The applicants who did not go into debt seem to have been ultra-conservative persons for whom the rehabilitation program was too strenuous. Doubtless for the most part they did well not to go into debt. Most probably these were frugal souls who had never incurred risks but had saved their wages and not made their original start until they could equip a business for cash. Afterwards they had doubtless continued, as they started, paying cash as they went along. It is not to be expected of those who have done business on a cash basis all their lives, that, when the passing years have done their work of lessening initiative, they should cheerfully and confidently assume a burden of debt. It would seem to be the duty of a relief committee to recognize the handicap on those trying to earn their living through business who never possessed the initiative of the typical business man, have been robbed of it by age or ill health, or have been made conservative by domestic responsibilities.
The 122 cases of the small-grant low-capital group comprise one-half of the re-visited persons to whom aid had been given for enterprises in personal or domestic service. In view of the fact that but 66 of the 122, slightly over one-half, were in business in 1908, it seems evident that a considerable number of these families (1) should not have been given money except for household rehabilitation, (2) should have been given sums materially larger in amount, or (3) should have been given the advantage of expert supervision.
Before leaving the subject of rehabilitation in personal service, it will be well to note briefly the remaining 123 cases, which number divide themselves into a large-grant low-capital group of 53 cases and a high-capital group of 70 cases.
The occupations of the members of the large-grant low-capital group were much the same as the foregoing; of the 53 in this group, 40 secured grants for boarding and rooming houses, seven for barber shops, and six for restaurants. As in the case of the preceding group, a number of the applicants went into debt in order to increase their capital available for business; and again the Relief Survey records show that those who incurred debt were, in general, more successful than those who did not. Extreme care must, however, be exercised in formulating conclusions because of the small number of cases involved.
The 70 persons in the high-capital group represent higher standards and more ambitious plans than the members of the preceding groups. The grants were often small in amount because the applicant’s resources were known to be substantial. Capital ranged in this group from $700 to nearly $3,000. Again, rooming houses are in the ascendancy. There were 56 grants for this purpose, seven for restaurants, three for barber shops, two for laundries, one for a towel supply concern, and one for a window-cleaning enterprise. The families were constituted much as in the small-grant low-capital group, over two-fifths being individuals or couples living alone. Among the 175 cases of the two low-capital groups, in which capital was under $700, only one-fifth of the number had savings, insurance, or real estate available for business. In this high-capital group 36, or more than half of the cases, had resources.
Twenty-five out of the 36 who had resources, and every one of the 34 who were without resources, went into debt, and all but four of the 70 started business. In the low-capital groups those who stayed out of debt exceeded those who incurred it. In this group, the great majority had gone into debt, even including the greater number of those who had insurance or savings in addition to their grant.
Of 11 applicants who avoided debt, three did not start in business, but eight who did so remained in business; while of the remaining 59, who borrowed, all but one started, and 49 remained in business. Because of the small number of cases, and particularly of cases in which no debt was assumed, these figures must not be construed as establishing a relationship between success and borrowing or failing to borrow.
Some comparisons between these three groups are suggestive. It seems that the families in the small-grant low-capital group must have needed much more money than they had, or so many would not have failed to get into business as planned. The small grants they received were not enough to encourage them to incur a moderate debt and go ahead. Consequently, only slightly over one-half succeeded in establishing themselves in business.
Persons in the large-grant low-capital group appear not to have needed much additional assistance, for while considerably over half of them got along without incurring debt, over three-fourths were established in business.
Those in the high-capital group needed sums of $700 or more to resume business on anything like the old scale. The grants they received were in many cases actually, and in most cases relatively, small. Even though many had substantial resources, yet nearly all went into debt. That the capital with which members of this group entered business was, in general, sufficient, seems to be indicated by the fact that 57 of the 70 were in business at the time of the re-visit.