IV
WHAT THE REHABILITATION RECORDS SHOW
1. INTRODUCTORY
The survey of the rehabilitation work of the San Francisco Relief and Red Cross Funds had not gone far before the need of a tabulation of all the case records became apparent. Many questions of policy and administration were involved in accurately learning what the records indicated. Of course, in many matters of detail the records could not possibly give evidence necessary to reach absolute certainty. There would necessarily be many questions whose answers must be got from those who had had most experience in the work because they, the men, could offer stronger evidence than could any record. To other questions, however, it is plain, tabulation must give the final and convincing answer. For instance, in connection with the periods of time elapsing between application for and receipt of grants, the convincing evidence is the dates on the records.
The light that they throw upon such a point is only a small part of what the case records have to offer. Such data as the average size of the grants, and not only the average size of all grants but of grants for particular purposes,—these the enumeration furnishes. Then there are the questions involved in reopening cases and in making second grants. In short, it is believed that the returns obtained from the analysis of every rehabilitation case record will serve not only as a register of the rehabilitation work after the San Francisco fire, but as a post with many signs for those who may be called upon to do a similar work in the future,—not necessarily as the result of a catastrophe having like magnitude but of one by which the destruction of a large portion of a city, its residential and its business sections, is effected. Wherever a public calamity brings such blight the lessons and returns of the San Francisco rehabilitation work will be of value.
In making the study upon which the following tables are based, an arbitrary but essentially true classification of grants is made. In each record the grant involving the largest amount of money is considered the principal grant; another grant, smaller in amount and given for a different purpose, is called subsidiary. Thus, for instance, a family receives $300 to put up a house and $100 for furniture or household rehabilitation. The housing grant is principal, the household, subsidiary. Analysis of principal and subsidiary grants has been made in order to learn how often one form of rehabilitation was insufficient to accomplish the desired end. The terms “principal” and “subsidiary,” it will be noted, have no reference to priority of grants but simply to amounts involved.
2. SOCIAL DATA AND TOTAL GRANTS AND REFUSALS
The table first presented shows the final disposition of all the applications recorded.
TABLE 32.—DISPOSAL OF APPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATION FOLLOWING INVESTIGATION
| Disposal made of application | Applications disposed of as specified |
|---|---|
| Cases in which aid was allowed | 20,241 |
| Cases in which aid was refused | 2,909 |
| Cases closed without action | 2,447 |
| Applications referred elsewhere | 485 |
| Applications withdrawn by applicant | 439 |
| Applications cancelled | 207 |
| Requisitions issued | 199 |
| Relief given, but not in money | 172 |
| Applications otherwise disposed of without the granting of relief | 236 |
| Total | 27,335 |