Ignoring those who managed to make a start, let us briefly consider the 12 who failed to do so. A woman who planned to separate from her husband was granted money to establish a rooming house to support herself and baby. By mistake the money was handed to the husband, who kept it and turned her and the child out of the house. She then obtained a divorce but she never recovered the money. A tailor, sixty-one, who claimed he was “afraid of the high rents,” spent his grant for living expenses. The visitor could see no reason why he should not have made a start. In the other 10 cases there was serious illness or disability in the families, so the grants were spent to meet doctors’, hospital, or undertakers’ bills. In each instance the expenditure was an error of judgment on the part of the beneficiary, as he might have made a second claim on the relief fund for medical aid until his business should be on a paying basis. It showed a hesitancy in applying for relief to be expected on the part of those whose lifelong habit was to be entirely independent. The 12 families could have been started in business if the expenditure of the grants had been supervised by a third person acting as agent of the committee.
Cigar store of an Italian cripple
Store owned by a German-Swiss couple
Business Rehabilitation
The policy of supervision should not have been extended to all business cases, for the applicants were of all the classes seeking aid the ones best fitted to put money to good use. But supervision might well have been extended to all the families which carried obvious burdens of illness or such handicaps as advancing years, a visionary outlook, or a lack of initiative. The advantages to be derived from adequate supervision are shown by the experience of 35 cases re-visited other than the 21 mentioned above. In all of these 35 cases the results were mutually satisfactory. In some cases the supervision was found to have gone no further than the committee’s seeing that a plan was perfected and a location secured; in others to the extent that an applicant was not allowed to handle the grant money, it being expended on his behalf by one of the committee’s visitors, by some other organization, or by a personal friend acting as trustee. Consequently, the 35 started business, and of the 33 found by the Relief Survey visitors, 23 were still in business.
Guidance in expenditure would undoubtedly have secured the permanent re-establishment of many a family that through no fault of its own had dropped hopelessly behind in the race. A supervised payment by instalments, payments subsequent to a first instalment being conditional on a square business start having been made, provided that the first instalment had been adequate for a start, would have resulted in the canceling of second instalments on grants made to persons with no original intention of re-entering business or with changed plans.
Timeliness of Grant.
The second question, “Was the grant timely?” cannot be answered by a positive “yes” or “no,” as the elusive personal equation makes assertions fallible. In some cases the beneficiary could with reason claim that earlier aid would have been more effective.