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.