neighborhood thoroughly,--a physician who had done active work among the
poorer people previous to April 18, the president of a settlement, and
the priest. These met together each day with others to go over the case
work of the investigators who were studying the individual needs of
refugees. Nowhere else could one get such an impression of the
cosmopolitan character of San Francisco. The names of the investigators
showed their origin,--Italian, Spanish, English, Scotch. These could
speak to the refugees in their own tongues. One of the investigators was
a trained nurse who had been at work in the neighborhood; another, an
artist who had been the year before as far away from the Pacific Coast
as the Albert Nyanza; the third, a student of economics. In still
another section were to be found as investigators a force of college
students. Seven of them were from Stanford University. They gave devoted
service from April until the university opened in the autumn. They
camped in the outer office and would work from early in the morning
until late in the evening. They were often visiting at six in the
morning and were to be found in the office writing reports at ten in the
evening. Several teachers, a physician, and a trained nurse made up the
rest of the group, which was guided at first by one of the most active
and devoted local workers, a probation officer of the juvenile court.
In another section one felt the distinctive mark to be catholicity. The
chairman of this committee was a Presbyterian minister and the assistant
to the agent was a Unitarian minister who had given up his charge to
devote himself for a year to the charitable work of the city. A Hebrew
whose strong personal influence counted for much in dealing with the
refugees of his faith; another Hebrew, a woman, who as a volunteer had
done most important service in securing work for the refugees; an active
worker in women’s clubs; and other men and women who had had experience
as teachers and in business, completed this section committee.
In so large a group of investigators, brought into service at a time of
high pressure, there were necessarily to be found many attitudes of mind
toward the work and varying degrees of readiness to be instructed. What
surprised those who had the task of fitting the visitors to their work
was their adaptability. The committees met at short intervals to review,
one by one, the stories and recommendations of the investigators, and to
make their own decisions to be submitted for final action to the
Rehabilitation Committee at headquarters.
The investigating force of the Rehabilitation Committee reached its
highest number in August, 1906, when it numbered 96 persons on full and
nine on half time. Sixty-five other persons were also employed,
principally as clerks and messengers. The Committee from the start took
the sensible ground that as far as possible there should be
investigation of each applicant. The record card used in the sections
was the second registration card, which as the reader knows, superseded
the one adopted in the initial relief period.[107]
[107] See Part I, p. 49. See cards in Appendix II, pp. 428 and 429.
The second registration was undertaken by the staff of workers gathered
together by the American National Red Cross, who worked from the seven
civil sections and recorded their investigations on the improved cards
described below. These cards, which were kept on file at headquarters,
were, from the time of the second registration to the end of the
rehabilitation work, used by the various committees. They held the facts
as to an individual’s own expectation of providing shelter for himself
and family. Later these cards served to measure the degree of success
each applicant had made in carrying out his own plan.
The second registration, though not to the same degree as the first,
failed in completeness, so that many persons who applied later, not only
to the Rehabilitation Committee but to the many other committees and
departments, were given relief by those who were in ignorance of what
help had already been extended. If registration had been accurate and
complete from the beginning much saving of money and time would have
been effected, and, of immeasurably greater importance, much better
rehabilitation work could have been done. A thorough system of
registration would have been opposed by many of the relief workers, as
well as by the refugees, but the importance of securing, in beginning
such a work, an accurate registration of names and references and of
entering on the dated cards the facts of aid requested and given,
cannot be over-estimated. The outstanding need of the later
rehabilitation work was for a registration so inclusive that it might
serve as a general confidential exchange of information[108] of the sums
of relief given and the efforts made to rehabilitate individuals or
families. One of those who had partial supervision of enumeration for
the first registration has said that a more carefully prepared card and
a rigid supervision of investigators could have secured the desired
results even if the investigators were untrained. The lack of a well
ordered bureau for confidential exchange of information led to serious
duplication of inquiry and of grants.
[108] Registration as a means of holding and securing information was
in use by various committees other than the Rehabilitation Committee.
But to return to a consideration of the record card. It provided for a
graphic presentation of the salient economic features of each family.
When rightly filled in it showed the total present income of the family,
its physical condition and the previous occupation of the breadwinner,
the sum of its losses and its present resources. It gave a picture of
the family’s former or present relations to its church, its lodge, its
employers, its plan for rehabilitation, and the investigator’s estimate
of this plan or the investigator’s alternative plan. Each visitor who
had not had previous training as an investigator was given careful
direction as to how an investigation should be made. Each was instructed
to explain to the families that what was being aimed at was to find a
way out which would be a real way out. Relief that had been already
given was emergent, temporary. But now the Committee was anxious to
learn of those who with a fair grant would be able to re-establish
themselves.
In compiling the statistical abstract of applications for Chapter IV of
this part of the Relief Survey no attempt was made to ascertain what
references were seen or corresponded with, except for the business
application cases. These were controlled by much stricter regulations
than were the other applications. It is impossible, therefore, to state
accurately the number of applications that were superficially
investigated by visits to the applicants only. It is probably true that
a study of the applications for household rehabilitation would show that
comparatively superficial investigations had been made although there
had usually been some attempt to corroborate the applicants’ stories by
calling for a general letter of recommendation or one written directly
to the Committee. Letters from ministers bulked large in this
correspondence. The experience of the Rehabilitation Committee, it can
be most positively stated, confirmed that of the special relief
committee of the Chicago fire that such recommendations are valueless in
the vast majority of cases. It is sufficient to state here, as this
question will be brought up later in the discussion of the Committee’s
relation to the auxiliary societies,[109] that the Committee learned
quite early in its career that some of the clergy of the city had had
manifolded a stereotyped form of recommendation to give to any one who
might apply.
[109] See Part II, p. 137 ff.
The method of investigation in force would have been insufficient if it
had been thought necessary to inquire closely into the moral character
of the applicants. What the family had to say about its previous income;
what its present income was; what its plans were and how it hoped with
the aid of a grant to carry out these plans,--these with the visitor’s
observations gave a sort of rough-and-ready gauge. There was, of course,
a certain amount of deception, but the field investigations made later
by the Relief Survey showed that the percentage of grants made upon
actually fraudulent representations was comparatively small. Plans for
rehabilitation that were inherently weak or confused or unwise had to be
guarded against. The grant desideratum was practical definiteness.
Illustrations of what were considered to be definite, what indefinite
plans, are incidentally presented under the chapters dealing with
particular forms of rehabilitation. It is well at this point to state
that after October 12, 1906, before a grant for rehabilitation or aid
for furniture could be obtained, an application had to be made to the
Rehabilitation Committee on a printed form.[110]
[110] For reproduction of form see Appendix II, p. 435.
The applications for tools were made the subject of a comparatively
superficial investigation. Transportation cases were subjected to a
gradual rise in the standard of inquiry. In the case of “general
relief,” which included the permanent care of aged or invalid persons
and of unsupported children, medical co-operation was generally called
for. Applications for emergent relief led to no extended investigation.
The housing applications, as will appear,[111] were subjected to special
forms of inquiry.
[111] See Part I, pp. 22-23 and 69 ff.; Part IV, Housing
Rehabilitation, p. 211 ff.; and Appendix I, p. 417.
Applications were received at the seven section offices at any hour of
the day, as well as at the central office of the Associated Charities.
The rule was, theoretically, to receive no applications at the office of
the Rehabilitation Committee; but so many applications, some of which
called for immediate investigation and action, were referred directly to
the Committee, that from one to four interviewers had to be held at the
central office to attend to them. It would have been ill-advised during
July and August to limit either the hours or places at which
applications could be made. Any limitation might in some instances have
caused actual distress. The magnitude of the task did not in itself,
save in exceptional circumstances, delay the giving of emergent relief,
as special arrangements were made for expediting emergency cases.
Before recommendations were brought to the members of the Rehabilitation
Committee for decision they were read by trusted employes of the
Committee in order that apparent injustices resulting from the varying
standards of the different section committees might be done away with.
The Committee itself established rough standards to govern its
decisions. For household rehabilitation, for instance, its standard
adopted after a careful employe had visited several furniture companies
to learn the range of prices, was based upon a rate of $50 a room for
each of the minimum number of rooms which would be required for an
individual family. Certain fixed rules were also adopted with reference
to business rehabilitation.[112] There was no little criticism of an
intermediate step having to be taken between the passage of records from
section committees to the Rehabilitation Committee. During the latter
part of the second period, which ended in August, 1906, some members of
the Rehabilitation Committee itself were inclined to doubt the wisdom of
the plan. Nevertheless, the opinion of the majority of the Committee was
that its rough standardizing was a great time saver. The reviewers
exercised no discretionary authority. They were indeed willing to
present any case, in any form, to the Committee if a section committee
insisted upon it. A justification of the plan lies in the fact that when
a case went directly to the Committee from a section, almost without
exception it was sent back. The reviewers served simply as advisers to
the section committees. They had in mind the broad lines of policy that
had been marked out by the Rehabilitation Committee and were in many
instances able to save from one to two days in the reaching of a final
decision as to a grant. An explanation made by the trained reviewer to a
district messenger, an agent, or Committee member, was oftentimes much
more acceptable than would have been Committee action which reversed a
section decision.
[112] For full discussion see Part III, Business Rehabilitation, p.
171 ff.
[Illustration: HEADQUARTERS DEPARTMENT OF RELIEF AND REHABILITATION,
GOUGH AND GEARY STREETS]
Another subject that called for anxious debate was as to the degree of
power that should be given by the Rehabilitation Committee to the
section committees to make grants of money for emergency need. On July
12, the Committee resolved that in an emergency case a requisition might
be made on the treasurer for a sum not to exceed $50, provided the
request were signed by two members of the section committee. The
Committee reserved the right to review such grants and at any time to
withdraw the privilege from the sections. At a meeting held a day or so
afterward this matter was reconsidered and laid over because several
members of the Committee expressed themselves forcibly as opposed to any
division of responsibility. At a joint meeting of the Rehabilitation
Committee with the members of the section committees, held on July 19,
1906, the question of placing small funds in the hands of the section
committees was again informally considered. Some of the section members
strongly urged this plan and cited illustrations of necessary delays
incident upon the ordinary procedure,--illustrations which proved that
the delay was a source of embarrassment. As a member of the Committee
recently said, a great amount of unpleasantness was caused by complaints
of delay in comparatively small matters. Objections still being made by
some members, the Committee asked the Associated Charities to present a
plan, but though such a plan was drawn up it was never presented for
action to the Committee because of the objections that were raised
against it.
This source of friction was removed in the course of events. When the
Bureau of Special Relief[113] was established on August 15, 1906,
applications for emergency relief in kind were referred to it. On the
closing of the section headquarters, Committee I of the centralized
system[114] was prepared to give small money grants on short notice. The
Associated Charities, from almost the beginning of the rehabilitation
work, also stood ready to make small gifts of money to persons in need,
or to make immediate purchase of necessities. It was from time to time
reimbursed for these expenditures, though no formal arrangement was made
by which it could draw on any regular fund for petty cash expenditures.
[113] See Part II, p. 145 ff.
[114] See Part II, p. 125.
Anyone who has had experience in a charity organization society which
has district offices knows that the common rule is to empower a district
superintendent or committee to make emergency expenditures of
comparatively limited amounts and to draw for reimbursement on the
society’s general relief fund. Such special expenditures are subject to
audit. The principle underlying them is at stated periods to have their
issuance made the subject of a careful review by the general secretary,
the district supervisor or some other central office official. In case
of continuous indiscreet expenditures the question raised is not whether
the power shall be withdrawn but whether there shall be some change in
the district force or some calling of volunteers to account. In other
words, the principle has been recognized that though there can be no
division of final responsibility as to expenditures, as a matter of
practical efficiency, districts must be given a certain amount of
discretion in the making of small emergency grants.
The extent of the task of investigating and reviewing cases can be
measured by the following showing. When the Rehabilitation Committee
settled to its task on July 7, 1906, the formative period of
rehabilitation work closed. The second period was inaugurated by public
announcement of the Rehabilitation Committee’s plans. During July, 1906,
the work increased by leaps and bounds. Though the Committee might wish
to feel its way there was no time for deliberate action as the members
had simply to speed up in order to keep ahead of the applications
awaiting action. By August 1 the Committee had passed upon 3,000
applications. On that same date there were about 9,000 applications in
the sections which either were awaiting investigation or had been
partially or fully investigated, but awaited action by the section
committees. The original estimate of families that would need
rehabilitation was 15,000. To pass on one-fifth of the whole may be
considered to be fairly good progress for the first three weeks of a
committee’s real work. During the next twelve days, as the news of the
grants began to circulate widely, came the high-water mark of
applications. On August 13, at the request of the chairman of the
Committee, a complete return was made which showed that there were then
8,916 applications pending, and that the average rate of applications
was somewhat over 200 a day. The danger of swamping the work was
evident.
At the time when the number of applications for rehabilitation was
heaviest came the uncertainty as to whether funds would be available.
The chairman of the Rehabilitation Committee, therefore, at an important
meeting held on August 12, requested members to present a definite plan
as to the amount of money that they would request the Executive
Committee to set aside for rehabilitation. Accordingly, on August 16,
the following estimate was presented as the minimum amount that would be
required for carrying on the work of the Department:
TABLE 29.--ESTIMATE OF AMOUNT REQUIRED FOR CARRYING ON WORK OF RELIEF,
PRESENTED AUGUST 16, 1906[115]
===============================+===============
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,[116] which
extended from August 20 to November 4, 1906. A large number of
applications was received later and all the applications on file were in
the course of time duly considered and made whenever necessary the
subject of grants, the amount of money used for rehabilitation being in
the end considerably larger than was estimated. August 20 is the
sinister date which appears and reappears in the later chapters, when
the subject of delay in the rehabilitation work is discussed.
[116] See Part II, p. 111.
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[117] was to be divided into three classes:
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
to consider any family to be in urgent need if in it there were a male
breadwinner earning reasonable wages.
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 create six
sub-committees. The Rehabilitation Committee was to be drawn on to
provide a chairman for each and the former section committees to provide
the membership. The numbers of the sub-committees and their respective
fields of work were as follows:
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[118] of the Rehabilitation Committee were
appointed chairmen of the respective sub-committees:
SUB-COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN
I. O. K. Cushing
II. Dr. John Gallwey
III. Archdeacon J. A. Emery[119]
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 district system was the only one
practicable in the early days, when transportation facilities were so
limited. The physical difficulties that would have been involved in
attempting to make an investigation from one center was not the only, if
indeed the most important factor that led social leaders to determine
upon the district plan. The primary reason was that the seven civil
sections were known to the people when they wished to follow their early
applications for clothing and other emergent needs by applications for
rehabilitation. The social investigation was made to fit the civil
section plan, which was based upon the theory that by working from
district centers it was possible to gain more accurate knowledge of the
actual needs of families and to have such brought more quickly to the
attention of the workers and be followed more surely by helpful
recommendations than would be the case if need were relieved and
recommendations made by one or several central committees. In short, it
was believed that the district plan of the larger charity organization
societies could be well adapted to the rehabilitation work and would
give it greater firmness, accuracy, and swiftness of action. As it
turned out, however, under the district plan the hoped-for swiftness of
action was not achieved, which was one of the reasons for the change to
the centralized system. After the change the average period of time
lapsing between application and grant was considerably reduced; however,
this is partly to be accounted for by the fact that after October, 1906,
the Rehabilitation Committee acted more rigorously on the policy adopted
August 20 to limit the number of applications received.
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 case.
The individual members of the Rehabilitation Committee worked separately
as chairmen of the sub-committees. They were brought much less to
consider in common the reason for approving or refusing to approve the
grants called for by the several section committees. In the earlier
period some of the members in daily conference performed this important
duty. Members of the Committee themselves believed that they lost
something of the broad view of the situation and the correlation between
grants when each came to have his own particular field of activity.
Although they developed as specialists, they were bound by no strong
unifying force.
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 should see it through to the end, no matter what form of
rehabilitation was found to be required.
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] to heads of families capable of
supporting those dependent on them, or to applicants to start in a
business that called for a special license or that had to be put under
special police supervision. This last exception was made to prohibit
grants for saloons. On October 12, the Rehabilitation Committee learned
officially that business rehabilitation might be resumed, as the New
York Chamber of Commerce on October 2 had resolved to transfer $500,000
to the Corporation, with the proviso that the money be used for “the
rehabilitation of those sufferers who by reason of the disaster have
been deprived of the use of stocks or goods, utensils, tools, implements
of labor, etc., and thus to help them to establish themselves in their
professions or trades.”
[120] A reiteration of former policy.
[Illustration: 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 reported by the vice-chairman to the
chairman if the former had acted in the absence of his superior; that
grants for amounts under $500 might be approved by the chairman of a
sub-committee; and that grants for amounts of $500 or more must be
approved by at least two members of the Rehabilitation Committee or by
the chairman and two members of a sub-committee, provided in the latter
case the action was reported to and entered on the minutes of the
meetings of the Rehabilitation Committee. The last restriction led to
frequent drawing of checks to the amount of $499. Later the Committee
made special provision for the granting of money for loans[121] so as
not to embarrass the work of its sub-committee on housing.
[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,[122] was marked by fluctuation, the tide of applications
sometimes increasing and sometimes decreasing. When the six
sub-committees were organized it was assumed that a normal family with
one or more able-bodied breadwinners should not then be in need of
assistance in furniture and other household goods. Labor of all kinds
was in great demand and there was no reason why families should not
themselves secure for cash or credit sufficient furniture to start
housekeeping. No provision[123] was made, therefore, for grants of
furniture or other household goods except as called for by the working
of Sub-committees I, II, and III. As soon, however, as the new
committees got under way, there was considerable discussion as to the
need of some committee to act on applications from heads of families for
furniture. It was decided, early in November, to receive applications
from heads of families who were steadily employed but who were not
earning enough to furnish their homes except by incurring a burdensome
debt. This action was rescinded later because there was no machinery
for receiving such applications and because there were other forms of
application that indicated a greater need. Not until January 16, 1907,
was provision made to receive applications for so-called “special
furniture grants,” which were passed on by the chairmen of two of the
original sub-committees. On January 17, notice that applications for aid
in refurnishing homes would be received was given in the San Francisco
newspapers.[124]
[122] See Part II, p. 111.
[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.
_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.
[124] 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,[125] was
authorized to put the work in the application bureau on a relief basis.
A circular was issued which stated that no application would be received
except on a purely relief basis; that is, applications would be received
only from families placed unavoidably in a position where they could not
support themselves and whose need would be met in ordinary times through
one of the regular charitable organizations.
[125] See Part II, p. 124.
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.[126]
[126] See Part V, Relief Work of the Associated Charities, p. 279 ff.
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 go to either the housing or
the confidential committee. By May, 1907, the number of cases to be
daily disposed of had fallen from 200 to 25, and the average number of
daily applications had decreased to a marked extent. The steady drop in
the number of applications meant to the Committee that its work had
reached the stage when it could be undertaken wholly by the Associated
Charities.
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.[127] The Associated Charities
was asked to invite a conference of representatives of the St. Vincent
de Paul Society, the German Benevolent Society, and the Hebrew Board of
Relief, formally to present to the Rehabilitation Committee a practical
plan for the administration of the general relief work of the city. On
May 30, 1907, the Rehabilitation Committee was notified by the president
of the Associated Charities that the office staff of the society was to
be withdrawn from the service of the Rehabilitation Committee. The
proposal to withdraw was approved but the society was asked to leave
the date of withdrawal open until definite plans for future relief work
could be perfected.
[127] See The Rehabilitation of Institutions, Part II, p. 141 ff.
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 issued by the Rehabilitation Committee which
notified applicants that they must apply directly to the Associated
Charities.
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 availed of to bring into working relation a quickly
collected force of trained and untried investigators and advisers. When
the relief work came more definitely under the control of the business
man, who chafed under criticism, there was a sharp reversal of method. A
trade experience that had proved the value of departmental division led
naturally to a recasting of the relief work on a departmental basis.
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[128]
the following paragraph occurs:
“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 reader knows,[129] had from the
beginning its own staff of paid workers, whose reports and work it could
control. But early in July, 1906, considerable pressure was brought upon
the Committee to change its methods so that the regular relief societies
of the city might upon presenting their cases, with recommendations,
have these considered by the Rehabilitation Committee without their
having to be subject to investigation by the section forces. Members of
the Finance Committee of Relief and Red Cross Funds urged concessions,
and concessions were finally made. On July 12, 1906, the United Irish
Societies objected to the treatment that the Rehabilitation Committee
had advised for some of the families recommended by them. Their
representatives were present at a meeting of the Rehabilitation
Committee and urged that they be granted the privilege of having their
recommendations considered as though they came from the section
committees. At that time the Rehabilitation Committee told the
representatives that as a trustee of the funds its duty was to gain
information about cases through the special channels of information it
had provided, and that all reputable organizations would be notified to
refer cases to it with recommendations; that it would follow these
recommendations or not as it saw fit. The Rehabilitation Committee found
that it could hold this position for but a few weeks, because of the
influence brought to bear not directly but through members of the
Finance Committee of Relief and Red Cross Funds. On July 28, 1906,
therefore, a resolution was passed that any charitable organization
approved by the Finance Committee might present directly to the
Rehabilitation Committee the results of its investigations, with
recommendations, and that these would be passed on directly without
further investigation.
[129] See Part I, p. 14.
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
responsible workers in the Rehabilitation Committee office. The paid and
voluntary workers of the Associated Charities had, under the
instructions given them by the section agents and the Rehabilitation
Committee, developed certain standards of investigation. Weak as these
standards may have been in certain particulars, still they were
standards. The visitors were getting, at the least, a coherent account
of the condition of each family and were securing, in the main, such
data as enabled the Committee to act intelligently. It is true that in a
great many cases there was no time to corroborate the statements of
applicants, but some picture of the family was presented and some plan
that bore on its face a promise of success. The records that came from
the so-called auxiliary societies were generally bare and fragmentary.
The cards were not filled out and in some cases almost the only thing
that the Committee got was the simple recommendation,--so much money for
this purpose or for that. Paucity of facts particularly marked the
recommendations of the United Irish Societies. A further characteristic
was, that because of a lack of understanding of the rough-and-ready
standards that had been set, the recommendations called for a higher
scale of expenditure than the Committee could possibly approach. For
instance, their recommendations for furniture rehabilitation ran from
$300 to $500, while the cases presented by the sections ran from $100 to
$300. A great many cards had to be returned to the auxiliary societies
for reconsideration and additional information.
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 representatives
of the different societies were then called together informally to
discuss the circular. Extracts from it are:
“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 rehabilitation workers.
Certain personal elements also tended to create friction; but there is
no reason to go into this aspect of the matter simply because the
definitive stand taken by the Committee was, that as the responsible
distributors of the funds they and their agents alone should make
investigations. This important work could not be delegated and the fact
was finally accepted that the work of investigation, to be well done,
must be done by a salaried force. This point is one, as was said before,
on which there was emphatic agreement on the part of all the members of
the Committee.
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 for making grants rested logically upon the
chairman of the Department of Relief and Rehabilitation. Early in
September Mr. Dohrmann, after consultation with various persons,
appointed an advisory committee on charitable institutions which was to
make recommendations to him which he in turn would submit for final
approval to the Executive Committee of the Corporation. Thirteen persons
were chosen to form the committee, with the end in view of giving due
representation to every phase of the philanthropic life of the
community. In meeting with the new committee Mr. Dohrmann presented a
letter of explanation, the salient points of which were:
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 asked to visit at its
own discretion. At the subsequent meeting, held September 14, the
following resolutions were adopted:
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 of the whole sum of $250,000 to the
institutions whose needs and present importance were most apparent, it
had agreed on certain principles, the most important of which were:
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]
[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[131]| 2
Grant already received | 1
----------------------------------------------------+-----------------
Total | 16
----------------------------------------------------+-----------------
[131] A local committee created before April, 1906. See Part V,
p. 283.
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, which in turn was reimbursed by the
Rehabilitation Committee; but the expenditures from these funds were
necessarily very small and could not secure, for instance, the purchase
of sewing machines. A great deal of friction also would have been
avoided. The number of complaints would have been much smaller and there
would have been no interruption in the efficient progress of the
rehabilitation work itself.
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[132] an account is given of the effort made to adjust the work of
the camps and the sections after the withdrawal of food issues, when
there was felt to be a gap in organization.
[132] See Part II, p. 111.
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] two nurses, as well as from three to
seven investigators were visiting constantly for it. The original plan
was to have an investigator at each of the section offices, with one or
two in addition at the central office, to make visits at large.
Applications were sometimes received at the central office in person,
but the greater number came by mail or telephone direct from applicants
or from those who reported instances of need. The applications were
telephoned to the Bureau agent in whose district the case was located.
Within a few hours the family was visited and a report was telephoned to
the office. A Bureau clerk had meanwhile received a report from the
Rehabilitation Committee files as to whether any action had already been
taken on the case.
[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 issued for two weeks so as to lessen the required visits to
each family to one in two weeks. Orders for food and merchandise were
placed with merchants located as closely as possible to the residences
of applicants, and grocers were held to a high standard of service, both
as to quality and quantity of goods and as to promptness of delivery.
Special tests were set from time to time to see that the order system
worked as planned. In the case of clothing orders the Bureau agent
usually went with the applicant to help make selection of clothing.
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]
[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] In referring the case, a memorandum
was added, to state that it had been investigated and to specify the
amount and kind of aid to be given. After February 1, 1907, the Bureau
ceased to give tools and sewing machines except on the order of the
Rehabilitation Committee; if applications for these articles were made
by a camp resident, the approval of the camp commander had to be
obtained before the application could be forwarded to the Bureau. The
Bureau of Special Relief practically closed on June 15, 1907. A small
force was at work until June 21, 1907, when all outstanding appeals were
settled.
[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,[136] and from persons living
in camp with no definite plans, who later were granted cottages by the
Department of Camps and Warehouses and made no further application for
rehabilitation.
[136] See Part VI, page 319 ff., for description of the work done at
Ingleside.
TABLE 33.--DISPOSAL OF APPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATION, BY NATURE OF
APPLICATION[137]
===================+===========+===========+========+========+======
Nature of | Cases in | Cases in |Cancela-|Requisi-| Total
application | which aid | which aid | tions | tions |
|was allowed|was refused| | |
-------------------+-----------+-----------+--------+--------+------
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[138]
========================+==================================+=======
Nature and disposal of | APPLICANTS WHOSE AGES WERE | Total
application | AS SPECIFIED |
+--------+---------+--------+------+
| Under |25 years |50 years| Not |
|25 years|and under|and over|stated|
| |50 years | | |
------------------------+--------+---------+--------+------+-------
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] The fact that only between
1 and 2 per cent of the total applications were so referred shows that
the ordinary relief work of the city had to be carried by the
Corporation.
[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.[140]
[140] For full discussion of these grants see Part IV, Chaps. II and
III, p. 221 ff.
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[141]
=======================+=======+============+==============+======
Nature of application |Married|Men--single,|Women--single,| Total
|Couples| widowed, | widowed, |
| |deserted, or| deserted, or |
| | divorced | divorced |
-----------------------+-------+------------+--------------+------
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 53.8 per cent of the whole,
they made up three-fourths of the applications for housing.
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[142]
===========================+==========================
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 |FAMILIES HAVING EACH SPECIFIED NUMBER
under fourteen in family| 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 | PRINCIPAL GRANTS |SUBSIDIARY GRANTS| ALL GRANTS
grant +-------------+-----+-----------+-----+-------------+-----
| Amount | Per | Amount | Per | Amount | Per
| |cent | |cent | |cent
-----------+-------------+-----+-----------+-----+-------------+-----
Household | | | | | |
furniture |$ 937,641.99| 32.8|$ 80,347.98| 52.9|$1,017,989.97| 33.9
Business | | | | | |
rehabilita-| | | | | |
tion | 860,934.80| 30.2| 11,502.40| 7.6| 872,437.20| 29.0
General re-| | | | | |
lief | 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
Transporta-| | | | | |
tion | 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] given to camp families.
[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]
[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[145]
=========================+=========+===========+==========
Nature of principal grant|Number of| Amount | Average
| cases | granted |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[146]
=======================+============+============+===================
Nature of applications |Applications|Applications|APPLICATIONS PASSED
for relief | passed | passed | UPON BY THE
| upon | upon by | REHABILITATION
| | sub- | COMMITTEE
| | committees |WITHOUT ACTION BY A
| | | SUB-COMMITTEE
| | +--------+----------
| | | Number | Per cent
| | | | of all
| | | | applica-
| | | | tions
-----------------------+------------+------------+--------+----------
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]
[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| RE-OPENED CASES
| of 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.[148] The
re-opened transportation cases are mainly those of persons who could not
adapt themselves to life in other communities, and who returned to San
Francisco and were given household furniture or business rehabilitation.
Housing was a form of aid offered principally to self-supporting
families; hence those whose first grant was for housing were usually
wage-earners whose income sufficed not only to furnish the house, but to
pay part of the expenses of building it. Business cases were usually
re-opened, not for aid for other purposes, but for additional aid for
business,--a legitimate demand where circumstances showed that an
applicant was threatened with failure for lack of a small amount of
additional capital.
[148] See Part I, p. 58 ff.
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 more liberally in the beginning, there would have
been less re-opening. Most of these first grants for furniture, however,
were given between August 20 and November 1, and were inadequate.
Although at the time they were treated as final, later on, especially
during January and February, families who made request were given an
additional grant for furniture.
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 and grants varied materially with the
period of the relief work. In the first period, extending from May 5 to
July 7, 1906, the proportion of grants made within three weeks of the
date of application was larger than in the second, the period of
accelerated applications, extending from July 7 to August 20, 1906.
During the third, the period beginning August 20 and ending November 4,
1906, the proportion of grants made within three weeks of the date of
application was smaller than during any other period of the relief work.
The proportion of grants made six weeks or more after the date of
application was at the same time much larger in this period than in the
earlier periods. In the fourth period of the work, extending from
November 4, 1906, to April 4, 1907, the proportion of grants made within
three weeks of the date of application was smaller than in the first
period, but much larger than in the second and third periods.
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. The emergency cases were always handled with rapidity, first
through the camp commanders and the staff at headquarters, later through
the Bureau of Special Relief. Second, mental suffering did result from
delay, but to be thorough, rehabilitation work must be carried out with
deliberation.
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[149]
=========================+===================================+======
Nature of Grant | GRANTS OF | Total
+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| Less| $100| $200| $300| $400| $500|
| than| and| and| and| and| and |
| $100| less| less| less| less| over|
| | than| than| than| than| |
| | $200| $300| $400| $500| |
-------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+------
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 incidentals. Single sums given for a
double purpose have been classified under the predominant purpose. Thus
the numerous grants reading “Household Furniture and General Relief”
have been classed as household grants; $300 or over was involved in less
than 1 per cent of the grants so classified.
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] is the form of aid that called for the largest individual
grants. About one-fourth, 23.7 per cent, were under $200; 41.6 per cent
were between $200 and $300; and one-fourth were $500 or over. The sums
granted for transportation and for tools, on the other hand, were very
small, 84.2 per cent of the former and 94.5 per cent of the latter being
for amounts under $100.
[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 |Applicants| APPLICANTS TO
|number of | to whom | WHOM RELIEF WAS
|applicants|relief was| GRANTED
| | refused +------+----------
| | |Number| Per cent
| | | | of all
| | | |applicants
-------------------------+----------+----------+------+----------
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 number, were
under $100. The grants of $200 to $299, constituting 15.7 per cent, are
made up principally of sums for housing and business. Grants of $300 and
over constitute the remaining 7.2 per cent, and most of these were for
business rehabilitation or housing. In the study of business
rehabilitation that follows in Part III, it will become evident that the
number of comparatively small business grants included some failures.
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[151] aid to
build was conditional on ownership of a lot, and the success of a
business plan was usually felt to depend on the applicants’ having
something to supplement the grant asked for. Small property owners with
small incomes who did not intend to rebuild, needed household or other
aid, and there were some property owners who could not, if they would,
have their holdings converted into cash. In fact, the persons aided who
had resources were, in general, those whose resources could not or
should not have been used for refurnishing or for current expenses;
those refused were the few who had available cash savings or who had
been so fortunate as to receive their insurance money early enough to
make an independent start. A thousand and one special considerations and
facts entered to make a classification of this group of cases a call for
a digest of each case. Such a digest is not practicable in this limited
Relief Survey. If made, it would be an index of the individualizing work
done by the Rehabilitation Committee. It may be safely said that the
Committee rarely erred on the side of generosity. The immediate lesson
to be learned is that the presence or absence of resources is only a
factor in rehabilitation. No generalizing policy of grants and refusals
can be built upon it.
[151] See Part IV, p. 253 ff.
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[152]
===================+============================================+=====
Reasons for refusal| APPLICATIONS OF EACH SPECIFIED NATURE |
| REFUSED |
+-----+---------+-------+------+-------+-----+
|House-|Business|General|Housing|Trans-|Tools|Total
| hold | re- | relief| |porta-| |
|furni-| habili-| | | tion | |
| ture | tation | | | | |
-------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+------+-----+-----
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’ pro- | | | | | | |
posed 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.
PART III
BUSINESS REHABILITATION
PART III
BUSINESS REHABILITATION
PAGE
I. THE PEOPLE AIDED AND THE RESULTS OBTAINED 171
1. The Plan Itself 171
2. The Study of Results 173
3. The Families and Individuals Aided 174
4. Changes in Family and Business Life 176
5. Occupations 183
6. Homogeneity of Grantees 185
7. Results of Business Rehabilitation 186
8. Reasons for Success and Failure 187
II. ANALYSIS BY OCCUPATIONS, STUDY OF REFUSALS, AND SUMMARY 196
1. Success or Failure in Relation to Occupations 196
2. Study of Refusals 208
3. Summary of the Results of Business Rehabilitation 210
I
THE PEOPLE AIDED AND THE RESULTS OBTAINED
1. THE PLAN ITSELF
Business rehabilitation grants were made from the beginning of the
relief work in cases where assistance in another form would have been
less effective. Thus, on May 16 and 18, within a month after the
disaster, the Rehabilitation Bureau made a grant of $75 for a shoe
repairing shop, and another of $100 for a restaurant, and on May 30 and
June 29, 1906, grants of from $250 to $500 each for a restaurant, a
rooming house, a book store, and a grocery. It is interesting to note
that to no one of these first six business cases was it found necessary
to give additional aid. The Rehabilitation Committee soon after its
organization, July 2, 1906, roughly formulated its business
rehabilitation policy, which is embodied in the following notes from the
minutes of July 19:
1. The Committee is not disposed to set people up in business in which
they have not previously been engaged, although it is possible some
exceptions will have to be made.
2. Estimates of amount necessary to start a business must be cut to
the lowest practical figure.
3. References and other evidence should be required that applicant is
capable and that request is reasonable.
The theory of rehabilitation in business, craft, or calling remained
practically the same from May, 1906, to the close of the work in 1908.
Nevertheless, there were differences from time to time in the handling
of applications, due to the factors which have been shown in the
preceding part[153] to have influenced the rehabilitation work in
general. In the first period the applications for business
rehabilitation were comparatively few and the grants small. In the
second, the Rehabilitation Committee was getting fully prepared to carry
its work. In the third, no new applications for business were received
and action on those pending was deferred, except in the cases of
unsupported women and aged people. These were given business
rehabilitation during the period of arrested progress only when the need
was very urgent and other means failed. In the beginning of the fourth
period a sub-committee of the Rehabilitation Committee, known as
Committee VI, was appointed[154] to consider business rehabilitation
cases. The work of Committee VI and the fourth period are practically
synchronous, because after the beginning of the fifth period, in April,
1907, the few business rehabilitation cases considered were acted upon
by the Rehabilitation Committee itself without the intervention of its
sub-committee.
[153] See Part II, p. 113 ff.
[154] See Part II, p. 125.
Committee VI was fortunate in having for its chairman Charles F. Leege,
a merchant and banker of wide acquaintance and of extended experience,
and four members, three of whom had had abundant commercial training. It
had a staff consisting of a secretary, six to eight visitors, and three
clerks.