| Business status | CASES IN WHICH CAPITAL WAS LOW | Cases in which capital was high | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Grant small | Grant large | |||
| In business at time of revisit | 66 | 41 | 57 | 164 |
| Started and discontinued | 29 | 7 | 9 | 45 |
| Did not start | 27 | 5 | 4 | 36 |
| Total | 122 | 53 | 70 | 245 |
[165] Information relative to the amount of capital was secured for only 245 of the 249 applicants receiving business rehabilitation for personal and domestic service concerning whom data are presented in [Table 60].
The classification of capital as high and low, and of grants as large and small, has been discussed in the [preceding chapter]. The first group dealt with in the [table], which will be called for convenience the small-grant low-capital group, consists of persons whose grant was less than $300 and whose capital available for business, including grant, was less than $700. Their enterprises in general were those of side streets and out-of-the-way locations.
The second group, known as the large-grant low-capital group, is made up of persons whose grant was $300 or more, but whose entire capital was no more than $700. They were largely persons whose previous enterprises had been capitalized at over $700 and to whom the Rehabilitation Committee gave liberal grants with the idea that the applicant would go into debt for the balance needed.
There remains a third group of the high-capital group which was previously capitalized at from $700 up and which expected to go into business in fairly prominent locations, on something like the old scale. As its members had considerable resources, the grant, while it played an important part in the applicant’s rehabilitation, was not the sole factor determining a start. Such was frequently the case in the two low-capital groups. The distinction between large grants and small grants, as it is of much less importance to the members of this group than to the members of the two low-capital groups, has not been indicated in the table.
It will be noted from the table that the proportion of applicants aided who were in business at the time of the re-visit was largest for the high-capital group, and much larger for the large-grant low-capital group than for the small-grant low-capital group. Brief consideration will now be given to each of the three groups.
The small-grant low-capital group has 122 members. Of its members 93 were given aid to open boarding and rooming houses, 15 to open barber or hairdressing establishments, eight to start restaurants, three to start laundries, and three to set up boot-blacking stands. Nearly two-thirds of the group were widows, and 57 were persons or couples living alone.
At the time the grants were made, 93, or more than three-fourths of this group, had no other resources; 27 had savings, collectible insurance, or real estate available for business. Data are lacking as to the resources of the two remaining individuals.
It was the hope of the Rehabilitation Committee that the large proportion of persons who came empty-handed, would, on receipt of a lump sum in itself insufficient to establish a business, develop latent resources. Such was often the result. Of the 93 cases mentioned above as having no before-fire resources, 46 received cash gifts other than the relief grant, negotiated friendly loans, or were allowed credit with former dealers. The manifestly right function of a relief grant of money for business is distribution such as will not supplant aid from other sources. But what of the small grants given to persons who could by neither hook nor crook obtain a supplemental sum? Forty-six of the 93 did succeed in getting help from other sources, and with three exceptions, made a start. Forty-seven did not succeed in getting help from other sources, 19 of whom failed to start. Of this 47, more than one-third were past the age of fifty. It is precisely in the cases of these individuals who have no other resources that supervising visitors would prove useful in devising ways and means to get a venture launched, arranging if necessary for a further committee grant.
An inspection of the case records seems to show that the members of the small-grant low-capital group who increased their resources by borrowing were, on the whole, more successful than those who did not borrow. Of the 50 applicants who went into debt, 34, about two-thirds, were found in business in 1908, while of the 70 who incurred no debt, only 30, considerably less than one-half, were in business. In the two remaining cases of the 122, the data were incomplete. The plan of the Rehabilitation Committee then, which was to have applicants use their grants as the means of a start on a credit basis, seems justified as applied to those individuals who have the courage to assume necessary debts.