3. SUMMARY OF THE RESULTS OF BUSINESS REHABILITATION
Business rehabilitation was successful, then, to the extent that of the 894 applicants aided who were visited, 683 started in business and 543 were still in business in 1908.[167] Of the 211 applicants who received grants, but did not enter business, 10 are known to have died; 63 abandoned altogether their plans for entering business; 21 modified their plans as stated to the Committee, or substituted other plans; 10 spent their grants for housing, furniture, or living expenses; and one invested the grant in his son’s business. Data as to the 106 remaining cases are lacking.
[167] See [Table 57], [p. 186].
It seemed to the reviewer unlikely that any of the 63 applicants who had abandoned the idea of going into business at the time of the grant would ever enter business again. Thirty-nine were working for wages, nine were housewives, and nine were dependent. Data concerning six are incomplete.
As to the causes of the breaking down of the plans for rehabilitation presented to the Committee, the amount of capital available appears to have played its part. While for nine of the 63 cases in which the plan broke down utterly, the amount of capital was not known, in only nine of the remaining 54 cases, or about 17 per cent, was the capital as large as $500. Of those, on the other hand, who merely modified their plans, or who substituted others, over half had $500 or more working capital. In 57 cases it is known how the grant was spent: in 20 instances it went for general living expenses; in 11 instances for illness and in six others for funeral expenses; in 11 for household furniture; in three for housing; in two for clothing; in two for old debts; in one for a typewriter; and in one for transportation.
In 42 of the 63 cases of breakdown of the plan, there is strong internal evidence that the grant was either inadequate (23 cases), given too late (eight cases); or given without supervision, of which there was an obvious need (11 cases). In six cases the applicant appears to have been deficient in enterprise, and in 11 cases the applicant’s circumstances changed after receiving the grant. Of the four remaining cases little is known.
Sickness and death and household and personal needs consumed more than three-fifths of the diverted grants. In the summer and fall of 1906 the members of the Rehabilitation Committee often shaved down grants because of a perfectly natural fear of a future shortage of funds. A mental habit of caution was being formed during these months of uncertainty which without doubt affected Committee VI in its later handling of some 1,690 cases. Some of these applications were very properly refused. The 894 re-visited applicants who were aided were given grants averaging $247. With the half million dollars that Committee VI had on hand, the grants could have been made to average $400 for the 1,226 grantees aided by this committee. Doubtless grants of such an amount, augmented when necessary to provide money for furniture and clothing, coupled with more frequent supervision, would have reduced materially the number that failed to re-establish. Failures would then have been largely confined to those few persons who showed themselves deficient in enterprise, or whose circumstances changed so completely after receipt of the grant as to make re-establishment impossible.