In 41 per cent of the bonus cases the application was filed by the wife or some other woman member of the family, and the grant was made in her name. The large number of women applicants may be explained in part by the fact that the blank application for a bonus had to be signed by the owner of the lot, whether man or woman,[195] and it is a common practice in San Francisco, as elsewhere, for a husband to put his property in his wife’s name. Furthermore, [Table 75] shows a large proportion of widows among the applicants and a small proportion of widowers.
[195] See form in [Appendix II], [p. 447].
The size of the family was, as a rule, not large, and the burden of dependence carried not heavy. In only 28 cases were there persons other than children who were wholly dependent. In 43 cases relatives or friends lived with the family, but were either self-supporting or made contribution to the family income. There were 1,333 children of these families, or 2.7 to a family, not all of whom were living at home; many, married or single, were living and working away from their parents.
TABLE 76.—AGES OF APPLICANTS RECEIVING AID UNDER THE BONUS PLAN[196]
| Age period | Applicants in each age period |
|---|---|
| Less than 30 years | 6 |
| 30 years and less than 40 years | 80 |
| 40 years and less than 50 years | 144 |
| 50 years and less than 60 years | 116 |
| 60 years and less than 70 years | 108 |
| 70 years and less than 80 years | 33 |
| 80 years and over | 2 |
| Total | 489 |
[196] Note the difference in ages between those receiving the bonus and the camp cottage occupants. See [Part IV], [p. 225].
It will be seen from [Table 76] that 47 per cent of the applicants were under fifty years of age and that 29 per cent were over sixty years of age. The few that had reached an advanced age were given a bonus not on account of their need, but as a stimulus to build on their property in the burned district.
The health of the family was more fully recorded than in the case of the camp cottagers. No note was made of such minor ailments, or accidents, as would bring no handicap, but 181, or 37 per cent, of the families suffered from sickness and accident to such an extent that there was a distinct handicap, either through burdensome doctors’ bills, or by having the source of income temporarily reduced or cut off. Including the 53 families who had sustained deaths, 48 per cent of the whole number were shown to have suffered from the effects of illness or accident. This total burden should not, however, be reckoned as an aftermath of the disaster.[197]
[197] For general health conditions during period immediately following the disaster, see [Part I], [p. 89] ff.