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.