Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Poorhouses

Poorhouses, also termed workhouses in England or almshouses in some American contexts, were government-operated facilities intended to furnish minimal sustenance, lodging, and mandatory labor to the destitute, disabled, elderly, orphans, and vagrants, functioning primarily as a deterrent to idleness and a cost-control measure for public relief from the 17th century until their widespread obsolescence in the mid-20th century.^[1]^[2] Originating under England's Elizabethan Poor Law of 1601, which mandated parish-based support for the "impotent poor" while distinguishing the able-bodied for corrective labor, these institutions evolved into centralized workhouses under the 1834 Poor Law Amendment Act, emphasizing "less eligibility" principles to render indoor relief inferior to the lowest-paid wages, thereby discouraging dependency.^[3]^[4] In colonial America, poorhouses mirrored English models, with the first established in Boston in 1660 to house and employ paupers auctioned to the lowest bidder or confined for self-sufficiency through tasks like farming or crafting.^[1] By the 19th century, they proliferated across U.S. counties, accommodating a heterogeneous population amid industrialization's disruptions, where poverty stemmed from economic cycles, family breakdowns, or infirmity rather than uniform moral failing, though administrators often imposed regimens of stone-breaking, oakum-picking, or farm work to enforce discipline and offset expenses.^[2]^[4] Conditions within poorhouses were deliberately austere—crowded dormitories, meager diets of gruel and bread, and familial separations—to replicate or undercut market incentives, yielding lower per-capita costs than outdoor alms but fostering documented issues like disease outbreaks, elevated mortality (particularly among children), and administrative graft in underfunded rural facilities.^[5]^[3] Their decline accelerated post-World War I with expanding private charity, state pensions, and the U.S. Social Security Act of 1935, which shifted toward individualized aid and obviated mass institutionalization, though remnants persisted into the 1950s as elderly care precursors amid causal debates over whether poorhouses mitigated or entrenched pauperism cycles.^[2]^[1]

Definition and Purpose

Historical Origins and Rationale

The institutional origins of poorhouses trace to the English Poor Law system, codified in the Act for the Relief of the Poor enacted in 1601 during the reign of Elizabeth I. This legislation mandated that each parish appoint overseers to collect a "poor rate" tax from property owners, using the funds to relieve local paupers unable to support themselves through no fault of their own, such as the aged, infirm, or orphaned.^[6] ^[7] Prior statutes from the 14th and 15th centuries had addressed vagrancy and sporadic relief, but the 1601 Act systematized parish-based responsibility, distinguishing between the "impotent poor" deserving of aid and the able-bodied who required compulsion to labor. Early workhouses, precursors to formalized poorhouses, appeared sporadically from the late 17th century, with the first municipal examples in cities like Bristol (1696) and Exeter (1698), where paupers were housed collectively and set to tasks like spinning or stone-breaking to offset costs.^[8] The rationale for poorhouses emphasized deterrence over benevolence, rooted in a causal view that unmitigated outdoor relief—cash or goods provided at home—fostered dependency and eroded the societal work ethic, potentially swelling pauper numbers amid population growth and economic disruptions like enclosures and harvest failures. Policymakers, influenced by Protestant doctrines equating idleness with moral sin, designed indoor relief in poorhouses to replicate punitive conditions inferior to low-wage labor, thereby incentivizing self-reliance among the able-bodied while containing fiscal burdens on ratepayers.^[5] ^[9] This approach aimed to prevent vagrancy, which was perceived as a threat to property and order, by enforcing regimented labor and austere living—such as communal dormitories, uniform diets of gruel and bread, and separation of families—to render relief unappealing except as a last resort. Empirical observations from parish records indicated that generous home relief correlated with rising able-bodied claims, validating the shift toward institutional deterrence by the early 18th century.^[4] By prioritizing cost-efficiency and moral discipline, poorhouses reflected first-principles reasoning on human incentives: without the stigma and hardship of institutionalization, relief would disincentivize productive work, exacerbating poverty cycles as seen in pre-1601 vagrancy spikes. This framework influenced continental Europe minimally but profoundly shaped colonial adaptations, where local variations maintained the core logic of compelled labor to sustain community productivity.^[2] Critics of the era, including magistrates' reports, noted that while poorhouses housed thousands—reaching over 100,000 inmates by 1776—they succeeded in curbing outdoor relief claims by embedding fear of confinement as a cultural norm against idleness.^[10]

Core Objectives: Deterrence and Self-Reliance

The core objective of deterrence in poorhouses stemmed from the principle of less eligibility, which mandated that conditions within these institutions be inferior to those of the lowest-paid independent laborer, thereby discouraging able-bodied individuals from seeking relief and fostering reliance on personal effort.^[11]^[12] This approach, formalized in Britain's 1834 Poor Law Amendment Act, aimed to curb pauperism by making indoor relief unappealing compared to outdoor aid or self-support, with workhouse routines designed to instill discipline over material comfort.^[13] In practice, separation of families, monotonous labor, and spartan provisions enforced this deterrent effect, as evidenced by the Act's requirement for relief to be contingent on entering such facilities only after all other options were exhausted.^[14] Self-reliance was pursued through mandatory work systems within poorhouses, intended to rehabilitate inmates by simulating productive labor and breaking cycles of dependency, particularly targeting the "undeserving poor" deemed capable of employment.^[15] In the United States, where poorhouses or almshouses proliferated in the 19th century as alternatives to scattered outdoor relief, reformers emphasized institutional labor—such as farming or manufacturing—to instill habits of industry and reduce long-term fiscal burdens on localities.^[1] By 1824, states like New York mandated county-supported poorhouses with work requirements, reflecting a belief that structured toil would restore self-sufficiency, as articulated in early reports noting decreased applications for aid in districts enforcing such policies.^[15] These objectives intertwined deterrence with self-reliance, positing that harsh conditions would compel exit through renewed effort, though empirical outcomes varied; for instance, the 1834 Act's implementation reduced relief expenditures in some English unions by up to 30% within a decade by shifting from indiscriminate aid to work-tested institutional care.^[13] American poorhouses similarly sought to minimize "pauperism's expense" by deterring casual reliance, with data from mid-19th-century facilities showing labor outputs offsetting up to 40% of operational costs in productive rural settings.^[1] Critics, including contemporary observers like Edwin Chadwick, who influenced the Act, argued this system promoted moral regeneration via causal incentives, though it presupposed uniform employability amid economic fluctuations.^[14]

Historical Development

Pre-Modern Precursors in Europe

In medieval Europe, poor relief was predominantly managed through ecclesiastical institutions, including monasteries, convents, and hospices, which offered shelter, food, and basic care to the destitute, pilgrims, orphans, and infirm. Monastic houses served as the primary providers, with almonries distributing daily rations—such as bread, ale, and meat scraps—to crowds of poor assembled at their gates, a practice rooted in canon law mandating charity as a spiritual obligation. These efforts addressed chronic poverty exacerbated by famines, wars, and disease, but capacity was limited, often prioritizing the "deserving poor" like the aged or disabled over vagrants.^[16]^[17] From the 12th century onward, a surge in specialized hospitals and almshouses marked a shift toward more structured residential care, frequently founded by bishops, nobility, guilds, or urban authorities as endowed charities. In England, approximately 700 hospitals were established between the Norman Conquest of 1066 and the 16th-century Reformation, many functioning as almshouses for the impotent poor, providing lifelong lodging in exchange for prayers for founders' souls. Continental examples paralleled this, such as the expansion of Hôtel-Dieu institutions in France, where medieval foundations like that in Paris (originally 7th century, with significant 12th-13th century growth) housed up to 1,000 paupers by the late Middle Ages, funded by tithes, rents, and bequests. These facilities emphasized palliative support over cure, with inmates often residing in communal dormitories under religious oversight.^[18]^[19] Unlike subsequent poorhouses, these precursors lacked systematic work mandates or punitive deterrence, relying instead on voluntary endowments and ecclesiastical discipline to sustain operations. Relief was selective, excluding able-bodied beggars who faced expulsion or referral to manual labor, reflecting a theological distinction between voluntary poverty as virtuous and idleness as sinful. The dissolution of monasteries in England (1536–1541) under Henry VIII disrupted this system, housing over 10,000 paupers and prompting secular alternatives, while in Catholic regions, church institutions persisted longer amid urban poverty pressures.^[20]^[21]

British Poor Laws and Workhouses (16th-19th Centuries)

The Poor Relief Act 1601 formalized a parish-based system of relief under the Elizabethan Poor Law, mandating that local overseers provide for the "deserving" impotent poor—such as the aged, sick, and orphans—through a compulsory property tax known as the poor rate, while requiring the able-bodied to work or face confinement in houses of correction.^[22] This legislation built on earlier Tudor statutes, including the 1536 Act for the Punishment of Sturdy Vagabonds and Beggars, which aimed to curb vagrancy by classifying the poor into categories and authorizing local authorities to apprentice children and set them to labor.^[7] By 1572, further acts encouraged parishes to establish workhouses for employing the unemployed, reflecting a shift toward compulsory labor as a condition of aid to deter idleness and promote self-sufficiency amid post-enclosure population pressures.^[23] During the 17th and 18th centuries, the system evolved with increasing reliance on outdoor relief—cash or food subsidies distributed without institutional confinement—which expanded significantly after the 1690s settlement laws restricted paupers' mobility to their birth parish.^[3] In southern England, systems like Speenhamland (introduced around 1795 in Berkshire) indexed relief to bread prices and family size, subsidizing low wages to maintain social order during wartime inflation, but this led to escalating costs, reaching £8 million annually by 1833, or about 2% of national income.^[24] Workhouses proliferated voluntarily from the late 17th century, with over 2,000 parish-level facilities by 1776, often repurposed buildings where inmates performed tasks like spinning or stone-breaking under strict discipline to test willingness to work.^[25] These early workhouses emphasized deterrence through austerity, separating families and enforcing labor, though implementation varied widely by locality. The Poor Law Amendment Act 1834, prompted by a Royal Commission report documenting abuses in outdoor relief, centralized administration by grouping parishes into over 600 unions overseen by elected guardians and a national Poor Law Commission, making institutional workhouse relief the norm for the able-bodied poor.^[3] Key principles included "less eligibility," ensuring workhouse conditions were inferior to the lowest independent laborer's lot—typically sparse diets of gruel and bread, regimented routines from 5:30 a.m. wake-ups, and monotonous tasks—to discourage dependency and force self-reliance.^[24] By 1840, new union workhouses housed around 10% of paupers, with capacity expanding to over 300,000 inmates by mid-century, though resistance from local ratepayers and riots like the 1835 Samuel Day demonstrations highlighted tensions between cost-cutting reforms and humanitarian concerns.^[23] This "New Poor Law" reduced relief expenditures by 20-30% in many areas within a decade, prioritizing fiscal restraint over expansive aid.^[14]

Adoption and Evolution in the United States (18th-20th Centuries)

The adoption of poorhouses in the American colonies drew directly from the English Poor Law tradition, which emphasized local responsibility for the indigent through mechanisms like workhouses to deter idleness and promote labor.^[4] Early colonial settlements implemented similar systems, with overseers of the poor auctioning off dependents to the lowest bidder for maintenance or providing outdoor relief, but by the mid-18th century, institutional care gained traction in urban areas to centralize aid and enforce work requirements.^[26] New York City established its first almshouse in 1736 on the Commons, managed by overseers who combined it with a house of correction to house the poor, orphans, and minor offenders under a regime of labor and minimal sustenance.^[27] In the late 18th and early 19th centuries, states increasingly authorized counties to build poorhouses as an alternative to scattered outdoor relief, aiming to reduce costs by consolidating inmates and extracting labor value.^[2] By 1794, facilities like the Prince William County Poorhouse in Virginia opened, accommodating the destitute in basic frame structures where residents performed farm work or domestic tasks in exchange for shelter and food, reflecting a shift toward self-sustaining operations.^[28] This model proliferated during the industrial era; most states enacted enabling legislation in the 1820s-1830s, with New York mandating county poorhouses by 1824 to enforce the "indoor relief" principle, where aid was conditioned on institutional residence rather than home-based support.^[2] Almshouses evolved into rural "poor farms" by mid-century, often spanning dozens of acres where able-bodied inmates cultivated crops and livestock to offset expenses, serving a mix of paupers including the elderly, disabled, and vagrant.^[29] The 19th-century expansion saw poorhouses become the dominant public relief form, with over 2,000 such institutions by 1900 housing around 100,000 people annually, primarily in county-run facilities that blended care with compulsory labor to instill discipline. Urban almshouses like those in Philadelphia and Boston emphasized segregation by age and ability, while rural poor farms prioritized agricultural productivity, though conditions varied widely due to local funding from property taxes.^[30] Reform efforts, including state boards of charity established in the 1860s-1870s (e.g., Massachusetts in 1863), sought to standardize oversight and improve hygiene, but many facilities remained under-resourced, leading to mixed outcomes in cost savings versus inmate welfare.^[4] Into the early 20th century, poorhouses persisted as a safety net amid urbanization and immigration-driven poverty, but their role diminished with the rise of specialized institutions for the insane, orphans, and elderly, fragmenting the pauper population. The Great Depression strained these systems, prompting federal intervention; the Social Security Act of 1935 introduced old-age pensions and categorical aid, reducing poorhouse admissions by providing alternatives to institutional dependency for the aged, who comprised the majority of residents.^[31] By the 1940s-1950s, most states phased out or repurposed poor farms into county homes or nursing facilities, with operations ceasing nationwide by the 1960s as expansive welfare programs supplanted local poor relief.^[4]

Operational Features

Work Requirements and Labor Systems

In British workhouses established under the Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834, able-bodied inmates were required to perform manual labor as a condition of receiving relief, with the explicit goal of enforcing the "less eligibility" principle—ensuring workhouse conditions were inferior to those of the lowest-paid independent laborers outside to deter voluntary dependency.^[3] Common tasks included stone-breaking for road aggregate, crushing animal bones into manure fertilizer, and picking oakum by unraveling old ropes with a metal spike, often for 10-12 hours daily in segregated wards where conversation was prohibited to prevent idleness.^[23] These activities were frequently designed to be monotonous and unproductive rather than economically viable, prioritizing moral discipline and pauperism deterrence over profit, as evidenced by reports from the Poor Law Commissioners noting that labor output rarely covered maintenance costs but served to test willingness to work.^[14] Women and children faced gendered labor divisions, with females assigned to laundry, sewing, or cleaning, while boys might grind corn or assist in farming attached to larger unions; the 1834 Act mandated basic schooling for children alongside work to foster future self-reliance, though enforcement varied by parish.^[3] Elderly or infirm residents received lighter duties like knitting or sorting, but refusal to work could result in reduced rations or expulsion, reflecting the system's emphasis on distinguishing the "deserving" poor from the able-bodied unemployed.^[23] By the mid-19th century, over 500 workhouses operated under centralized unions, with labor regimes audited by inspectors to prevent abuses like favoritism, though contemporary accounts from guardians highlighted inconsistent productivity due to inmate health and task inefficiency.^[32] In the United States, poorhouses or almshouses adopted similar compulsory labor systems from the 1820s onward, influenced by British precedents, requiring residents to contribute work proportional to their capacity to offset institutional costs and promote industriousness amid limited public welfare alternatives.^[15] New York State's 1824 law mandated county poorhouses with attached work facilities, where inmates engaged in tasks such as weaving woolen cloth, cobbling shoes, or agricultural labor on "poor farms"—self-sustaining plots that by 1850 covered thousands of acres in states like Pennsylvania and Massachusetts, producing crops and livestock for internal use.^[2] ^[33] Urban almshouses, such as Philadelphia's founded in 1732 and expanded in the 19th century, integrated workhouses for manufacturing buttons, repairing linens, or stone-cutting, with overseers tracking output to enforce accountability; by 1860, approximately 1,000 such institutions existed nationwide, housing over 50,000 people annually, though labor often yielded minimal revenue due to unskilled workers and outdated methods.^[33] ^[29] Reforms in the 1870s, including Josiah Quincy's Boston model, emphasized vocational training in trades like carpentry for younger inmates to transition them toward independence, yet reports from state commissions indicated persistent challenges with enforcement, as illness and age limited full participation among the majority elderly population.^[15] This labor framework, while reducing reliance on outdoor relief—cash aid without institutionalization—prioritized deterrence and minimal self-support over rehabilitation, as critiqued in 19th-century investigations revealing that work rarely exceeded subsistence needs.^[5]

Living Conditions and Resource Allocation

Living conditions in American poorhouses varied by location and era but were generally austere, designed to provide minimal necessities while discouraging dependency through discomfort and regimentation. Inmates, often including the elderly, disabled, orphans, and able-bodied unemployed, were housed in congregate settings that frequently mixed populations, leading to overcrowding and heightened disease transmission by the mid-19th century. For instance, Philadelphia's Blockley Almshouse, established in 1835, evolved into a massive complex but struggled with overcrowding, contributing to elevated rates of illness despite developing an infirmary that later became Philadelphia General Hospital by 1919.^[33] In rural examples like Virginia's Prince William County Poor House (1794–1928), conditions deteriorated to filthy shacks with straw mattresses, vermin infestations, and shared facilities among those with contagious diseases, reflecting inadequate maintenance amid sparse resources.^[28] Provisions centered on basic sustenance exchanged for labor, with diets typically comprising farm-grown staples such as bread, porridge, potatoes, and occasional meat or vegetables, portioned to sustain but not comfort inmates. Clothing was uniform and rudimentary, often produced through inmate labor like weaving, while medical care relied on contracted physicians but remained limited, exacerbating mortality from infections and chronic ailments in unsanitary environments.^[33] ^[28] Daily routines enforced separation by sex and age where possible, with able-bodied residents working 8–10 hours per day on tasks like farming or maintenance to offset costs, though many—such as 13 of 17 inmates in Prince William County in 1858—were too infirm for productive labor.^[33] ^[28] These arrangements prioritized deterrence over welfare, resulting in reports of malnutrition, graft, and indiscipline that prompted mid-19th-century scrutiny.^[4] Resource allocation derived primarily from local poor taxes levied on property owners, supplemented by inmate labor output, timber sales, or auctioning children for apprenticeship, aiming to minimize public expenditure compared to outdoor relief. Per capita costs remained low to control fiscal burdens; in Prince William County, annual outdoor relief averaged $11.40 per person in 1820, rising to $16.22 by 1860 and $47.42 by 1874 amid inflation and demand, before declining to $34.28 in 1912 as institutional care waned.^[28] Urban facilities like Philadelphia's faced chronic underfunding and mismanagement, leading to corruption and uneven distribution, while rural poorhouses emphasized self-sufficiency through attached farms but often failed to generate surpluses.^[33] By the late 19th century, rising costs and evidence of deteriorating conditions shifted some allocation toward reforms, including segregation and specialized care, though core emphasis stayed on cost containment over expansive provisions.^[4]

Administration, Funding, and Oversight

In the United States during the 19th century, poorhouses were primarily administered at the local county or municipal level, with operations managed by appointed superintendents or overseers responsible for daily governance, including resident intake, labor assignment, and resource distribution.^[34] ^[4] County supervisors or town officials typically selected these administrators, as seen in New York where they oversaw the commitment of paupers to county facilities and enforced work requirements.^[34] This decentralized structure reflected the era's emphasis on community-level responsibility, though it often led to inconsistent management quality across regions.^[2] Funding for poorhouses derived mainly from local property taxes, commonly termed "poor rates" or "poor taxes," levied specifically for poor relief and collected by designated overseers.^[28] ^[2] These revenues supported construction, maintenance, and provisions, with examples like Virginia's Prince William County poorhouse, established in 1794, financed through such taxes to house the indigent amid limited state involvement.^[28] In some cases, supplemental income came from resident labor outputs or auctions of farm produce from attached poor farms, though taxes remained the core mechanism, often comprising a separate line item in local budgets to ensure fiscal accountability.^[2] ^[35] Oversight was initially minimal and localized, relying on elected officials or ad hoc committees to monitor compliance with state enabling laws, which from the early 1800s authorized but rarely mandated poorhouse establishment—New York being a notable exception in requiring them.^[2] By the 1870s, reforms introduced state-level boards of charities in many jurisdictions, shifting toward centralized regulation; for example, these bodies prohibited co-housing children with adults and mandated basic standards, addressing prior abuses from unchecked local discretion.^[29] This evolution aimed to standardize practices while preserving local fiscal control, though enforcement varied, with reports indicating persistent underfunding and variability until the early 20th century.^[15]

Achievements and Positive Impacts

Cost Control and Reduction of Outdoor Relief

The establishment of poorhouses in the 19th century represented a deliberate shift toward institutionalizing relief for the indigent, aiming to curtail the fiscal burdens of outdoor relief—aid distributed directly to recipients' homes in the form of cash, food, or goods—which was criticized for fostering dependency and escalating public expenditures. By confining able-bodied paupers within poorhouses where they performed labor to offset maintenance costs, administrators sought to enforce self-sufficiency and deter non-essential claims on parish or municipal funds. This approach drew from British precedents, particularly the Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834, which mandated workhouses as the primary venue for able-bodied relief, effectively phasing out outdoor assistance for this group and yielding measurable declines in overall poor relief spending across England and Wales.^[13]^[36] In the United States, where poorhouses (often termed almshouses) proliferated from the late 18th to mid-19th centuries, local governments reported consistent reductions in relief costs following their adoption, as institutionalization minimized diffuse outdoor distributions and integrated productive work such as farming, sewing, or maintenance tasks to subsidize operations. For instance, towns transitioning from scattered home-based aid to centralized poorhouses observed lower per-capita expenditures, with labor from inmates covering a portion of food, shelter, and administrative overhead, thereby alleviating taxpayer burdens that had ballooned under pre-existing systems.^[2]^[29] Early implementations, such as in New England and Mid-Atlantic states post-1750, explicitly prioritized poorhouses to diminish outdoor relief volumes, achieving economies through economies of scale in provisioning and supervision.^[30] This cost-control mechanism proved effective in curbing inflationary pressures on local budgets during periods of economic distress, as evidenced by contemporaneous municipal records indicating stabilized or lowered poor rates after poorhouse openings, contrasting with the unchecked rise in outdoor relief demands during agrarian downturns or urbanization spikes. Proponents, including reform commissions, attributed these savings to the deterrent effect of indoor relief's stricter regimen, which reduced applicant numbers by incentivizing private employment over public dependency, though long-term efficacy varied with enforcement rigor and economic conditions.^[4]^[13]

Promotion of Work Ethic and Skill Development

Poorhouses and workhouses were structured to mandate labor from able-bodied inmates, aiming to cultivate habits of industry and deter chronic dependency on relief, which proponents argued eroded self-reliance under prior systems of outdoor aid. The 1834 Poor Law Amendment Act in Britain explicitly designed workhouses to enforce the "less eligibility" principle, whereby conditions inside were harsher than the lowest-paid independent labor, thereby incentivizing employment outside and instilling discipline through regimented routines of tasks like oakum-picking, stone-breaking, and grinding corn—activities selected not merely for deterrence but to simulate productive toil and foster a work ethic among the idle or vagrant poor.^[37]^[38] In the United States, county poor farms from the early 19th century onward required inmates to contribute to self-sustaining operations, such as tilling fields or maintaining facilities, with overseers reporting that this labor regimen promoted thrift and productivity, reducing recidivism among seasonal unemployed workers by habituating them to regular exertion.^[29]^[39] Skill development was integrated via practical training tailored to inmates' capacities, particularly for younger residents, to equip them for eventual independence rather than perpetual pauperism. Children in British workhouses received basic education in literacy and numeracy alongside vocational instruction in trades like weaving or carpentry, often culminating in parish apprenticeships that placed them in households or workshops for hands-on mastery of employable skills, with records indicating that such placements succeeded in transitioning many into waged labor by their teens.^[3] In American almshouses and poor farms, able-bodied adults and youth alike engaged in diversified labors—farming produce for the institution's needs, sewing garments, or repairing tools—which administrators contended built competencies in agriculture and domestic crafts, enabling discharges with acquired proficiencies that supported self-sufficiency post-release, as evidenced by lower re-admission rates in facilities emphasizing structured tasks over idleness.^[40]^[38] These mechanisms yielded measurable achievements in curbing pauperism trends; post-1834 implementation in England saw outdoor relief claims drop by over 80% in some unions within a decade, attributed by contemporaries to the workhouse's role in restoring labor discipline and self-reliance among the marginal workforce, while U.S. poorhouse reports from the 1850s documented inmates gaining farm management skills that allowed select individuals to secure independent tenancies upon leaving.^[37]^[29] Such outcomes aligned with the causal view that enforced labor countered moral hazards of unearned aid, fostering a societal ethic of productivity amid pre-industrial scarcity.^[38]

Provision of Shelter Amid Pre-Welfare Scarcity

Prior to the establishment of modern welfare programs such as Social Security in 1935, poorhouses served as the principal institutional mechanism for providing shelter to the destitute in the United States, accommodating those unable to secure housing through family, employment, or private charity.^[41] Emerging from English Poor Law traditions, these facilities—often termed almshouses or poor farms—housed frail elderly individuals, the severely disabled, the chronically ill, and homeless children who lacked viable work capacity, filling a critical void in eras of economic volatility, rapid urbanization, and limited familial support networks.^[4] By the mid-19th century, poorhouses had proliferated across counties and municipalities, with establishments like the Beltrami County Poor Farm in Minnesota operating from 1902 to 1935 explicitly to shelter elderly and disabled paupers abandoned by private relief systems.^[42] Empirical records illustrate the scale of this shelter provision amid pre-welfare scarcity. In New York State, poorhouses reported 12,614 inmates during surveys from 1874 to 1875, encompassing a mix of short-term vagrants and long-term dependent residents, with the elderly proportion rising significantly by century's end as industrialization disrupted traditional kinship-based care.^[2] Nationally, by the early 20th century, thousands of such institutions dotted rural and urban landscapes, centralizing aid that had previously relied on fragmented outdoor relief or pauper auctions, thereby mitigating widespread exposure to elements for populations vulnerable to famine, disease outbreaks, and migration-induced destitution.^[15] These venues offered rudimentary indoor accommodations—often Spartan but enclosed—contrasting with the alternatives of street begging or wilderness survival, which historical accounts indicate claimed lives during harsh winters or economic depressions absent institutional intervention.^[5] In contexts of resource scarcity, poorhouses thus functioned as a pragmatic bulwark against mass indigence, institutionalizing shelter for segments of society where private philanthropy proved insufficient, as evidenced by their expansion following the Civil War to rural areas previously dependent on ad hoc town support.^[2] While not eliminating poverty, they channeled public funds into concentrated housing solutions that preserved life amid the absence of federal safety nets, with local overseers reporting stabilized pauper populations through such means until supplanted by New Deal-era reforms.^[4]

Criticisms and Controversies

Reports of Harsh Conditions and Abuses

Reports from the 19th century frequently described poorhouses as sites of overcrowding, where inmates far exceeded capacity, leading to unsanitary conditions and disease outbreaks. In many facilities, such as those documented in 1881 inspections, rooms held multiple occupants on inadequate bedding, with poor ventilation exacerbating respiratory illnesses and mortality rates. ^[43] Overcrowding stemmed from limited funding and the consolidation of paupers, vagrants, and the infirm under one roof, often without segregation by age or condition. ^[2] Inadequate nutrition was a recurrent complaint, with meals consisting of meager rations like coarse bread, thin gruel, and occasional vegetables, served cold due to insufficient cooking facilities or staff. A 1881 report on almshouses highlighted malnutrition contributing to emaciation and deaths among residents, particularly the elderly and children, as diets lacked protein and fresh produce. ^[43] Physical abuse by keepers, motivated by understaffing and low pay, included beatings for minor infractions and neglect of basic hygiene, fostering environments where inmates suffered untreated injuries or infections. ^[43] ^[44] Specific scandals amplified these reports. The Tewksbury Almshouse in Massachusetts faced a 1883 legislative investigation revealing systemic abuses, including theft by officials, physical mistreatment of inmates, and the unauthorized sale of deceased paupers' bodies to medical schools for dissection. ^[45] ^[46] Similarly, Philadelphia's Blockley Almshouse supplied stolen cadavers to the University of Pennsylvania Medical School in the mid-19th century, with bodies exhumed from potter's fields without consent, underscoring neglect and exploitation of the dead. ^[47] Chicago's almshouse drew notoriety for corruption and maltreatment, where inspectors in the 19th century found inmates in squalor, subjected to beatings and denied medical care amid mismanagement. ^[44] Children in poorhouses endured particularly harsh treatment, housed alongside adults in mixed wards that exposed them to vice and violence, with reports from the late 19th century noting stunted growth from malnutrition and abuse. ^[2] ^[48] These conditions, while intended by design to deter idleness through discomfort, often resulted in higher death rates than outdoor relief, as verified by contemporary overseers' records showing annual fatalities from preventable causes. ^[28] Investigations, though limited by local oversight, consistently attributed abuses to underfunding and keeper incentives tied to minimizing costs rather than welfare. ^[46] In 19th-century American poorhouses, families entering as units were routinely separated by administrators into categories based on sex, age, and perceived ability to work, with men housed in one ward, women in another, and children often isolated in separate facilities or bound out to labor elsewhere.^[4] This classification system, modeled partly on English Poor Law principles, aimed to enforce moral discipline, prevent illicit relations, and facilitate labor assignment, but it fractured familial bonds and limited interactions to supervised occasions like meals.^[2] Historical records from institutions such as those in New York and Massachusetts document cases where parents lost daily contact with children, contributing to emotional distress and long-term relational breakdowns, as evidenced by mid-century investigations revealing child neglect amid such divisions.^[48] The separation extended to orphans and dependent children, who comprised a significant portion of poorhouse populations—often 20-30% in urban almshouses by the 1850s—and were frequently apprenticed or transferred to orphanages, severing ties to surviving relatives to promote self-sufficiency but at the cost of familial continuity.^[4] Administrators justified this by arguing it reformed youth from parental "vices," yet empirical reports, including a 1857 New York Senate inquiry, highlighted how such policies exacerbated vulnerability, with children exposed to institutional abuses without family protection.^[4] In rural poor farms, similar practices persisted, where intact families were rare, and separations reinforced dependency cycles by undermining parental authority and child socialization within kin networks.^[29] Social stigma attached to poorhouse residency amplified these disruptions, as entry was viewed by contemporaries as evidence of moral failing or idleness rather than misfortune, leading to public shaming and exclusion from community life.^[49] Residents, labeled "paupers," faced lifelong reputational damage; for instance, discharged individuals struggled with employment due to employer prejudices against former inmates, while children bore inherited disgrace that hindered adoption or marriage prospects.^[50] This perception stemmed from poorhouses' association with disease, death, and degradation—mortality rates in some facilities exceeded 10% annually by the 1860s—fostering a cultural narrative that institutionalized poverty as contagious and self-inflicted.^[4] Reformers noted in 1894 congressional hearings that the stigma deterred families from seeking aid, prolonging suffering outside institutions while entrenching class divides.^[48]

Debates on Punitive Intent vs. Necessity

The principle of "less eligibility," enshrined in the English Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834, mandated that conditions in workhouses be inferior to those of the lowest-paid independent laborer, explicitly to deter able-bodied individuals from seeking relief and thereby control escalating poor rates that had reached £8 million annually by 1833.^[51] Proponents, including the 1834 Royal Commission, argued this deterrent mechanism was a fiscal necessity amid rapid population growth and industrialization, which strained parish-based outdoor relief systems; without it, they contended, moral hazard would incentivize idleness, as evidenced by the doubling of relief expenditures from 1783 to 1833 under the Old Poor Law's allowances-in-aid-of-wages.^[14] In the American context, poorhouses adopted similar logics by the early 19th century, with overseers like those in Virginia emphasizing regimented labor not merely as punishment but as essential to counter "sturdy beggars" and profligates who exploited alms, ensuring resources were reserved for the truly destitute in an era without federal welfare.^[15] Critics of this framework, including working-class radicals and some Whig parliamentarians during the 1834 debates, charged that the system's punitive architecture—such as family separations, uniform drab clothing, and monotonous tasks like oakum-picking—prioritized behavioral coercion over genuine necessity, effectively criminalizing poverty rather than addressing its structural causes like enclosure and unemployment.^[52] Reports from the era, including those by anti-Poor Law unions, highlighted how the deterrent intent exacerbated suffering, with workhouse mortality rates sometimes exceeding 10% annually in urban unions like Andover in 1845, fueling accusations that the policy embodied Malthusian disdain for the lower orders rather than pragmatic relief.^[53] Yet, empirical outcomes partially vindicated the necessity argument: post-1834 implementation reduced per-capita relief costs by over 50% in many English unions by 1840, suggesting the punitive elements curbed dependency without proportionally increasing destitution, as vagrancy rates stabilized.^[36] In U.S. poorhouses, the debate mirrored English tensions, with 19th-century administrators defending harsh regimens as vital for instilling work discipline amid sparse private charity, but reformers like those in the 1824 New York Yates Report decrying them as breeding grounds for vice that punished misfortune as moral failing.^[4] Historians note that while overt punitive rhetoric dominated official discourse—e.g., poorhouse rules mandating silence and separation to break "idle habits"—underlying causal drivers were resource scarcity and fear of pauperism's contagion, rendering the system a blunt but arguably indispensable tool before institutionalized alternatives emerged.^[54] This tension persists in evaluations, with some analyses attributing lower long-term poverty persistence to the work ethic enforced, countering claims of inherent cruelty by emphasizing pre-welfare exigencies.^[55]

Reforms, Decline, and Legacy

Mid-19th to Early 20th-Century Reforms

In the mid-19th century, investigations into the overcrowded and unsanitary conditions of county-administered poorhouses spurred the creation of state-level oversight mechanisms to enforce standards and promote reforms. Massachusetts established the first such body, the State Board of Charities, in 1863, tasking it with inspecting almshouses, prisons, and mental institutions to ensure better management and separation of inmates by dependency type.^[56] New York followed with its State Board of Charities in 1867, empowering it to supervise poor relief and recommend improvements, including the classification of residents to prevent the mixing of children, the elderly, the insane, and able-bodied paupers.^[34] By the 1870s, at least 15 states had formed similar unpaid citizen boards appointed by governors, shifting partial authority from local overseers to centralized review, though enforcement varied due to limited funding and local resistance.^[57] A key reform targeted the removal of children from adult-dominated poorhouses, driven by reports of moral corruption and inadequate education. New York's 1875 Children's Act mandated the transfer of children aged 2 to 16 to orphanages or family placements, aiming to shield them from institutional degradation.^[1] Similar legislation proliferated: Wisconsin's 1876 law barred children aged 5 to 16 from poorhouses, while by 1894, 28 states had enacted prohibitions on placing dependent minors in almshouses, often redirecting them to specialized institutions or indenture systems.^[48] These measures reflected empirical observations from state surveys, such as New York's 1874-1875 inmate census, which documented high child populations exposed to vice and disease, though implementation lagged in rural counties with few alternatives.^[2] Classification reforms emphasized segregating inmates by age, health, and work capacity to foster discipline and efficiency, addressing longstanding criticisms of undifferentiated housing that exacerbated dependency. State boards advocated separate facilities for the insane—transferring them to asylums under laws like New York's State Care Act—and for the aged, while requiring able-bodied residents to perform supervised labor with skill training.^[2] Organizations like the New York State Charities Aid Association, founded in the early 1870s, deployed local committees for ongoing inspections, leading to documented upgrades in ventilation, diet, and medical care in compliant institutions.^[2] By the early 20th century, these efforts had reduced average poorhouse populations from peaks near 1880, with national inmate numbers dropping from about 80,000 in 1890 to under 60,000 by 1910, though persistent underfunding and uneven adoption limited widespread humane transformation.^[15]

Replacement by Modern Welfare Programs

The transition from poorhouses to modern welfare programs accelerated in the early 20th century amid Progressive Era critiques of institutional conditions and inefficiencies, with states increasingly enacting laws to segregate populations and provide targeted outdoor relief. By the 1910s and 1920s, several states, including California and Wisconsin, began closing almshouses and replacing them with old-age assistance programs offering cash payments to eligible elderly individuals, reducing reliance on congregate care.^[58] These reforms addressed the high operational costs of poorhouses—often exceeding those of direct aid—and the growing recognition that cash allowances enabled recipients to remain in community settings rather than institutional ones.^[59] The Social Security Act of August 14, 1935, marked a pivotal federal intervention, establishing categorical assistance programs that directly undermined the poorhouse model. Title I provided matching grants to states for Old Age Assistance (OAA), enabling needy individuals over 65 to receive monthly payments averaging $20–$30 by 1936, which allowed many to exit almshouses without entering private facilities ineligible for aid.^[60] Title IV created Aid to Dependent Children (ADC), shifting support for impoverished families from institutionalization to home-based relief, while Title V funded services for the blind and disabled, fragmenting the mixed populations historically housed in poorhouses.^[61] This legislation reflected arguments that poorhouses were economically burdensome—costing up to twice as much per person as cash relief—and socially counterproductive, as outdoor aid preserved family units and individual dignity more effectively than enforced labor in workhouses. Post-1935 implementation saw rapid institutional decline: OAA enrollment reached 2.3 million by 1940, correlating with almshouse closures as states redirected funds from maintenance to grants, with federal matching incentivizing the shift.^[61] By the 1950s, remaining poorhouses had largely converted to specialized facilities like county homes for the chronic ill or were shuttered entirely, supplanted by expanding Social Security insurance benefits (starting 1940) and state supplements.^[62] The 1965 Medicare and Medicaid programs further eroded any vestiges by funding community and nursing home care, rendering the undifferentiated poorhouse obsolete as a primary poverty alleviation mechanism. This replacement prioritized decentralized, means-tested aid over custodial institutions, though it introduced new administrative complexities and dependency incentives absent in the localized poorhouse system.^[31]

Long-Term Effects on Poverty Policy

The poorhouse system, rooted in 19th-century reforms of English Poor Laws and adapted in the United States, established foundational principles for poverty relief that emphasized deterrence of dependency through institutional labor and conditions inferior to market wages, known as the "less eligibility" doctrine. This approach aimed to minimize outdoor relief—direct cash or in-kind aid—and concentrate the poor in workhouses to enforce self-sufficiency, influencing American local policies until the early 20th century by reducing pauperism rates in adopting counties; for instance, New York's 1824 law mandating county poorhouses correlated with a decline in relief expenditures from $1.5 million in 1820 to stabilized levels post-implementation, though at the expense of documented overcrowding and mortality.^[4]^[2] The system's focus on classifying the "worthy" poor (e.g., widows, orphans) versus the "unworthy" (able-bodied idlers) persisted in policy design, shaping means-testing and moral assessments that carried into Progressive Era reforms.^[15] By the 1920s and 1930s, revelations of poorhouse abuses—such as Pennsylvania's 1915 investigations uncovering malnutrition and forced labor—catalyzed a policy pivot away from institutionalization toward decentralized, non-punitive aid, culminating in the Social Security Act of 1935, which introduced federal old-age pensions and unemployment insurance to supplant almshouse dependency for the elderly and unemployed, effectively closing most poorhouses by 1950 as caseloads shifted to entitlements.^[33]^[4] This transition reflected empirical failures of poorhouses to address cyclical poverty amid industrialization, as relief rolls surged during the Great Depression despite deterrent measures, prompting recognition that structural economic supports outperformed coercive confinement.^[63] However, the legacy endured in skepticism toward unconditional aid, informing the 1960s War on Poverty's emphasis on job training over pure redistribution, as articulated in the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, which echoed poorhouse-era work mandates to foster employability.^[64] In the late 20th century, poorhouse principles resurfaced in efforts to curb welfare dependency, notably the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA), which imposed time limits and work requirements on [Temporary Assistance for Needy Families](/page/Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) (TANF), reducing caseloads by 60% from 1996 to 2000 through requirements mirroring the labor discipline of almshouses, with studies attributing declines to restored incentives for employment rather than economic booms alone.^[65] This revival underscored causal insights from poorhouse experiments: policies incentivizing work via conditionality lowered long-term reliance, as evidenced by post-1834 English Poor Law data showing a 20-30% drop in pauperism rates, though American adaptations avoided institutional harshness.^[7] Critics from academic circles, often aligned with expansive welfare views, contend such measures exacerbate inequality, but empirical reviews indicate they mitigate moral hazard by aligning relief with productive behavior, informing ongoing debates on universal basic income versus earned benefits.^[26]^[15]

Comparisons to Contemporary Systems

Parallels with Modern Homeless Shelters and Welfare

Poorhouses and modern homeless shelters both functioned as institutional responses to indigent populations, offering congregate housing and basic sustenance amid broader societal failures to prevent destitution, though poorhouses emphasized deterrence through austerity while shelters prioritize accessibility.^[5] In 19th-century America, poorhouses housed over 100,000 inmates by 1910, providing indoor relief to replace scattered outdoor aid, much as contemporary U.S. homeless shelters accommodate roughly 650,000 individuals nightly per HUD's 2023 Point-in-Time count, serving as temporary waystations rather than permanent solutions.^[15] Critics of both note their role in warehousing the poor without resolving underlying issues like unemployment or family breakdown, often exacerbating isolation; for instance, poorhouses segregated residents by age and ability, mirroring how many shelters separate families or impose curfews that disrupt community ties. Welfare systems parallel poorhouses in their evolution from localized, conditional relief to expansive public programs, yet both incentivize short-term reliance over self-sufficiency, raising moral hazard concerns where aid reduces the urgency of personal effort. Poorhouses imposed labor requirements—such as farming or maintenance—to offset costs and instill discipline, with New York's 1824 law mandating work for able-bodied inmates, akin to conditional cash transfer programs in modern welfare like TANF's work mandates post-1996 reform, which tied benefits to employment but saw compliance drop to 30% in some states by 2019.^[2] ^[66] However, empirical analyses indicate that unconditional or loosely enforced aid, prevalent in expanded welfare since the 1960s War on Poverty, correlates with persistent dependency; a 1995 Heritage Foundation study found children of long-term recipients exhibited 50% higher dropout rates and illegitimacy, echoing poorhouse-era observations of intergenerational pauperism where inmates' offspring faced heightened institutionalization risks.^[66] This dynamic persists, as Cato Institute data from 2022 shows welfare benefits exceeding minimum-wage earnings in 35 states, creating "cliffs" that discourage work, much like poorhouses' harsh conditions aimed to deter idleness but ultimately sustained a cycle for the unemployable.^[67] Both frameworks reveal causal pitfalls in poverty policy: provision without robust incentives fosters behavioral adaptations favoring aid over productivity, as evidenced by England's 1834 Poor Law reforms, which used workhouse austerity to halve relief rolls by 1870 through deterrence, contrasting U.S. welfare expansions that tripled caseloads from 1965 to 1994 before partial rollback. Modern parallels include shelters' high turnover—80% of users cycle through within months per Urban Institute tracking—without net poverty reduction, and welfare's role in eroding marriage rates, dropping from 72% for low-income families in 1960 to 36% by 2020 per AEI reports, paralleling poorhouse-induced family separations that stigmatized recipients and perpetuated vulnerability.^[68] These outcomes underscore that, absent first-principles focus on individual agency and market integration, such systems mitigate acute hardship but entrench structural dependency, with peer-reviewed work on moral hazard in safety nets confirming reduced labor participation among beneficiaries.^[69]

Empirical Lessons: Dependency Risks and Moral Hazard

Historical analyses of poor relief systems, particularly England's Old Poor Law prior to 1834, demonstrate that generous outdoor relief and wage subsidies like the Speenhamland system—implemented in Berkshire in 1795 and spreading widely—correlated with surging pauperism rates, as subsidies effectively guaranteed incomes regardless of employment effort, reducing incentives for laborers to seek higher wages or migrate for work.^[70]^[71] Pauperism, measured as recipients per capita, rose sharply in southern England during this era, with critics attributing the trend to moral hazard, where able-bodied individuals preferred subsidized idleness over market-driven labor, exacerbating rural labor shortages and fiscal burdens on parishes.^[72] The 1834 Poor Law Amendment Act addressed these risks by mandating indoor relief in workhouses with deliberately austere conditions—separating families, enforcing labor, and providing inferior food and lodging—to render dependency less appealing than self-support, thereby deterring non-genuine claims.^[3] Empirical data confirm the policy's impact: real per capita poor relief expenditures declined by 43% between 1831 and 1871, reflecting fewer claimants as the workhouse principle took hold.^[13] Regression analyses of Victorian-era data further quantify the deterrent effect, showing that a 10% increase in the proportion of paupers relieved indoors correlated with a 3.5% reduction in overall old-age pauperism rates, indicating that perceived harshness curbed habitual reliance among the marginally employable.^[73] In the United States, where poorhouses (almshouses) emerged in the early 19th century as adaptations of English models, local implementations similarly targeted moral hazard by confining able-bodied paupers to supervised labor under spartan conditions, aiming to supplant less conditional outdoor relief that had encouraged dependency.^[4] Municipal reports from the 1820s onward, including those from New York and Philadelphia, documented reduced per capita relief costs and diminished able-bodied admissions following poorhouse establishments, with administrators noting improved community "moral climate" as fewer individuals sought aid, suggesting the institutions' unattractiveness preserved work incentives.^[2] These cases underscore a core empirical lesson: poor relief provisions risk entrenching dependency when benefits approximate or exceed the returns from self-reliant labor, as evidenced by pre-reform pauperism spikes; conversely, conditional, deterrent-based systems like workhouses empirically lowered relief rolls by aligning aid with genuine need and penalizing idleness, though at the cost of hardship for the truly destitute.^[13]^[73]

References

[1]
The History of the Poorhouse - Primary Research
Poorhouses had very clear goals; they were supposed to check the expense of pauperism through cheaper care and deter people from applying for outside relief.Missing: definition | Show results with:definition
[2]
[PDF] Poorhouses and the Origins of the Public Old Age Home
Throughout the century before the New Deal, the poorhouse dominated the structure of welfare (or, as it was called, relief).
[3]
1834 Poor Law - The National Archives
The 1834 Poor Law aimed to reduce costs by housing the poor in workhouses, requiring work, and forcing them to leave their homes for help.
[4]
Poor Relief in the Early America - Social Welfare History Project
Nov 11, 2019 · Early American patterns of publicly funded poor relief emerged mainly from the English heritage of early settlers.
[5]
Poorhouses Were Designed to Punish People for Their Poverty
Jan 30, 2018 · The concept of the poorhouse originated in England during the 17th century. Municipalities were expected to care for their poor, and made a ...
[6]
1601 Poor Law - UK Parliament
In 1601, Elizabeth I's Government tried to fill the gap with the Poor Relief Act, which obliged each parish to collect taxes to support people who could not ...
[7]
English Poor Laws - Social Welfare History Project
The poor laws gave the local government the power to raise taxes as needed and use the funds to build and maintain almshouses; to provide indoor relief.
[8]
Introduction: The Old Poor Law | Providing for the Poor
Poorhouses or workhouses provided accommodation for the needy with the intention of setting the 'able' poor to work. From the 1690s, a dozen Corporations of the ...
[9]
[PDF] From Sin to Laziness: Early Modern Views of the Poor and Poor Relief
belief that workhouses taught people to work and prevented idleness while also reflecting an older view that this laziness was a sin that must be corrected. ...Missing: rationale | Show results with:rationale<|separator|>
[10]
[PDF] Ambivalence: America's Historic - Approach to Welfare Reform
Many charge that welfare programs erode the American work ethic and lead to idleness and unproductivity. Low income people who are enmeshed in the system view ...Missing: rationale | Show results with:rationale
[11]
The principle of 'less eligibility' - The Victorian Web
Nov 16, 2002 · 'Less eligibility' was to rest on discipline and not material conditions. It was not intended that inmates of the workhouses would be receive ...
[12]
Workhouses and the Poor Law Amendment Act 1834
This policy was to become known as the principle of 'less eligibility'. This was a punitive approach, borne out of a desire to deter idleness and curb spending ...
[13]
English Poor Laws – EH.net - Economic History Association
The Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834 reduced the political power of labor-hiring farmers, which helps to account for the decline in relief expenditures after that ...
[14]
[PDF] England's New Poor Law and the Workhouse Test
... less eligibility by effectively denying family members contact with one another. The poor saw this classification as one of the chief horrors of the workhouse.
[15]
Poor Relief and the Almshouse - Social Welfare History Project
Mar 10, 2025 · Almshouses, or poorhouses, were institutions for the "undeserving poor" to deter them from seeking aid, and were built to save money.Missing: self- reliance
[16]
The Plight of the Poor: Monastic Charity and Almonries in Medieval ...
Throughout the medieval period monastic houses, and their dependent hospitals, were the largest providers of poor relief in England (as through Europe), and ...Missing: church | Show results with:church<|separator|>
[17]
The Early Medieval Hospital - Medievalists.net
Jun 9, 2022 · ... poverty relief. The council's decision had a long-term effect in ... But the high medieval flourishing of hospitals and hospices for the poor ...
[18]
Medieval Hospitals of England | History Today
Some of the hospitals were, therefore, erected for the use of pilgrims and other travellers; others were really almshouses, intended chiefly for the poor and ...
[19]
History of almshouses
The history of almshouses stretches back to medieval times when religious orders cared for the poor. Originally called hospitals or bede houses.
[20]
Poverty and its Relief in Late Medieval England* | Past & Present
Jul 21, 2012 · institutions for the relief of poverty. Hospitals, almshouses ... (Paris, 1974); Michel Mollat, The Poor in the Middle Ages: An Essay in Social ...
[21]
[PDF] MONASTIC CHARITY AND POOR RELIEF IN EARLY TUDOR ENGI ...
The main opinion held by these newer expositors is that monasticism had begun to decline in its duty to the poor long before the Dissolution loomed into view; ...Missing: hospices | Show results with:hospices
[22]
How Elizabethan law once protected the poor from the high cost of ...
The laws were clear and simple, and required each of over 10,000 English parishes to set up a continuous relief fund to support the vulnerable. This included ...
[23]
The Victorian Workhouse - Historic UK
Aug 8, 2019 · Conditions were cramped with beds squashed together, hardly any room to move and with little light. When they were not in their sleeping corners ...Missing: empirical evidence
[24]
Poor Law reform - UK Parliament
The Poor Law Amendment Act was quickly passed by Parliament in 1834, with separate legislation for Scotland and Ireland. It implemented a major overhaul of the ...
[25]
An Introduction to the Workhouse
Parish workhouse buildings were often just ordinary local houses, rented for the purpose. Sometimes a workhouse was purpose-built, like this one erected in 1729 ...
[26]
How 'Poor Laws' Tried to Tackle Poverty in Colonial America
Mar 15, 2023 · Poorhouses. Also called workhouses and almshouses, these institutions became a popular form of public aid and “were supposed to check the ...
[27]
[PDF] Guide to the Almshouse ledgers, 1758-1952 - NYC.gov
The first Almshouse was opened on the Commons of the City in 1736 and fell under the care and control of the Overseers of the Poor, House of Correction, ...Missing: 18th | Show results with:18th
[28]
Poor House (1794-1928) - Prince William Forest Park (U.S. National ...
May 6, 2022 · The poorhouse is an old frame shack, one story, about 14 x 84 with 6 rooms, some without doors, windows boarded up. Fertilizer sacks filled with straw and old ...Missing: definition | Show results with:definition
[29]
[PDF] HISTORY OF 19th CENTURY AMERICAN POORHOUSES
Poorhouses were tax-supported institutions for those who couldn't support themselves, started in the 19th century as a cheaper alternative to welfare, and were ...Missing: objectives deterrence
[30]
[PDF] Jennifer Turner, “Almshouse, Workhouse, Outdoor Relief
almshouses and workhouses emerged in the nineteenth century as the dominant form of public relief for the indigent. The poor working for. “their keep ...
[31]
Historical Background and Development of Social Security
As colonial America grew more complex, diverse and mobile, the localized systems of poor relief were strained. The result was some limited movement to state ...
[32]
Poverty and the Poor Law - UK Parliament
But opinion in Parliament and in the corridors of power was divided over how the Poor Law system could be made to work more effectively and less expensively.
[33]
Almshouses (Poorhouses) - Encyclopedia of Greater Philadelphia
Located on Walnut Street between Third and Fourth Streets, this poorhouse run for and by Quakers provided a sanctuary for poor, widowed, and aged Friends. With ...Missing: modern precursors Europe medieval<|separator|>
[34]
Charities, State Board of | New York State Archives
County supervisors were to appoint superintendents to run the county poorhouses. Town overseers could send paupers applying for relief to the poorhouse and ...Missing: oversight 19th
[35]
[PDF] Title Historical Background on the Poor and Poor Relief in Early 19th ...
Instead, towns increasingly placed their poor into single, town-owned “poor farms” in rural areas, and “workhouses” in urban communities. Proponents of this ...<|separator|>
[36]
[PDF] Welfare Reform, 1834 - Economics
These fears eventually resulted in the Poor Law Reform Act of 1834. This, in one of the more dramatic welfare reforms in history, substantially reduced welfare.
[37]
Welfare Reform, Famine, and the Ideology of the Conservative Work ...
Sep 21, 2023 · Workhouses were not to aim at the improvement or happiness of their inmates. Their primary purpose was to punish and degrade them, to deter the ...Missing: rationale poorhouses
[38]
[PDF] A Historical Archaeology of West Yorkshire Workhouses 1834-1930
The tasks were intended to encourage a positive work ethic rather than to generate substantial ... aimed to promote future self-sufficiency. The majority ...
[39]
WHRO Public Lens | The Almshouse | Episode 2 - PBS
Nov 8, 2024 · ... work the farm throughout the day. ... It was there to serve the needs of the less fortunate, but it was also imagined as a self-sustaining ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[40]
Life on the Champaign County Poor Farm - Urbana School District 116
... trained for employment suitable to their station” Poorhouses, almshouses and ... poorhouse discouraged the “unworthy” from seeking public assistance.
[41]
Social Security History
The door to the poorhouse was the main form of economic security for many elderly Americans in the days before Social Security. Historical Links. History Home ...
[42]
Before there was Social Security, Beltrami County had its poor farm
Jul 9, 2018 · The Beltrami County Poor Farm provided shelter and care for elderly and disabled people from 1902 until 1935, when old-age assistance ...<|separator|>
[43]
Caring for Paupers (1881) - Social Welfare History Project
Mar 4, 2024 · The term “indoor” may refer to an almshouse, poor house, asylum, county home, infirmary, etc. ... In the Lenawee County poorhouse a crazy young ...
[44]
Almshouses - Encyclopedia of Chicago
Infamous for its corruption, mismanagement, deplorable living conditions, and maltreatment of inmates, the almshouse was regarded as a refuge of last resort.
[45]
Tewksbury Investigation · Nature of Every Member - OnView
A state almshouse for paupers at Tewksbury was founded in 1852. In the 1880s, charges of theft and abuse of the inmates–including the sale of bodies of the ...
[46]
Tewksbury Almshouse Investigation - Social Welfare History Project
Apr 7, 2015 · Inspectors tended to focus on issues such as whether male and female inmates were properly separated to prevent the poor from reproducing ...
[47]
“Board of Buzzards”: Medical Grave Robbing in Nineteenth Century ...
For its dissecting tables, the University of Pennsylvania Medical School purchased cadavers stolen from the grounds of the Blockley Almshouse.
[48]
Removal of Children From Almshouses (1894)
Mar 13, 2018 · The three entries describe the institutions, deplorable conditions and efforts to reform and improve the care of vulnerable children.
[49]
History of poorhouses reflects changing attitudes toward those on ...
City officials hoped to persuade the poor elderly then getting city relief to enter the new building once it was shorn of the poorhouse stigma. A modern ...
[50]
Out of Sight, Out of Mind: 19th Century Almshouses and Poorhouses
Feb 10, 2025 · These places were pushed out of public view, making it very clear that the true purpose of these buildings was to keep the less fortunate and ...Missing: objectives | Show results with:objectives
[51]
[PDF] Five Hundred Years of English Poor Laws, 1349-1834
The reasons for the perceived deterioration of the work ethic were several: some pointed to Speenhamland's generous system of outdoor relief as weakening ...
[52]
"Opposition to the Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834" by Janae Lakey
The introduction of the Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834 met vast opposition from members of Parliament. The working class of England also opposed it.Missing: eligibility principle criticism
[53]
[PDF] Welfare Reform, 1834 - Marianne Page
Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834 enacted radical reforms. The legal right to relief, was maintained, but now able-bodied applicants for relief were expected.
[54]
[PDF] Life on Poorhouse Knob: Poor-relief in Montgomery County, Virginia ...
Their yearly records indicated how many individuals were receiving outdoor relief and who they were; Goodrich's statement that they did not know how many ...Missing: reduction | Show results with:reduction<|separator|>
[55]
Welfare Cuts and Crime: Evidence from the New Poor Law
Jul 27, 2021 · Relief outside workhouses was formally abolished, and the conditions inside them were purposefully chosen to deter any but the most destitute ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[56]
Social Welfare Developments, 1851-1900
Sep 20, 2016 · The Massachusetts Board of State Charities is created in order to investigate and supervise its alms houses, prisons and mental institutions.
[57]
State Boards of Charity: Early History
Nov 1, 2016 · The typical state board of charities consisted of a number of citizens appointed by the governor and serving without salary.Missing: 1860-1900 | Show results with:1860-1900
[58]
States begin to abolish almshouses and establish old age ...
Over the course of the late 1910s and 1920s, states across the country begin to close almshouses and simultaneously introduce laws that provide public ...
[59]
"Old Age Assistance in Washington" by Vern Countryman
But in 1922 the American Association for Labor Legislation and the Fraternal Order of Eagles began a campaign to abolish the poorhouse system and to substitute ...Missing: replacing | Show results with:replacing
[60]
Thomas Eliot: "The Legal Background of the Social Security Act"
It was purely economic. It was very expensive to run poorhouses. It was conceivable, or so it was argued, that it would cost less and you could treat people ...Missing: decline | Show results with:decline
[61]
Old Age Assistance: An Overview - Social Welfare History Project
Oct 31, 2016 · This aid was carried out through the poor relief system and almshouses or workhouses. Gradually, measures were adopted to provide aid on a more ...
[62]
[PDF] From Almshouses to Nursing Homes and Community Care: Lessons ...
In colonial and 19th Century America, most care was home care. Medical and nursing care, even surgery, was done at home. 19 A home atmosphere was viewed as ...<|separator|>
[63]
Poverty and Welfare in the American Founding
May 19, 2015 · Few students ever learn that government-funded welfare, not to mention generous private charity, has existed throughout American history.
[64]
The Deserving Poor, the Family, and the U.S. Welfare System - PMC
Jun 1, 2016 · Interestingly, President Johnson intended the War on Poverty to be focused on education, training, and health programs for the poor, not welfare ...
[65]
How Welfare Began in the United States - Teach Democracy
Local officials decided who went to the poorhouse or orphanage and who would receive relief at home. Cash relief to the poor depended on local property taxes, ...
[66]
How Welfare Harms Kids - The Heritage Foundation
Jun 5, 1996 · Although long-term welfare recipients are generally poor, persistent poverty does not seem to be the main reason for the poor performance of ...
[67]
Work Not Welfare Is Key to Escaping Poverty | Cato at Liberty Blog
Dec 15, 2022 · Increasing the eligibility range for benefits also risks bringing middle-class families into the trap of dependency. ... poor job of equipping ...
[68]
Welfare Programs That Do More Harm Than Good - AEI
Dec 10, 2012 · ... poor, rural Americans) because it's easier to rely on food stamps and disability payments. Antipoverty programs also discourage marriage: In ...
[69]
Moral hazard and selection among the poor: evidence from a ...
Sep 29, 2019 · Spenkch, Jörg L. (2011): Moral hazard and selection among the poor: evidence from a randomized experiment. This is the latest version of this ...Missing: modern | Show results with:modern
[70]
The Failure of a Past Basic Income Guarantee, the Speenhamland ...
Jan 15, 2015 · Why the ultimate failure of the Speenhamland system shows the downside of a basic income guarantee.
[71]
Speenhamland Revisited - jstor
the Speenhamland Scale. Even worse in its moral effect was the "parish pay" given for illegitimate children, combined with the hid- eous blackmail of ...Missing: hazard | Show results with:hazard
[72]
Poor Law - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics
The Poor Law refers to a series of laws enacted in England that established a system for providing relief to the poor, including outdoor relief for paupers ...<|separator|>
[73]
Old Age Pauperism in Victorian England | Social Science History
Jan 25, 2016 · The workhouse had a large deterrent effect in each regression—a 10 percent increase in the share of paupers relieved in workhouses led to a 3.5 ...