| Nature of occupation | Applicants whose occupations were as specified | APPLICANTS IN BUSINESS IN 1908 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Number | Per cent of all applicants receiving grants | ||
| Professional | 79 | 68 | 86.1 |
| Manufacturing and mechanical industries | 183 | 146 | 80.0 |
| Trade | 175 | 124 | 70.9 |
| Personal and domestic service | 249 | 168 | 67.5 |
| Transportation and miscellaneous pursuits | 16 | 7 | 43.8 |
| Total | 702 | 513 | 73.1 |
[164] In this table data are presented for only the 702 applicants of the 894 investigated for whom complete information relative to occupation and business success or failure was secured.
The occupations shown in the [table] are not necessarily those for which the grants were given, but the occupations in which applicants were found engaged in 1908.
If one thing stands out more clearly than another it is, that following a disaster, persons who seek to re-establish themselves in professional or manufacturing pursuits have a much higher expectation of success than those that seek to re-establish themselves in trade or as proprietors in some branch of personal and domestic service, such as a restaurant or a rooming house.
On an earlier page it has been noted that some applicants were unable to make a start because of lack of capital. Lack of capital was less seriously felt by those having mechanical or professional skill, to whom the amount of capital held appeared to be of slight moment, than by those in the two remaining groups. The relation of capital to success in the trade and in the personal service groups is treated, therefore, at some length in connection with the detailed discussion of these groups.
The Professional Group
Of the 88 members of the professional group re-visited, 79 whose cases furnished data complete on the points to be considered are here studied. As for the grants made, none exceeded $500 and 50 were for $250 or less. Those whose offices, studios, and in many cases, homes also, had been burned, had little left in the way of material possessions. Twenty persons are noted on the visitors’ schedules as having had no resources other than their grants. The amounts with which the members of this group essayed to re-establish themselves were as follows: 34, less than $500; 24, $500 and less than $700; and only 21, $700 or more. The outcome by 1908 was: of the first group 29 were still in business; of the second, 20; and of the third, 19. There were eight who had not started, and three who had started and discontinued.
In the cases of those that did start, the grant was as a rule applied as a cash payment toward equipment. The difference between the amount of capital and the amount of the grant, in general, measures the amount of credit allowed by wholesalers in the purchase of instruments and equipment. The proportion of success is high even among those with least capital at their disposal, and no direct relation is to be discovered between amount of capital and success except in the cases of a dentist and a photographer who were found to be working for wages and to be adding savings to their grants so as to start later with better equipment. Six others, as stated above, also failed to start. A woman pianist married and gave up her profession. A woman physician accepted a position in her alma mater as an instructor. A stenographer took a position on salary instead of opening her own office. An elderly music teacher became a chronic invalid and was admitted to the Relief Home. A man who had wanted to resume his work of giving electric treatments took instead a position with the city board of health and the visitor who saw him thinks he did not intend to resume his old line. Supervision of his grant of $250 would have tested his good faith. Another case which should have been supervised was that of an elderly showman who was given $450 to replace the tent used to house the wax figures of his quaint historical show. He spent most of the business grant for an operation to restore the failing sight of his elderly wife. A supervisor could have arranged for surgical care without interfering with rehabilitation.
Three cases, as noted, started but to discontinue. A physician who had received $450 from the Rehabilitation Committee and $100 from the Physicians’ Fund, opened an office; then, having closed it “on account of dull times,” left the city. A gymnasium director set up his equipment, but found his location a poor one; therefore he stored his apparatus and closed his place until he should find a better. A public stenographer had typist’s cramp from overwork. When able to resume work, he took a salaried position. More careful investigation and supervision of the eleven unsuccessful cases would probably have resulted in withholding the grant from one man, and getting one other into business. But as a group the applicants accomplished all that was possible under the circumstances, and that without the use of large sums of money.