Another weakness of the centralized system, and a serious one, was that it necessitated the crossing of each other’s paths by the various sub-committees. It was to be expected that by no imaginable classification of applications short of an arbitrary division along geographical lines, could confusion be avoided. As all charity organization workers know, an application for a specific form of aid may upon investigation indicate that a totally different form of relief is required. In the first two months, under the centralized system, there was much referring of applications from committee to committee, as new or changed needs were revealed; but in December, to prevent delays, it was decided that the committee to whom an application was first assigned should see it through to the end, no matter what form of rehabilitation was found to be required.
Considering the blurring of hard and fast lines that this decision entailed, together with the crossing of paths incident to the division of work, it is not surprising that the development of group specialists was by no means as complete as was anticipated. The sub-committees found it impossible to keep to the spheres of work outlined. There was, however, considerable variation in treatment by the different sub-committees. In the nature of the case, the first four committees had largely to do with applications for “general relief” and hence of necessity crossed paths more than the remaining committees. Among the different fields of activity, housing stands distinctive as being the most highly specialized. On the other hand, business rehabilitation and general relief were so generally cared for by the first four committees that all of them might well claim joint tenancy of these fields.
During October the policy had been adopted of making no further grants to able-bodied single people,[120] to heads of families capable of supporting those dependent on them, or to applicants to start in a business that called for a special license or that had to be put under special police supervision. This last exception was made to prohibit grants for saloons. On October 12, the Rehabilitation Committee learned officially that business rehabilitation might be resumed, as the New York Chamber of Commerce on October 2 had resolved to transfer $500,000 to the Corporation, with the proviso that the money be used for “the rehabilitation of those sufferers who by reason of the disaster have been deprived of the use of stocks or goods, utensils, tools, implements of labor, etc., and thus to help them to establish themselves in their professions or trades.”
[120] A reiteration of former policy.
Barber shop and shack constructed of boxes
A drinking place
Early Business Ventures
The question of who should be responsible for making final decisions as to grants was reopened in the beginning of the period of centralization, and on November 1 it was finally determined that emergency cases that involved an expenditure of less than $50 might be approved by the chairman, or in his absence, by the vice-chairman of a sub-committee, provided the action were reported by the vice-chairman to the chairman if the former had acted in the absence of his superior; that grants for amounts under $500 might be approved by the chairman of a sub-committee; and that grants for amounts of $500 or more must be approved by at least two members of the Rehabilitation Committee or by the chairman and two members of a sub-committee, provided in the latter case the action was reported to and entered on the minutes of the meetings of the Rehabilitation Committee. The last restriction led to frequent drawing of checks to the amount of $499. Later the Committee made special provision for the granting of money for loans[121] so as not to embarrass the work of its sub-committee on housing.