aid was refused | 2,909 |
| Cases closed without action | 2,447 |
| Applications referred elsewhere | 485 |
| Applications withdrawn by applicant | 439 |
| Applications cancelled | 207 |
| Requisitions issued | 199 |
| Relief given, but not in money | 172 |
| Applications otherwise disposed of without the granting of relief | 236 |
| Total | 27,335 |
The cases “closed without action,” about 9 per cent of the whole, include applications from other members of families assisted, from persons later cared for in Ingleside Camp,
TABLE 33.—DISPOSAL OF APPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATION, BY NATURE OF APPLICATION
| Nature of application | Cases in which aid was allowed | Cases in which aid was refused | Cancel- ations | Requi- sitions | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Household furniture | 9,064 | 1,274 | 43 | 2 | 10,383 |
| Business rehabilitation | 4,740 | 547 | 13 | 12 | 5,312 |
| General relief | 3,635 | 581 | 68 | 12 | 4,296 |
| Housing | 1,709 | 337 | 25 | ... | 2,071 |
| Transportation | 809 | ... | 39 | 173 | 1,021 |
| Tools for mechanics and artisans | 284 | 170 | 19 | ... | 473 |
| Total | 20,241 | 2,909 | 207 | 199 | 23,556 |
| Per cent | 86.0 | 12.3 | .9 | .8 | 100.0 |
[137] The data relative to the nature of the applications are available only for grants, refusals, cancelations, and requisitions.
TABLE 34.—APPLICANTS FOR REHABILITATION, BY AGE, AND BY NATURE AND DISPOSAL OF APPLICATION
| Nature and disposal of application | APPLICANTS WHOSE AGES WERE AS SPECIFIED | Total | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Under 25 years | 25 years and under 50 years | 50 years and over | Not stated | ||
| Household furniture | |||||
| Grants | 320 | 5,496 | 2,923 | 325 | 9,064 |
| Refusals | 66 | 821 | 354 | 33 | 1,274 |
| Business rehabilitation | |||||
| Grants | 104 | 2,532 | 1,726 | 378 | 4,740 |
| Refusals | 28 | 323 | 161 | 35 | 547 |
| General relief | |||||
| Grants | 197 | 1,470 | 1,431 | 537 | 3,635 |
| Refusals | 32 | 284 | 190 | 75 | 581 |
| Housing | |||||
| Grants | 47 | 1,027 | 426 | 209 | 1,709 |
| Refusals | 10 | 181 | 97 | 49 | 337 |
| Transportation | |||||
| Grants | 73 | 403 | 229 | 104 | 809 |
| Tools | |||||
| Grants | 33 | 137 | 92 | 22 | 284 |
| Refusals | 20 | 102 | 28 | 20 | 170 |
| Total grants | 774 | 11,065 | 6,827 | 1,575 | 20,241 |
| Total refusals | 156 | 1,711 | 830 | 212 | 2,909 |
| Grand total | 930 | 12,776 | 7,657 | 1,787 | 23,150 |
| Per cent of refusals | 16.8 | 13.4 | 10.8 | 11.9 | 12.6 |
[138] The figures of this table relate only to applicants for money grants.
The “applications referred elsewhere” include those referred to other agencies, such as the Physicians’ Fund.
[139] For mention of separate funds not administered by the Rehabilitation Committee, see Appendix I, p. 415.
The 1,709 housing grants referred to in Table 33 do not include the grants of camp cottages, nor the $500 bonus grants.
The number of grants and refusals of each kind of aid is shown in connection with the ages of applicants in Table 34. Whenever a family was normal and its income at the time of application was sufficient to meet daily needs a grant naturally was refused. The greater number of refusals were made to families having male breadwinners in the prime of life.
TABLE 35.—APPLICANTS FOR REHABILITATION, BY DOMESTIC STATUS AND BY NATURE OF APPLICATION
| Nature of application | Married Couples | Men— single, widowed, deserted, or divorced | Women— single, widowed, deserted, or divorced | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Household furniture | 7,072 | 259 | 3,007 | 10,338 |
| Business rehabilitation | 1,863 | 571 | 2,853 | 5,287 |
| General relief | 1,450 | 566 | 2,200 | 4,216 |
| Housing | 1,555 | 116 | 375 | 2,046 |
| Transportation | 385 | 233 | 364 | 982 |
| Tools | 212 | 239 | 3 | 454 |
| Total | 12,537 | 1,984 | 8,802 | 23,323 |
| Per cent | 53.8 | 8.5 | 37.7 | 100.0 |
[141] In this table are included applicants who received money grants, applicants who were refused money grants, and 173 applicants who received orders for transportation.
Table 35 shows the domestic status of the applicants for the different kinds of rehabilitation. Note the number of single or widowed women who applied for business rehabilitation. Note, also, that though the applications by married couples were but
TABLE 36.—APPLICANTS HANDICAPPED BY PERSONAL MISFORTUNES OR DEFECTS
| Condition | Applicants affected |
|---|---|
| Applicants handicapped | 10,157 |
| Applicants not handicapped | 12,993 |
| Total | 23,150 |
| Per cent handicapped | 43.9 |
TABLE 37.—APPLICANTS AFFECTED BY HANDICAPS OF EACH SPECIFIED KIND
| Kind of handicap | APPLICANTS AFFECTED BY EACH SPECIFIED HANDICAP | |
|---|---|---|
| Number | Per cent | |
| Ill health | 8,231 | 81.0 |
| Numerous dependents | 832 | 8.2 |
| Injury | 582 | 5.7 |
| Death in family | 432 | 4.3 |
| Intemperance | 80 | 0.8 |
| Total | 10,157 | 100.0 |
The caution must be given that the percentage of 81.0 of ill health is a mere approximation. The return is unsatisfactory, because the records in regard to this entry were particularly vague. Too much weight should not be given to the mere handful of 80 cases in which intemperance was recorded. Only the most flagrant cases which called for medical or disciplinary treatment were so entered.
Consideration is given in Table 38 to the size of the families applying and in Table 39 to the number of families that had children under fourteen.
TABLE 38.—NUMBER OF PERSONS IN FAMILIES OF APPLICANTS FOR REHABILITATION
| Number of persons in family | FAMILIES OF EACH SPECIFIED NUMBER OF PERSONS | |
|---|---|---|
| Number | Per cent | |
| 1 | 4,768 | 20.9 |
| 2 | 5,759 | 25.2 |
| 3 | 4,368 | 19.1 |
| 4 | 3,262 | 14.3 |
| 5 | 2,105 | 9.2 |
| 6 | 1,223 | 5.3 |
| 7 | 658 | 2.9 |
| 8 | 381 | 1.7 |
| 9 | 194 | 0.8 |
| 10 or over | 145 | 0.6 |
| Total | 22,863 | 100.0 |
[142] The difference between the total of this table and the totals of preceding tables is due to a variation in the number of cases for which data are available.
The interesting fact brought out in Table 38 is that 79.5 per cent had four or less in the family, and that 65.2 per cent had three or less. The table includes the families not only of married and widowed persons with minor children, but families in which there were adult children, aged parents, and other relatives. It is given in order to show the relative size of the family groups reached by rehabilitation.
TABLE 39.—FAMILIES AMONG THE APPLICANTS FOR REHABILITATION WITH CHILDREN, BY NUMBER OF CHILDREN UNDER FOURTEEN YEARS OF AGE IN EACH FAMILY
| Number of children under fourteen in family | FAMILIES HAVING EACH SPECIFIED NUMBER OF CHILDREN | |
|---|---|---|
| Number | Per cent | |
| 1 | 4,041 | 42.0 |
| 2 | 2,692 | 28.0 |
| 3 | 1,526 | 15.9 |
| 4 | 787 | 8.2 |
| 5 | 386 | 4.0 |
| 6 | 139 | 1.4 |
| 7 | 42 | 0.4 |
| 8 or over | 12 | 0.1 |
| Total | 9,625 | 100.0 |
We find in Table 39 that 85.9 per cent had three or less children under fourteen and 70 per cent had two or less. No particular significance should be attached to the fact that 42 per cent had only one child under the age specified, for the reason that the ages of the parents are not given. The table shows that the families with which the Rehabilitation Committee had to deal did not have a “quiverful” of children.
3. PRINCIPAL AND SUBSIDIARY GRANTS
The grants made for purposes of rehabilitation have been classified as principal and subsidiary. As was stated on page 152, the term “principal” has been used to describe the largest grant made to an applicant, “subsidiary” to describe a grant smaller in amount given to the same applicant for a different purpose. It is evident from this definition that the number of principal grants made equalled the total number of applicants who received grants. Subsidiary grants were much fewer in number than principal grants. Principal grants did not necessarily come first in point of time. Indeed, three times out of four they came last, because they followed the satisfying of a lesser emergent need by their greater rehabilitating force. In compiling Tables 40, 41, and 42, successive grants of the same nature have been considered as constituting one grant.
In Table 40 principal and subsidiary grants are classified according to the nature of the rehabilitation given.
TABLE 40.—NUMBER OF PRINCIPAL AND SUBSIDIARY GRANTS, BY NATURE OF GRANTS
| Nature of grant | PRINCIPAL GRANTS | SUBSIDIARY GRANTS | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number | Per cent | Number | Per cent | |
| Household furniture | 9,064 | 44.8 | 918 | 46.8 |
| Business rehabilitation | 4,740 | 23.4 | 176 | 9.0 |
| General relief | 3,635 | 18.0 | 709 | 36.1 |
| Housing | 1,709 | 8.4 | 25 | 1.3 |
| Transportation | 809 | 4.0 | 42 | 2.1 |
| Tools | 284 | 1.4 | 92 | 4.7 |
| Total | 20,241 | 100.0 | 1,962 | 100.0 |
The next table shows the amounts disbursed in principal and in subsidiary grants, according to the nature of the rehabilitation given.
TABLE 41.—AMOUNT OF PRINCIPAL AND SUBSIDIARY GRANTS, BY NATURE OF GRANTS
| Nature of grant | PRINCIPAL GRANTS | SUBSIDIARY GRANTS | ALL GRANTS | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Amount | Per cent | Amount | Per cent | Amount | Per cent | |
| Household furniture | $ 937,641.99 | 32.8 | $ 80,347.98 | 52.9 | $1,017,989.97 | 33.9 |
| Business rehabilitation | 860,934.80 | 30.2 | 11,502.40 | 7.6 | 872,437.20 | 29.0 |
| General relief | 433,342.70 | 15.2 | 53,166.15 | 35.0 | 486,508.85 | 16.2 |
| Housing | 564,986.15 | 19.8 | 2,314.70 | 1.5 | 567,300.85 | 18.9 |
| Transportation | 47,181.07 | 1.7 | 1,735.70 | 1.1 | 48,916.77 | 1.6 |
| Tools | 9,792.35 | .3 | 2,945.85 | 1.9 | 12,738.20 | .4 |
| Total | $2,853,879.06 | 100.0 | $152,012.78 | 100.0 | $3,005,891.84 | 100.0 |
It should be mentioned in connection with these percentages, that kits of tools for mechanics and artisans were distributed by the Los Angeles Tool Fund in addition to the 376 cash grants for tools noted above; also that the amount given for housing as stated in the table does not include the camp cottages
[143] See Part I, p. 85 ff. and Part IV, p. 221 ff.
These two facts explain the comparatively low percentages for these two forms of rehabilitation. The 15.2 per cent of principal grants given for general relief indicates roughly the amount of relief work that had to be done by the Rehabilitation Committee in connection with rehabilitation.
Table 42 shows that under the title “Housing,” relief in sums of $500 or more was granted to a larger number of persons than under any other classification. The 450 families reached by these larger grants are 26 per cent of those aided to rebuild. With but 31 exceptions they received no aid other than housing. Business rehabilitation stands next, but the families reached under the second classification are scarcely more than 3 per cent of the number in the business group. Twenty-two of the large grants for general relief were made by Sub-committee IV.
[144] See p. 125. Sub-Committee IV, Occupations for Women and Confidential Cases, was a special committee created to pass upon a few special cases which it was thought ought to be kept entirely secret, even to members of the committee. There is a great difference of opinion as to whether such a committee was at all necessary and whether its formation was not undemocratic and unjust.
TABLE 42.—AMOUNTS GIVEN TO APPLICANTS RECEIVING $500 OR MORE, BY NATURE OF PRINCIPAL GRANT
| Nature of principal grant | Number of cases | Amount granted | Average amount per applicant |
|---|---|---|---|
| Housing | 450 | $289,989.90 | $644.42 |
| Business rehabilitation | 162 | 86,250.34 | 532.41 |
| General relief | 35 | 19,579.90 | 559.42 |
| Total | 647 | $395,820.14 | $611.78 |
[145] In determining the amount received by each applicant, both principal and subsidiary grants have been considered.
In 576 instances the sum given was for a single purpose; in the business group, in 71 instances for two or more purposes. For example, in 28 instances the money was for business only; in 40 for business and for household furniture, for the expenses of an illness, or for some other subsidiary purpose. In the housing group, in 131, the money was for building only; in but 31 instances was it for household aid or general relief.
The highest grant for housing was $1,230.40, the highest for business, $1,100, but the latter included a tuition fee for a member of the family. The largest grant for general relief was $1,045, which included the expenses of a long illness.
In addition to the cases presented in the table there were two for household aid which came to $500 and $600 respectively as a result of duplication, in the one case through the United Irish Societies, and in the other, through the confidential committee.
To complete the picture, we present the grants and refusals passed on by sub-committees and by the Rehabilitation Committee during the fourth rehabilitation period from November 4, 1906, to April 9, 1907. The object of this presentation is to show the proportion of applications passed on without the intervention of a sub-committee.
TABLE 43.—APPLICATIONS FOR RELIEF PASSED UPON BY SUB-COMMITTEES AND BY THE REHABILITATION COMMITTEE, WITHOUT ACTION BY A SUB-COMMITTEE, IN THE PERIOD FROM NOVEMBER 1, 1906, TO APRIL 1, 1907, BY NATURE OF THE APPLICATION
| Nature of applications for relief | Appli- cations passed upon | Appli- cations passed upon by sub- commit- tees | APPLICATIONS PASSED UPON BY THE REHABILITATION COMMITTEE WITHOUT ACTION BY A SUB-COMMITTEE | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number | Per cent of all appli- cations | |||
| Household furniture | 5,647 | 5,099 | 548 | 9.7 |
| Business rehabilitation | 3,414 | 3,095 | 319 | 9.3 |
| General relief | 2,873 | 2,504 | 369 | 12.8 |
| Housing | 1,788 | 1,690 | 98 | 5.5 |
| Transportation | 144 | 93 | 51 | 35.4 |
| Tools for mechanics and artisans | 48 | 31 | 17 | 35.4 |
| Total | 13,914 | 12,512 | 1,402 | 10.1 |
[146] Of the 13,970 cases passed upon in the period to which this table relates, 56 could not be classified according to the plan adopted.
4. THE RE-OPENING OF CASES TO MAKE FURTHER GRANTS
It was the aim of the Rehabilitation Committee to make final disposition of each application for a specific object by means of a single grant. This it succeeded in doing in the cases of 17,560 (86.8 per cent) of all applicants aided. Before the other 2,681 applications were finally disposed of, 5,777 grants had been made, usually at the rate of two grants to a case. Three grants were rarely made, although there were exceptional cases of applicants who received three or four different kinds of aid in five or six separate grants.
Table 44 shows the extent to which re-opening occurred.
[147] In addition to cases analyzed above and in the table, 904 cases which were at first refused were afterwards re-opened to receive a grant.
TABLE 44.—NUMBER OF RE-OPENED CASES BY NATURE OF FIRST GRANT
| Nature of first grant | Total number of cases | RE-OPENED CASES | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Number | Per cent of all cases | ||
| Household furniture | 9,552 | 1,299 | 13.6 |
| Business rehabilitation | 4,524 | 540 | 11.9 |
| General relief | 3,787 | 657 | 17.3 |
| Housing | 1,212 | 62 | 5.1 |
| Transportation | 799 | 37 | 4.6 |
| Tools for mechanics and artisans | 367 | 86 | 23.4 |
| Total | 20,241 | 2,681 | 13.2 |
The form of aid through which the greatest proportion of cases was disposed of by a single grant was transportation. Of these but 4.6 per cent were ever re-opened.
A single grant for transportation was effective in so high a proportion of cases because the applicant as a rule was being sent where work awaited him or to relatives pledged to furnish him a home.
There seems to be no reason in the nature of things why a first grant of aid for household furniture should not have been conclusive in a greater number of instances. Families were required to present fairly definite plans before being given aid to re-establish their homes. If they could have been dealt with
General relief is in its very nature indeterminate. It is not surprising, therefore, to see that one case in six returned for additional assistance. Some of the families were given intermittent care until June, 1907, and then became charges of the Associated Charities and the other regular relief agencies.
Grants for tools were nearly all given very early in point of time, and were for small amounts. They averaged but $34.71. Such of these applicants as later applied again were considered eligible to receive grants for household furniture, or were assisted to build homes, on the same basis as though they had not previously received aid. The same is true of many families who early received small amounts of general relief. When they succeeded later in forming definite plans they were given grants for household furniture, for housing, or for business.
It is evident that in any disaster so great that months are devoted to the work of reconstruction, a number of families must be dealt with at least twice and some must be carried through the entire period that the wonted relief work of the community is superseded by the unwonted. Even though action taken on an individual application be regarded as final, there will be many re-applications, some because there is the craving for another slice, some because there is a planning to make good use of aid that is being offered in new forms, and others because there is the facing of a new family crisis. In each instance, as a rule, there must be a re-investigation, which means that the time of investigators and of committeemen is drawn in part from the consideration of current cases. All cases suffer corresponding delay. As was to be expected, the greater number of re-openings were in the first three periods of the rehabilitation work. Of 912 household grants made before the end of October, 1906, only 175 were filed away to remain “closed.”
How could the re-opening of cases have been in part obviated?
First, by avoiding the mistake of filing a case as “closed” when it was unfinished.
Second, by supervising the expenditure of money given for a definite purpose to persons of weak wills or poor judgment, and by making the grant, if the state of the funds permitted, sufficient adequately to meet the purpose. To illustrate: 371 families received grants for furniture, and 461 for business rehabilitation, each in two allotments. In some of these cases, because of the withholding of the funds, the first grant was inadequate. In others, the money was spent to poor advantage or for purposes other than the original intention. The Rehabilitation Committee in making business grants hesitated to hand an applicant more than the average business grant of $250. If provision from the start could have been made to have business grants expended under the supervision of trained workers, larger sums could have been safely placed to the credit of the applicants, many business failures would have been averted, and the call for second grants avoided.
Third, by opening earlier the Bureau of Special Relief. If the Bureau had been started in May instead of in August to give emergency aid in money as well as in kind, it would have released the Rehabilitation Committee from the need of considering the granting of petty amounts, and would have left it free to concentrate effort in its own field. To illustrate: The Rehabilitation Committee before the middle of August made 480 small cash grants for general relief, and 373 for tools. The Bureau could have handled these quickly and effectively by giving help in kind or in cash to an amount of $50 or less. Later, when plans for permanent rehabilitation had been made on the one hand by the Rehabilitation Committee, on the other by the families themselves, the way would have been clear for the more weighty decisions. The quick exchange of records would have meant that the facts held by the Bureau were available as the basis for further investigation.
The length of time elapsing between application and grant was seriously studied by the reviewers. The results need not be given in detail. It should be noted that delays in a time of emergency must not be judged by the standards applied to the normal work of a relief society. The time elapsing between applications
During the first period of rehabilitation work, the burden of care fell on the army as well as on the Finance Committee of Relief and Red Cross Funds. It was the time when the people were not ready in large numbers to make application for rehabilitation. Only 1,843 applied during the nine weeks. During the second period of six weeks, 6,479 applied to the central and to the seven section offices in which were working the newly organized force of investigators. If any standard were to be upheld, deliberation, which meant delay in dispatch of cases, had to be in order. When in the third period of ten weeks the number of applicants was but 2,872 and the force of investigators, case reviewers, and committeemen had had time to get on a sound working basis, the episode of the withholding of the eastern funds caused a partial paralysis of decision. In this period the long delay in making grants is a reflex. In the fourth period of twenty-two weeks, during which the number of applications was 10,994, when retrenchment was not the key-word, the sharp reversal of policy makes any testing of relative speed impracticable. The cumulative effect of working conscientiously together brings the power to dispatch cases. Whether the relative dispatch would have been greater or less in the fourth period if the district plan had been adhered to can be answered either way merely by a conjecture. Two facts must be borne in mind: First, no physical suffering resulted from delay.
5. VARIATIONS IN AMOUNTS OF GRANTS, AND REFUSALS
There is first presented a table classifying the grants for different purposes according to amount of grant.
TABLE 45.—GRANTS FOR REHABILITATION BY AMOUNT AND BY NATURE OF RELIEF GIVEN
| Nature of Grant | GRANTS OF | Total | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Less than $100 | $100 and less than $200 | $200 and less than $300 | $300 and less than $400 | $400 and less than $500 | $500 and over | ||
| Household furniture | 4,708 | 4,460 | 721 | 63 | 4 | 2 | 9,958 |
| Business rehabilitation | 1,018 | 1,730 | 1,402 | 420 | 156 | 162 | 4,888 |
| General relief | 2,307 | 1,420 | 619 | 114 | 37 | 35 | 4,532 |
| Housing | 92 | 333 | 743 | 102 | 67 | 450 | 1,787 |
| Transportation | 729 | 106 | 22 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 866 |
| Tools | 358 | 21 | — | — | — | — | 379 |
| Total | 9,212 | 8,070 | 3,507 | 704 | 266 | 651 | 22,410 |
| Per cent | 41.1 | 36.0 | 15.7 | 3.1 | 1.2 | 2.9 | 100.0 |
[149] Because of variations in the practice of treating successive grants of the same nature to a single applicant as a single grant or as different grants, the figures in the “total” column of this table differ from the corresponding figures presented in other tables and in the text.
The table indicates the amounts allotted to individuals for the various forms of rehabilitation, and brings out striking differences in the sums required for different purposes. Of the 9,958 homes furnished, 9,168 (92.1 per cent) were refurnished at less than $200 each, and 4,708 of these (47.3 per cent of the total) at less than $100. The larger sums, $200 and more, usually mean that a family having spent its first furniture grant for some other justifiable purpose was later given a second furniture grant, or that the so-called furniture grant included $50 to $100 given for clothing and
Grants for business were much larger than those for the household. More than one-half (56.2 per cent), to be sure, were for less than $200, but 15 per cent were for $300 or more, and of these, 3 per cent received $500. Seldom was the grant more than $500.
Grants for general relief in 82.2 per cent of all cases were for less than $200; in 50.9 per cent for less than $100.
Housing
[150] Bear in mind that the bonus grants are not included (see Part IV, p. 239 ff.), nor the camp cottage expenditures (see Part IV, p. 221 ff.).
TABLE 46.—GRANTS AND REFUSALS TO APPLICANTS WHO POSSESSED RESOURCES, BY AMOUNT OF RESOURCES
| Amount of resources | Total number of applicants | Applicants to whom relief was refused | APPLICANTS TO WHOM RELIEF WAS GRANTED | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number | Per cent of all appli- cants | |||
| Less than $100 | 785 | 73 | 712 | 90.7 |
| $100 and less than $200 | 673 | 71 | 602 | 89.5 |
| $200 and less than $400 | 1,235 | 162 | 1,073 | 86.9 |
| $400 and less than $600 | 770 | 144 | 626 | 81.3 |
| $600 and less than $1,000 | 576 | 143 | 433 | 75.2 |
| $1,000 and over | 1,271 | 480 | 791 | 62.2 |
| Not stated | 922 | 201 | 721 | 78.2 |
| Total | 6,232 | 1,274 | 4,958 | 79.6 |
To summarize, 77.1 per cent of all grants were for less than $200, and of these more than half, or 41.1 per cent of the entire
A glance at Table 46 shows that to possess resources other than income did not in itself render applicants ineligible for relief. Of the 6,232 property owners that applied, 4,958, or 79.6 per cent, received aid. Though the percentage of refusals was higher among those with the greater amount of resources, 791 persons, 62.2 per cent of those with $1,000 and over, received aid. Under the grant and loan plan
In Table 47, 5,284 refusals of aid are classified by the reasons for refusal and the nature of the applications.
TABLE 47.—REASONS FOR REFUSAL OF REHABILITATION, BY NATURE OF APPLICATION
| Reasons for refusal | APPLICATIONS OF EACH SPECIFIED NATURE REFUSED | Total | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| House- hold furni- ture | Busi- ness reha- bilita- tion | Gen- eral relief | Hous- ing | Trans- porta- tion | Tools | ||
| Not burned out | 13 | 12 | 71 | 56 | 6 | 11 | 169 |
| Not in need | 180 | 87 | 165 | 42 | 6 | 20 | 500 |
| Has collectable insurance | 115 | 53 | 34 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 211 |
| Is earning wages | 837 | 113 | 183 | 74 | 21 | 122 | 1,350 |
| Can work | 150 | 82 | 102 | 13 | 45 | 38 | 430 |
| Relatives can aid | 35 | 15 | 45 | 4 | 9 | 5 | 113 |
| Other members of family already aided | 13 | 20 | 2 | 7 | 1 | .. | 43 |
| Already aided | 187 | 136 | 95 | 96 | 4 | 6 | 524 |
| Has savings | 442 | 191 | 107 | 169 | 7 | 22 | 938 |
| No plan | 22 | 5 | 15 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 48 |
| Plan not approved | 9 | 131 | 23 | 66 | 40 | .. | 269 |
| Plan not definite | 9 | 32 | 7 | 10 | 10 | 1 | 69 |
| Applicant for transportation can well work here | .. | .. | .. | .. | 31 | .. | 31 |
| Advices from applicants’ proposed destination unfavorable | .. | .. | .. | .. | 10 | .. | 10 |
| Not in business before fire | .. | 94 | .. | .. | .. | .. | 94 |
| Not successful in business | .. | 3 | .. | .. | .. | .. | 3 |
| Character defective | 100 | 75 | 58 | 13 | 12 | 6 | 264 |
| Has not complied with committee’s requirements | 47 | 43 | 28 | 52 | 24 | 2 | 196 |
| Committee has no funds (August to November, 1906) | .. | 22 | .. | .. | .. | .. | 22 |
| Total | 2,159 | 1,114 | 935 | 609 | 232 | 235 | 5,284 |
[152] It will be noted that the totals of this table are considerably larger than the corresponding totals of Tables 33 and 34. The difference seems to be due to the fact that in preparing Table 47 two or more refusals of aid on a single application were treated as separate refusals.
