I | Beginnings of Rehabilitation
1. General Policy
In the beginning of the Relief Survey it has been shown how, with what seemed to be an instinctive insistence, the trend of the work was toward the formulation of a definite rehabilitation policy. The principle, one might say axiom, which determined the character of this policy was that help should be extended with reference to needs and not with reference to losses. It was not easy to hold to the relief principle in the face of a sentiment by no means weak nor voiceless that each sufferer was entitled to an equal share of the funds. That the Rehabilitation Committee did consistently act on this principle during the periods of its activity was a marked achievement—an achievement that may be counted to the good, not only for the relief of San Francisco sufferers but for sufferers from subsequent disasters.
When the Rehabilitation Committee began its work at the beginning of July, 1906,[96] it could not know what amount of money would be available for the purposes of its work. It knew that $1,500,000 had been suggested as the amount and 15,000 as the number of families to be rehabilitated. It held many conferences to consider the possibility of obtaining even the roughest sort of census of the families who would require assistance.
[96] See Part I, p. 21.
No solution was furnished by the population of the various camps because even if their total population had been known, it would not have given a clue to the number of families who were living with relatives or friends or as tenants in the overcrowded quarters. Unlike the ordinary relief society, the Committee could not estimate the total actual needs of its prospective applicants. Therefore it had to fix definite limitations for grants[97] to those who first applied so that later applicants, with needs equally great, might not suffer injustice.
[97] A classification of grants was in use which had been adopted by the Red Cross Special Bureau. The headings of this classification were “Tools,” “Household Re-establishment,” “Business Enterprise,” “Special Relief,” “Transportation.” Special Relief was used to describe a miscellaneous group of grants, and to prevent its being confused with the later Bureau of Special Relief (see Part II, p. 145), it will hereafter in this study be designated “General Relief.”
With these considerations in mind the Committee at its first meeting moved to limit the vast bulk of grants to sums of $500 or less. The decision was that a grant that did not exceed $200 could be approved by one member of the Committee, that grants of from $200 to $500 should require the signatures of two members, and that grants of more than $500 should require the action of the entire Committee. During the first few months the number of separate grants of $500 or over, exclusive of housing grants, was but 121, the general assumption in the Committee room and among the rehabilitation workers being that the number of families to receive over $500 should be small.
Eventually, of the 20,241 families assisted by the Committee, 647 families received as much as $500 each.[98] It was not realized at the beginning that in a great number of instances there would be re-openings and new applications leading to the granting of new forms of rehabilitation; that, for example, a family would be helped first to re-establish itself in business and later to build a house. Supplementary grants that increased the total allowance to a family to more than $500 were not passed upon by the Committee as a whole, though at several meetings the question of requiring the Committee to act as a whole on the issuance of a series of grants in excess of $500 to an applicant was informally discussed. No official action, however, followed the discussions. Before the middle of July the Committee sent to the newspapers and to others interested, a circular in which was outlined its general purpose. In this its aim was shown to be not to determine the size of grants by the extent of losses, but to help those to re-establish themselves who were unable, even upon a contracted basis, to do so without assistance.
[98] The difference between these figures and the figures given in Table 45 on page 165 is due to the fact that successive grants of the same nature to a single applicant were, in making some compilations, treated as a single grant, and in making others, as successive grants.
The wisdom of limiting the size of grants may be questioned by some, but there is no doubt of its paramount importance in giving a rough basis for work at a time when it was impossible to estimate the number of families that would require assistance. It is hard to conceive of the setting of any other standard than this. Without it the possibilities for confusion and injustice were unusually large. The decision was reached not only from motives of prudence but also from the Committee’s sense of responsibility in dealing with such large amounts of money as would undoubtedly be placed in its hands. That the feeling of personal responsibility was large was made evident by other actions of the Committee.[99]
[99] Under somewhat similar circumstances the Chicago Fire Commission practically limited special relief expenditures to $200 per grant. See Report of the Chicago Relief and Aid Society of Disbursements of Contributions for the Sufferers by the Chicago Fire (1874), p. 199.
After the Department of Camps and Warehouses was created on August 1, 1906, the Rehabilitation Committee[100] finally adopted its own policy with reference to families living in the camps, a policy which as has been seen[101] had been gradually taking shape during July. The whole question of the rehabilitation of camp families had been considered at a lunch given before his departure east by Dr. Devine to the members of the Committee and the staff. The conclusions of this informal conference did not take official form, but they may be accepted as marking the first step in the formulation of the policy. They were: That the camps should provide for the immediate needs of their inmates; that no stated sum could be set aside for the ultimate use of those who were expected to become permanent charges; and that no family living in a camp should be given rehabilitation aid until it had presented a definite plan for rehabilitation. It was felt that the effect upon applicants would be great if once they understood that it was useless for them to come to the Committee without definite and concrete plans. The subject of setting aside a sum for the use of the residue came up again in the latter part of August when Mr. Dohrmann, in making his estimates of the future disposition of funds, again and again called attention to the need of reserving large sums to re-establish camp families.
[100] Now a part of the Department of Relief and Rehabilitation, which included also the Bureau of Special Relief, Bureau of Hospitals, etc.
[101] See Part I, p. 19 ff.
By August 1 the issuing of rations had been discontinued. The Department of Camps and Warehouses had taken over the bulk of the work of the short-lived Executive Commission, and the Rehabilitation Committee had been made responsible, under the gradual centralization of all relief, for the granting of all aid other than shelter and the relief-giving incidental to camp life. The Rehabilitation Committee was, however, in accordance with the policy it had adopted, steadying the number of applications made to it by camp families, by requiring an applicant to give proof that he had an assured dwelling before his request for household aid was considered. The immediate necessity was to define the relations between the Department of Relief and Rehabilitation and the Department of Camps and Warehouses. On August 6, 1906, the chairman of the latter department, Rudolph Spreckels, met with the Rehabilitation Committee, and after prolonged consideration the following definite agreement was reached:
The Department of Camps and Warehouses agreed:
1. To provide necessary food, clothing, and tent equipment to residents of camps.
2. To refer to the Rehabilitation Committee only such applicants as were believed to be prepared to leave the tents and to become undoubtedly self-supporting.
3. To make within the limits of the camp all investigations necessary to determine the current needs of the refugees.
4. To inform the Rehabilitation Committee of any applicant who had shown a readiness to leave the camp and to be rehabilitated.
The Rehabilitation Committee on its part agreed:
1. To follow the notification of an applicant’s readiness to leave a camp by an investigation of its own and to take such action as the inquiry would warrant.
2. To assume responsibility for supplying all relief outside of the camps, this full responsibility to be assumed not later than the end of August.
Camp No. 25, Richmond District, opened November 20, 1906
Camp No. 29, Mission Park, opened November 19, 1906
Two Cottage Camps
The responsibility of the Department of Relief and Rehabilitation for relief outside the camps remained absolute, with the exception of the housing aid given by the Department of Lands and Buildings. Mr. Bicknell was appointed to carry out the plan so far as it related to the Rehabilitation Committee, to which he later presented his plan for the establishment of a Bureau of Special Relief under the Department of Relief and Rehabilitation. This new bureau, which is described elsewhere,[102] gave aid in kind; the Rehabilitation Committee gave emergency aid in cash.
[102] See Part II, p. 145 ff.
2. Periods of Rehabilitation Work
By way of introduction to the following chapter, a summary may well be made of the periods of time into which the rehabilitation work naturally fell.
May 5 marked the beginning of the rehabilitation work under the direction of the Red Cross, a period when a force of workers, trained and untrained, got steadily to work, and when policies began to be shaped. It may be called the formative period.
July 7 began the second period. It was the time when the Rehabilitation Committee of the Finance Committee of Relief and Red Cross Funds got into the saddle, carrying with it the staff and adopting the policies of the formative period. It was marked by the rapid development of district organizations; by the rapid increase in the number of applications for relief. It may be called the period of accelerated applications.
August 20 opened the third period, when a decline in the number of applications was brought about by new restrictions upon the character of cases eligible for consideration; the time when the advisability of the district plan of organization was brought in question. Furthermore, it was the time when grants were sharply limited by the withholding of the eastern funds.[103] This may be called the period of arrested progress.
[103] See Part I, p. 99 ff.
November 4 began the fourth period, when the centralized plan was in force and when a persistent effort was made gradually to decrease the responsibilities carried by the Rehabilitation Committee. It was the period of centralized effort.
April 9, 1907, marked the beginning of the fifth and last period, which closed June 30, 1907, with the taking over of the rehabilitation work by the Associated Charities. It was a time of rapid discharge of committees and of readjustments,—the period of withdrawal.