San Francisco Relief Survey; the organization and methods of relief used after the earthquake and fire of April 18, 1906

Chapter XXI: Part II: Rehabilitation (2)

Text size

[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;

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

TABLE 31.--B. AMOUNT EXPENDED BY BUREAU OF SPECIAL RELIEF FOR ADMINISTRATION AND FOR SUPPLIES FROM AUGUST 15, 1906, TO JUNE 30, 1907

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.

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

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.

Previous Next

Comments

San Francisco Relief Survey; the organization and methods of relief used after the earthquake and fire of April 18, 1906Chapter XXI: Part II: Rehabilitation (2)

0%35 min left in chapter