San Francisco Relief Survey

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 application	Cases in which aid was allowed	Cases in which aid was refused	Cancel- ations	Requi- sitions	Total
Household furniture	9,064	1,274	43	2	10,383
Business rehabilitation	4,740	547	13	12	5,312
General relief	3,635	581	68	12	4,296
Housing	1,709	337	25	...	2,071
Transportation	809	...	39	173	1,021
Tools for mechanics and artisans	284	170	19	...	473
Total	20,241	2,909	207	199	23,556
Per cent	86.0	12.3	.9	.8	100.0

[137] The data relative to the nature of the applications are available only for grants, refusals, cancelations, and requisitions.

TABLE 34.—APPLICANTS FOR REHABILITATION, BY AGE, AND BY NATURE AND DISPOSAL OF APPLICATION[138]

Nature and disposal of application	APPLICANTS WHOSE AGES WERE AS SPECIFIED				Total
	Under 25 years	25 years and under 50 years	50 years and over	Not stated
Household furniture
Grants	320	5,496	2,923	325	9,064
Refusals	66	821	354	33	1,274
Business rehabilitation
Grants	104	2,532	1,726	378	4,740
Refusals	28	323	161	35	547
General relief
Grants	197	1,470	1,431	537	3,635
Refusals	32	284	190	75	581
Housing
Grants	47	1,027	426	209	1,709
Refusals	10	181	97	49	337
Transportation
Grants	73	403	229	104	809
Tools
Grants	33	137	92	22	284
Refusals	20	102	28	20	170
Total grants	774	11,065	6,827	1,575	20,241
Total refusals	156	1,711	830	212	2,909
Grand total	930	12,776	7,657	1,787	23,150
Per cent of refusals	16.8	13.4	10.8	11.9	12.6

[138] The figures of this table relate only to applicants for money grants.

The “applications referred elsewhere” include those referred to other agencies, such as the Physicians’ Fund.[139] 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 Couples	Men— single, widowed, deserted, or divorced	Women— single, widowed, deserted, or divorced	Total
Household furniture	7,072	259	3,007	10,338
Business rehabilitation	1,863	571	2,853	5,287
General relief	1,450	566	2,200	4,216
Housing	1,555	116	375	2,046
Transportation	385	233	364	982
Tools	212	239	3	454
Total	12,537	1,984	8,802	23,323
Per cent	53.8	8.5	37.7	100.0

[141] In this table are included applicants who received money grants, applicants who were refused money grants, and 173 applicants who received orders for transportation.

Table 35 shows the domestic status of the applicants for the different kinds of rehabilitation. Note the number of single or widowed women who applied for business rehabilitation. Note, also, that though the applications by married couples were but 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 under fourteen in family	FAMILIES HAVING EACH SPECIFIED NUMBER OF CHILDREN
	Number	Per cent
1	4,041	42.0
2	2,692	28.0
3	1,526	15.9
4	787	8.2
5	386	4.0
6	139	1.4
7	42	0.4
8 or over	12	0.1
Total	9,625	100.0

We find in Table 39 that 85.9 per cent had three or less children under fourteen and 70 per cent had two or less. No particular significance should be attached to the fact that 42 per cent had only one child under the age specified, for the reason that the ages of the parents are not given. The table shows that the families with which the Rehabilitation Committee had to deal did not have a “quiverful” of children.

3. Principal and Subsidiary Grants

The grants made for purposes of rehabilitation have been classified as principal and subsidiary. As was stated on page 152, the term “principal” has been used to describe the largest grant made to an applicant, “subsidiary” to describe a grant smaller in amount given to the same applicant for a different purpose. It is evident from this definition that the number of principal grants made equalled the total number of applicants who received grants. Subsidiary grants were much fewer in number than principal grants. Principal grants did not necessarily come first in point of time. Indeed, three times out of four they came last, because they followed the satisfying of a lesser emergent need by their greater rehabilitating force. In compiling Tables 40, 41, and 42, successive grants of the same nature have been considered as constituting one grant.

In Table 40 principal and subsidiary grants are classified according to the nature of the rehabilitation given.

TABLE 40.—NUMBER OF PRINCIPAL AND SUBSIDIARY GRANTS, BY NATURE OF GRANTS

Nature of grant	PRINCIPAL GRANTS		SUBSIDIARY GRANTS
	Number	Per cent	Number	Per cent
Household furniture	9,064	44.8	918	46.8
Business rehabilitation	4,740	23.4	176	9.0
General relief	3,635	18.0	709	36.1
Housing	1,709	8.4	25	1.3
Transportation	809	4.0	42	2.1
Tools	284	1.4	92	4.7
Total	20,241	100.0	1,962	100.0

The next table shows the amounts disbursed in principal and in subsidiary grants, according to the nature of the rehabilitation given.

TABLE 41.—AMOUNT OF PRINCIPAL AND SUBSIDIARY GRANTS, BY NATURE OF GRANTS

Nature of grant	PRINCIPAL GRANTS		SUBSIDIARY GRANTS		ALL GRANTS
	Amount	Per cent	Amount	Per cent	Amount	Per cent
Household furniture	$ 937,641.99	32.8	$ 80,347.98	52.9	$1,017,989.97	33.9
Business rehabilitation	860,934.80	30.2	11,502.40	7.6	872,437.20	29.0
General relief	433,342.70	15.2	53,166.15	35.0	486,508.85	16.2
Housing	564,986.15	19.8	2,314.70	1.5	567,300.85	18.9
Transportation	47,181.07	1.7	1,735.70	1.1	48,916.77	1.6
Tools	9,792.35	.3	2,945.85	1.9	12,738.20	.4
Total	$2,853,879.06	100.0	$152,012.78	100.0	$3,005,891.84	100.0

It should be mentioned in connection with these percentages, that kits of tools for mechanics and artisans were distributed by the Los Angeles Tool Fund in addition to the 376 cash grants for tools noted above; also that the amount given for housing as stated in the table does not include the camp cottages[143] 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 cases	Amount granted	Average amount per applicant
Housing	450	$289,989.90	$644.42
Business rehabilitation	162	86,250.34	532.41
General relief	35	19,579.90	559.42
Total	647	$395,820.14	$611.78

[145] In determining the amount received by each applicant, both principal and subsidiary grants have been considered.

In 576 instances the sum given was for a single purpose; in the business group, in 71 instances for two or more purposes. For example, in 28 instances the money was for business only; in 40 for business and for household furniture, for the expenses of an illness, or for some other subsidiary purpose. In the housing group, in 131, the money was for building only; in but 31 instances was it for household aid or general relief.

The highest grant for housing was $1,230.40, the highest for business, $1,100, but the latter included a tuition fee for a member of the family. The largest grant for general relief was $1,045, which included the expenses of a long illness.

In addition to the cases presented in the table there were two for household aid which came to $500 and $600 respectively as a result of duplication, in the one case through the United Irish Societies, and in the other, through the confidential committee.

To complete the picture, we present the grants and refusals passed on by sub-committees and by the Rehabilitation Committee during the fourth rehabilitation period from November 4, 1906, to April 9, 1907. The object of this presentation is to show the proportion of applications passed on without the intervention of a sub-committee.

TABLE 43.—APPLICATIONS FOR RELIEF PASSED UPON BY SUB-COMMITTEES AND BY THE REHABILITATION COMMITTEE, WITHOUT ACTION BY A SUB-COMMITTEE, IN THE PERIOD FROM NOVEMBER 1, 1906, TO APRIL 1, 1907, BY NATURE OF THE APPLICATION[146]

Nature of applications for relief	Appli- cations passed upon	Appli- cations passed upon by sub- commit- tees	APPLICATIONS PASSED UPON BY THE REHABILITATION COMMITTEE WITHOUT ACTION BY A SUB-COMMITTEE
			Number	Per cent of all appli- cations
Household furniture	5,647	5,099	548	9.7
Business rehabilitation	3,414	3,095	319	9.3
General relief	2,873	2,504	369	12.8
Housing	1,788	1,690	98	5.5
Transportation	144	93	51	35.4
Tools for mechanics and artisans	48	31	17	35.4
Total	13,914	12,512	1,402	10.1

[146] Of the 13,970 cases passed upon in the period to which this table relates, 56 could not be classified according to the plan adopted.

4. the Re-Opening of Cases to Make Further Grants

It was the aim of the Rehabilitation Committee to make final disposition of each application for a specific object by means of a single grant. This it succeeded in doing in the cases of 17,560 (86.8 per cent) of all applicants aided. Before the other 2,681 applications were finally disposed of, 5,777 grants had been made, usually at the rate of two grants to a case. Three grants were rarely made, although there were exceptional cases of applicants who received three or four different kinds of aid in five or six separate grants.

Table 44 shows the extent to which re-opening occurred.[147]

[147] In addition to cases analyzed above and in the table, 904 cases which were at first refused were afterwards re-opened to receive a grant.

TABLE 44.—NUMBER OF RE-OPENED CASES BY NATURE OF FIRST GRANT

Nature of first grant	Total number of cases	RE-OPENED CASES
		Number	Per cent of all cases
Household furniture	9,552	1,299	13.6
Business rehabilitation	4,524	540	11.9
General relief	3,787	657	17.3
Housing	1,212	62	5.1
Transportation	799	37	4.6
Tools for mechanics and artisans	367	86	23.4
Total	20,241	2,681	13.2

The form of aid through which the greatest proportion of cases was disposed of by a single grant was transportation. Of these but 4.6 per cent were ever re-opened.

A single grant for transportation was effective in so high a proportion of cases because the applicant as a rule was being sent where work awaited him or to relatives pledged to furnish him a home.[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 than $100	$100 and less than $200	$200 and less than $300	$300 and less than $400	$400 and less than $500	$500 and over
Household furniture	4,708	4,460	721	63	4	2	9,958
Business rehabilitation	1,018	1,730	1,402	420	156	162	4,888
General relief	2,307	1,420	619	114	37	35	4,532
Housing	92	333	743	102	67	450	1,787
Transportation	729	106	22	5	2	2	866
Tools	358	21	—	—	—	—	379
Total	9,212	8,070	3,507	704	266	651	22,410
Per cent	41.1	36.0	15.7	3.1	1.2	2.9	100.0

[149] Because of variations in the practice of treating successive grants of the same nature to a single applicant as a single grant or as different grants, the figures in the “total” column of this table differ from the corresponding figures presented in other tables and in the text.

The table indicates the amounts allotted to individuals for the various forms of rehabilitation, and brings out striking differences in the sums required for different purposes. Of the 9,958 homes furnished, 9,168 (92.1 per cent) were refurnished at less than $200 each, and 4,708 of these (47.3 per cent of the total) at less than $100. The larger sums, $200 and more, usually mean that a family having spent its first furniture grant for some other justifiable purpose was later given a second furniture grant, or that the so-called furniture grant included $50 to $100 given for clothing and 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 number of applicants	Applicants to whom relief was refused	APPLICANTS TO WHOM RELIEF WAS GRANTED
			Number	Per cent of all appli- cants
Less than $100	785	73	712	90.7
$100 and less than $200	673	71	602	89.5
$200 and less than $400	1,235	162	1,073	86.9
$400 and less than $600	770	144	626	81.3
$600 and less than $1,000	576	143	433	75.2
$1,000 and over	1,271	480	791	62.2
Not stated	922	201	721	78.2
Total	6,232	1,274	4,958	79.6

To summarize, 77.1 per cent of all grants were for less than $200, and of these more than half, or 41.1 per cent of the entire 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						Total
	House- hold furni- ture	Busi- ness reha- bilita- tion	Gen- eral relief	Hous- ing	Trans- porta- tion	Tools
Not burned out	13	12	71	56	6	11	169
Not in need	180	87	165	42	6	20	500
Has collectable insurance	115	53	34	5	3	1	211
Is earning wages	837	113	183	74	21	122	1,350
Can work	150	82	102	13	45	38	430
Relatives can aid	35	15	45	4	9	5	113
Other members of family already aided	13	20	2	7	1	..	43
Already aided	187	136	95	96	4	6	524
Has savings	442	191	107	169	7	22	938
No plan	22	5	15	2	3	1	48
Plan not approved	9	131	23	66	40	..	269
Plan not definite	9	32	7	10	10	1	69
Applicant for transportation can well work here	..	..	..	..	31	..	31
Advices from applicants’ proposed destination unfavorable	..	..	..	..	10	..	10
Not in business before fire	..	94	..	..	..	..	94
Not successful in business	..	3	..	..	..	..	3
Character defective	100	75	58	13	12	6	264
Has not complied with committee’s requirements	47	43	28	52	24	2	196
Committee has no funds (August to November, 1906)	..	22	..	..	..	..	22
Total	2,159	1,114	935	609	232	235	5,284

[152] It will be noted that the totals of this table are considerably larger than the corresponding totals of Tables 33 and 34. The difference seems to be due to the fact that in preparing Table 47 two or more refusals of aid on a single application were treated as separate refusals.