No solution was furnished by the population of the various camps because even if their total population had been known, it would not have given a clue to the number of families who were living with relatives or friends or as tenants in the overcrowded quarters. Unlike the ordinary relief society, the Committee could not estimate the total actual needs of its prospective applicants. Therefore it had to fix definite limitations for grants[97] to those who first applied so that later applicants, with needs equally great, might not suffer injustice.
[97] A classification of grants was in use which had been adopted by the Red Cross Special Bureau. The headings of this classification were “Tools,” “Household Re-establishment,” “Business Enterprise,” “Special Relief,” “Transportation.” Special Relief was used to describe a miscellaneous group of grants, and to prevent its being confused with the later Bureau of Special Relief (see [Part II], [p. 145]), it will hereafter in this study be designated “General Relief.”
With these considerations in mind the Committee at its first meeting moved to limit the vast bulk of grants to sums of $500 or less. The decision was that a grant that did not exceed $200 could be approved by one member of the Committee, that grants of from $200 to $500 should require the signatures of two members, and that grants of more than $500 should require the action of the entire Committee. During the first few months the number of separate grants of $500 or over, exclusive of housing grants, was but 121, the general assumption in the Committee room and among the rehabilitation workers being that the number of families to receive over $500 should be small.
Eventually, of the 20,241 families assisted by the Committee, 647 families received as much as $500 each.[98] It was not realized at the beginning that in a great number of instances there would be re-openings and new applications leading to the granting of new forms of rehabilitation; that, for example, a family would be helped first to re-establish itself in business and later to build a house. Supplementary grants that increased the total allowance to a family to more than $500 were not passed upon by the Committee as a whole, though at several meetings the question of requiring the Committee to act as a whole on the issuance of a series of grants in excess of $500 to an applicant was informally discussed. No official action, however, followed the discussions. Before the middle of July the Committee sent to the newspapers and to others interested, a circular in which was outlined its general purpose. In this its aim was shown to be not to determine the size of grants by the extent of losses, but to help those to re-establish themselves who were unable, even upon a contracted basis, to do so without assistance.
[98] The difference between these figures and the figures given in [Table 45] on [page 165] is due to the fact that successive grants of the same nature to a single applicant were, in making some compilations, treated as a single grant, and in making others, as successive grants.
The wisdom of limiting the size of grants may be questioned by some, but there is no doubt of its paramount importance in giving a rough basis for work at a time when it was impossible to estimate the number of families that would require assistance. It is hard to conceive of the setting of any other standard than this. Without it the possibilities for confusion and injustice were unusually large. The decision was reached not only from motives of prudence but also from the Committee’s sense of responsibility in dealing with such large amounts of money as would undoubtedly be placed in its hands. That the feeling of personal responsibility was large was made evident by other actions of the Committee.[99]
[99] Under somewhat similar circumstances the Chicago Fire Commission practically limited special relief expenditures to $200 per grant. See Report of the Chicago Relief and Aid Society of Disbursements of Contributions for the Sufferers by the Chicago Fire (1874), p. 199.
After the Department of Camps and Warehouses was created on August 1, 1906, the Rehabilitation Committee[100] finally adopted its own policy with reference to families living in the camps, a policy which as has been seen[101] had been gradually taking shape during July. The whole question of the rehabilitation of camp families had been considered at a lunch given before his departure east by Dr. Devine to the members of the Committee and the staff. The conclusions of this informal conference did not take official form, but they may be accepted as marking the first step in the formulation of the policy. They were: That the camps should provide for the immediate needs of their inmates; that no stated sum could be set aside for the ultimate use of those who were expected to become permanent charges; and that no family living in a camp should be given rehabilitation aid until it had presented a definite plan for rehabilitation. It was felt that the effect upon applicants would be great if once they understood that it was useless for them to come to the Committee without definite and concrete plans. The subject of setting aside a sum for the use of the residue came up again in the latter part of August when Mr. Dohrmann, in making his estimates of the future disposition of funds, again and again called attention to the need of reserving large sums to re-establish camp families.
[100] Now a part of the Department of Relief and Rehabilitation, which included also the Bureau of Special Relief, Bureau of Hospitals, etc.