View original document

The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR JAMES J. DAVIS, Secretary  BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS ETHELBERT STEWART, Commissioner  BULLETIN OF THE UNITED STATES} BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS . MISCELLANEOUS  · No. 386 SElRIES  THE COST OF AMERICAN ALMSHOUSES By ESTELLE M. STEWART  -   https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis  i'l:tA,gNT~  , .•y~  \■i o~.,...·~..i;  JUNE, 1925  WASHINGTON GOVElRNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1925   https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis  ADDITIONAL COPIES 01' Tlllll PUBLICATION .lilY BE PROCURED FRO.II TllE BUl'EJUNTXNDENT OJ' DOCUllENTS GOVEBNKENT PRINTING OFJ'ICE W A.SllINGTON, D. C.  AT  10 CENTS PER COPY  PREFACE The American ''almshouse,'' like many of our other social institutions, is a heritage from England. The British "workhouse" system was adopted in Great Britain at the close of the seventeenth century as a means of affording relief from the distressing and growing problems of pauperism and mendicanc_y. The first workhouse was established in 1697 in the city of Bristol by a special act of Parliament. The success of that experiment as a means both of caring for the paupers themselves and of lowering burdensome "poor rates" was sucli as to lead to the establishment of similar institutions throughout the country. Probably because of the growth and success of the workhouse system during the first half of the eighteenth century, it was among the institutions which the founders of the American Republic transplanted from the mother country. Almshouses, to use the American term, were established in New England at the very beginnip.g; and the theory of institutional relief of paupers is incorporated m the constitutions of a number of the early States. No doubt the results of England's experience in passing from an era of promiscuous, unsupervised contribution for the support of indigents, who though maintained by public and private_ cliarity were permitted to live as they pleased, to the new system of mamtaining paupers in public institutions had been sufficiently startling to induce the American settlers to adopt the institution idea in their own experiment in nation building. In that connection it is interesting to note that the :riendulum is swinging back, and to-da_y the theory and practice of 'outdoor relief," or the granting of sufficient aid in money and food and fuel to enable indigents to maintain some degree of individual home lifet is to a considerable extent supplanting pauper institutions. Nevertneless the almshouse remains and as Alexander Johnson, general secret'!'?i: of the National Co;ierence of Charities and Corrections, says, 1 'so long as there shall be poor people to be cared for by public charity, a place of refuge, an asylum for worn-out and feeble men and women, will probably be a necessity." To older generations the almshouse, or poorhouse, was a very real thing. As has been said, they were brought up with '' a reverence for God, the hope of heaven, and the fear of the poorhouse." Outside the sphere of organized charity and social work the poorhouse, to the present generation, is prooably little more th.an a name. We may not all be as far from a realization of its existence as was the head nurse of an almshouse in Massachusetts who insists that although she was born and raised within :five blocks of the almshouse in her native town she had never seen it or heard of it until she became its head nurse, or as the young social worker who, after his appointment I Johnson, Alexander: The Almshouse, Construction and Management. Charities Publication Com• mlttee, 1911.   https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis  m  IV  PREFACE  as State inspector of public institutions in a large Eastern State, declared that he did not su/?pose '' there were any poorhouses any more except in the movies. However, frobably few of us realize how defimtely the almshouse is a part o the present social order, or to what extent it is a social and economic prolilem. · The United States Department of Labor, through the Bureau of Labor Statistics, has made a study of poor farms and almshouses in each, of the 48 States. Cooperating with the department, various fraternal organizations throughout the country have supplemented the scope of the Government investigation. The department has found the value and extent of public property used or intended for poor farms and almshouses and tlie cost of operating these institutions over a period of one year, while the fraternal societies have studied the physical and social conditions surrounding almshouse inmates. To put it differently, the Department of Labor has determined the financial aspect, and private agencies cooperating with it and to a certain extent under its direction have studied the social and humanitarian side (?f institutional pauper relief. The report of the department is presented herewith; the reports of the studies of the fraternal societies will, when completea, be published by those societies.   https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis  CONTENTS Page  Distribution of almshouses and political unit of organization __________ _ 1,2 Almshouse administration and inmates ______________________________ _ 2-7 Control _____________________________________________________ _ 2,3 Inmates-character and commitment-- _________________________ _ Operation ___________________________________________________ _ 3-5 5-7 Statistical survey ________________________________________________ _ 8-29 Scope of survey ______________________________________________ _ 8,9 Acreage, value of property, and cost of maintenance ______________ _ 9-29 All almshouses reporting __________________________________ _ 9-16 Almshouses with inmates _________________________________ _ 16-27 Almshouses without inmates _______________________________ _ 27,28 Self-supporting institutions ________________________________ _ 28,29 Physical and social conditions in almshouses _________________________ _ 29-42 State reports on physical conditions ____________________________ _ 29-37 Character of supervision _______ ~-------- ______________________ _ 37-40 State reports on social conditions _______________________________ _ 41, 42 Cost of small almshouses __________________________________________ _ 42-48 Trend toward consolidation _______________________________________ _ 49-52 Appendix-Provisions of State laws as to almshouses _________________ _ 53, 54   https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis  V   https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis  BULLETIN OF THE  U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS N0.388  WASHINGTON  JUNE, 19ZS  THE COST OF AMERICAN ALMSHOUSES DISTRIBUTION OF ALMSHOUSES AND POLITICAL UNIT OF ORGANIZATION Early in its investigation the Bureau of Labor Statistics encountered a difficulty which has ap_parentlv been met by others who han treated the subjeQt of pauper mstitutfons-the difficulty of finding an acceptable name to use to cover the entire subject. To quote Alexander Johnson: · The names of the institutions differ in different States. The term "almshouse" is most frequent in New England and in some of the Eastern States; in the Middle West "poorhouse" is the most common; in Ohio the legal name is "county infirmary"; in Indiana it is the "county asylum"; in Maryland it is the "county home"; in California the "county hospital"; and in Richmond, Va., "almshouse" was recently changed to "city home." 1  One county official in Iowa, repor~h1g on the "county farm," advised the department that "we have no poor farms in the State where the tall com grows"; another in Michigan, editing the deJ>artment's schedule to read "infirmary" instead of "poor farm," anded the op~on that "it is poor judgment to say poor farm." AB Mr. Johnson says: · In all our newer nomenclature we are continually trying to find milder names for disagreeable things, by which we may seem to soften the harsh facts of existence. But a change of name usually indicates something more than a desire for euphemism. It has usually been with a genuine desire to make the almshouse into a real home for worthy poor people that a change of name has been adopted. With a less offensive term has usually ceme a milder and kinder management.I  If the institutions under consideration were all county organizations, the term "county home," which is now in quite general use, would be the apJ>ropriate designation, but unfortunately it does not cover the field. So, with Mr. Johnson and the United States Census Bureau, this report will, for convenience, use the term " almshouse" with the understanding that it embraces the entire property-the farm as well as the dwe1ling. There are almshouses in all States except New Mexico. In 40 of these 47 States they are county institutions. In a few instances there are city almshouses in addition to the county homes, among th@m being_Cincinnati, Ohio; Baltimore, Md.; Louisville, Ky.; and Roanoke and Norfolk, Va. 1 :rolmson, Aluand6r: The Almshouse, CCIIIBtruction and Management. Charities Publication Committee, 1911, p. 7. 1 Idem, p. 6.   https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis  1  2  COST OF AMERICAN ALMSHOUSES  In Cleveland, Ohio, St. Louis, Mo., Sheboygan, Wis., and Richmond, Va., the city is the unit of organization and county cases are cared for in the city ~titution at county expense. In only one State, Indiana, is .an almshouse maintained in each county, a State law requiring each county in that State "to maintain an asylum for the poor" (Burns 1914, sec. 9744). Ohio has an almshouse in each county except Cuyahoga, where the Cleveland City Infirmary takes the place of the county institution. In the rest of the States having the county system, counties which have no almshouse take care of their paupers in one or more of several different ways-by outdoor relief, by placing them with private individuals under a contract for a :6.xea/rice per week or per month for their ' board, furnishing clothing an medical service, or by paying for their support in the a.Iinshouse of a n_ei_ghboring county. In :five States, Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont, pauper relief is a fown function. Accordingly almshouses are numerous throughout New England. Counting those in operation at present, Connecticut has 60, Maine 79, Massachusetts 137, Rhode Island 19, and Vermont 38. In addition, there is a State almshouse, or infirmary, in both Massachusetts and Rhode Island. In the two remaining States, Pennsylvania and New Jersey, responsibility for the care of the poor m11.y devolve upon the county, the town, or the township. Eleven of New Jersey's 30 almshouses are county institutions; 6 are run by the township, and the remaining 13 are in cities and towns. In Pennyslvania the orRanization is even more ramifying. In some cases "poor distp.cts within the township maintain an almshouse, and borough almshouses take care of the _paupers of a town and the surrounding country within the borough liinits. Pennsylvania's 79 almshouses are grouped thus: 43 county, 9 township, 6 poor district, 6 borough, and 15 municipal. ALMSHOUSE ADMINISTRATION AND INMATES CONTROL  In most States the governing body of the county, whether known as county commissioners, trustees, or supervisors, constitutes the controlling responsible factor in almshouse management. In New England control is vested in the town, with the overseers of the poor as the immediately responsible officials. California, Michigan, and New York have an elected county official, usually called the county superintendent of the poor, who is the administrative head of public poor relief1 including the county almshouse. In Louisiana the · polic~ury IS the controlling body, and in Arkansas, Missouri, Oregon, and West Virginia the al.n:ishouses are under the jurisdiction of the county courts. In States which have official bodies in the field of public charity and social work, such as State departments of public welfare, public welfare commissions, State boards of charity, and the like, some degree of centralized control, or at least supervision, obtains. In only one, however, has the State body actual authority over the local management. The Michigan State Welfare Department has power to enforce its recommendations for the improvement of physical  https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis  ALMSHOUSE ADMINISTRATION AND INMATES  8  conditions in county almshouses, and to administer State laws with regard to poor relief. But in most States the State body merely has the right to inspect local institutions and to recommend changes and improvements. In many States there is no central supervising agency, the State body having to do only with State institutions. In Iowa, county auditors report investment and expenditure involved in county institutions to the State auditor, and the State board of control has the right to inspect and advise regarding county homes having insane inmates. There is no State Jurisdiction over county homes in which there are no insane. Yearly inspections of all almshouses within the State are made by agents of the State boards in all the New England States (except Rhode Island), and in Michigan, Wisconsin, Indiana, North and South Carolina, Ohio, Virginia, Alabama, and Pennsylvania. · Findings of these State officials, with recommendations, are transmitted to the local authorities. Public opinion is chiefly relied upon to correct any unsatisfactory conditions reported by State agents. In some States, Pennsylvania for one, the department of public safety or the department of public health can force action by local authorities wliere fire risk or seriously bad sanitary conditions are found by State inspectors. Financial reports dealing with the amount of public money invested in and spent by county almshouses are made to the State officials of New York, Iowa, Kansas, North Carolina, Michigan, Ohio, and most of the New England States. On the whole, however, the entire management' and control of pauper institutions is vested in local bodies, and State authorities and the public at large know practically nothing about them. How seriously this responsibility is taken by the county and town officials to whom it is intrusted, what degree of care it insures the inmates, and what it costs the community, depend wholly on the interest and enlightenment of these elected officials and the public they represent. In consequence, the story of American almshouses is a story of haphazard conditions, covering every degree of efficiency and economy and of waste, extravagance, and rmsmanagement; of sympathetic treatment and honest effort to make an almshouse a home, and of neglect, indifference, and downright inhumanity. INMATES-CHARACTER AND COMMITMENT  "The inmates of most almshouses are a very heterogeneous collection," says the report of the Pennsylvania Commission on Old-Age Pensions. "They comprise insane, feeble-minded, and epileptics; blind and deaf mutes; sufferers from chronic diseases; persons with criminal records; prostitutes; mothers of illegitimate children; orphans and deserted children." 8 The almshouses of Virginia, according to the State Board of Charities, are "a catchall for the dregs of society, where anything may go and live in comparative idleness. * * * The po:pulation of the average almsliouse is composed of the aged and infirm, the afflicted, the feeble-minded, idiots, the blind, prostitutes, and children of all ages. For instance, our agent's report of one county almshouse, which is, incidentally, I  PenDB:,lvanla. Oommlsslon on Old-Age PensloDS. Report, 1919, p. 43.  29965°-25t-Bull. 386-2  https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis  4  OOST OF AMERICAN ALMSHOUSES  one of the best, showed 16 old and infirm, 3 idiots, 2 consum_p~ives, .1 feeble-minded, 2 prostitutes, 4 physically afflicted, and 7 children ranging from a few months to 16 yea.rs of age."' County superintendents of public welfare m North Carolina estimate that of the 1,500 inmates of almshouses in that State 500 a.re feeble-minded. Of 126 white inmates in eight county homes scattered through the State,  • • *  68 were feeble-minded, 17 insane, 2 epileptic, 1 a drug addict, 18 were ~iatinctly below normal, due ~ither to congenital feeble-mindedness, senile deterioration, or paralytic dementia., 15 for one reason or another could not be ade- · quately tested, 5 were classified as normal. * * * Of the total number of inmates more than 400 a.re reported sick. Paralysis, tuberculosis, syphilis, gonorrhea and cancer are among the more serious ailments.1  The report of the Iowa State auditor for 1922 shows 3,090 inmates in county homes, of whom 1,285 a.re insane. The Wisconsin system, practiced in 28 of its 49 county institutions, is to care for the insane and the indigent on the the same county farm, segregating them in separate quarters, but keeping both classes under the same management and control. In New Hampshire the "county farm" is prnnariJ;y a penal institution, on which paupers a.re housed. "Consequently,' says a report of the New Hampshire Boa.rd of Charities and C9rrections, "we find one portion of our almshouses set aside for the _habitation of the tramp when he is no longer disposed to travel; the drunkard when he can no longer keep the peace; the thief when his crime is not startling enough to demand iron bars; and the person whose immorality has become reprehensible to the community at large." Many counties in the Southern States, notably Georgia and Alabama, follow the practice of housing pt!,upers in separate quarters on the convict farms. The county institutions of the far West, especially California, combine the functions of hospital and almshouse. They are known as "county hospitals" and their inmates consist of the temporarily •· sick or inJured poor as well as the permanently dependent chronic sick a.nd indigent. In most States it is illegal to keep children over three yea.rs of age in an almshouse unless under certain verr exceptional circumstances. Yet children a.re found to some degree m almshouses in Jl,ll States, the Census Bureau reporting 1,896 children under 15 years of age for the entire country in its 1922 fu?ures. Census Bureau :figu.res for 1922 s:liow a total almshouse _poJ>ula.tion of the United States on December 31 of 78,090. Of these 2,052 are reported as insane, 12,183 feeble-minded, 1,066 epileptic, 3,045 blind, 524 deaf-mute, and 15 415 crippled. Obviously, then, almshouses a.re far from being merely homes· for the indigent aged. State hospital facilities for the care of tubercular patients have to a very large extent relieved almshouses of tubercular inmates. To a lesser degree State institutions for the blind have afforded the sightless a lietter refuge than the almshouse. In New England, particularly in Massachusetts, insane inmates have been weeaed out of the alnishouses and committed to insane asylums. Massachusetts is now t ~ to do the same thing with the younger feeble-minded and epileptic almshouse inmates and to eonsign them to proper institutions. • V!rglnia, State Board of Charities and Corrections. Thirteenth IIDllnal repmt, p. 11. I North Carolina.  State BOBrd of Charities and Pnbllo Welfare. BiemlW report, 111'»-1928, p, 118.   https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis  ALMSHOUSE AD.MINISTRATION AND IN.MATES  5  The statement was made by a State official that with the passing of the feeble-minded aged now in the almshouses that. problem will have solved itself. The result is that the almshouses of New England more nearly fulfill the real purpose of an almshouse-that of providing refuge and care and a fair degree of comfort to the old and infirmthan do those of any other section of the country. Practically all of the States have legislation providing for the removal from almshouses of cases of the various degrees of mental ailments and the care of such cases in the proper institutions. But, save in New England and New York, little effort is made to secure this segregation, and "there are few almshouses that do not contain some members of these classes. In some places, indeed, they form the majority of the inmates." 7 The larger the institution the more certain it is to contain a highin many cases a very high-percentage of inmates who, properJy classified and committed, would not be in an almshouse at all. Rather, they would be in one or another of the specialized curative or correctional institutions maintained for the purpose of caring for their kind. State laws governing commitment to almshouses grant the right of public support to "all poor, indigent, and incapacitated .Persons," or "persons unable to support themselves" for reasons which vary slightly in different statutes. Legally, a bona fide residence within the political territory embraced by the almshouse is a prerequisite of permanent support. Actual commitment is a legal form which varies in stringency in different States and which in all States is observed by the responsible officials in varying d8g!'ees of laxity. For instance, in some States laws, or at least regulations, forbid admittance to an almshouse except under a commitment order, a provision designed to keep out tramps and vagrants. Usually, however, that is regarded by almshouse superintendents as a rule more honored in the breach than in the observance. As one matron put it, "When they come in out of a cold, blo:wl'" snow, or when it is way below zero, and ask you for a night's lodging, what are y-ou going to do about it, rules or no rules~" Accordingly, there is added to the classes of almshouse inmates already discussed that member of society popularly known as the hobo. Surely an almshouse comes quite literally under Robert Frost's definition of home as "a place where, when you have to go there, they have to take you in.' · OPERATION  Two different systems of operation of almshouses are found in practicall:y every State. These are (1) direct management by the county officials, or, in States not organized on the county basis, the poor officials, through a hired superintendent or "keeper," and (2) the contract system. The first J>revails in 88 per cent of the institutions. Under it the public officials responsible for the care of paupers and the administration of the poor laws emyloy a superintendent, on a stated salary, to run the almshouse. This superintendent either has a definite appropriation on which to operate, as is the case in the large institutions, • 1ohnson, Alexander: The AlmshOllll8, Construction and M8D8plil8Dt, Charities Publication Committee, 1911, p. 126.   https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis  6  COST OF AMERICAN ALMSHOUSES  or he charges the needs of the institution to the county or town and the treasurer J)_fl,ys all bills. The produce of the farm belongs to the institution. What is not consumed by the inmates and staff is sold, the proceeds in some cases reverting to the local treasury and in other cases being available to the superintendent for almshouse use. Other emfloyees are hired by the officials, the number depending on the size o tlie farm, the number of inmates, and the funds available. The hired manager thus becomes the immediately responsible party.. Theoretically he is held accountable by the public, through its selected officials, for the successful, economical, and humane administration of the almshouse. The d~ree of supervision over him maintained by county and town officials depends, of course, on the interest which those officials take in their local institutions and the conscientiousness with which they discharge their duties. State inspection reports tell of almshouses that are visited with regularity and frequency by the responsible public officials, who wor"k in cooperation and· harmony witb the superintendent for the best interest of their charges. They also tell of almshouses which are never visited by public officials or by any representative of the community from one year to another; of whose affairs the public knows nothmg, and the management of which and the care of whose inmates are left wholly to the superintendent. Under the contract system responsibility is even less definitely fixed. By this scheme the farm and almshouse are leased to an operator for the care of the poor. There are several different ways in which this plan is used. One is on a "full maintenance" contract, under which the lessee operates the farm and takes entire care of the inmates, feeding and clothing them, and furnishing necessary medical attention, for a stipulated sum _per inmate per month, paid by the community. This sum is usually $25, $30, or $35 per montli. Produce of the farm is consumed in the institution and generally the lessee is entitled to the proceeds of the sale of the surplus after almshouse needs are supplied. More frequently, however, the lessee is paid a much smaller amount1 ranging from $7 to $20 and averaging about $12 per month, for the t>oard of each inmate, the county or town furnish.mg in addition clothing, bedding, fuel, tobacco, medical service, and drugs. Under this arrangement the lessee generally pays a nominal rent for the farm ($75 to $150 a year), furnishes liis own farm im_plements, and is entitled to all produce. This system is quite extensively used throughout the Soutli. · Another variation, not unusual in New En~land is to tum the farm and the house over to a "keeper," as he 1s c~ed, in exchange for the care of a stipulated number of paupers, a stated rate of board being paid for any committed above that number. As a rule, the number called for in the contract exceeds the number actually cared for. Under this system the produce of the farm belongs absolutely to the keeper, as if the farm were his own. The care of the paupers costs the town nothing in actual dollars and cents-they are the "guests" of the person to whom the town grants the use of the farm. It should be understood that "contract," as here used, refers to contracts leasing public almshouse property. There is, of course, another form of contract for the care of paupers used in many counties and communities which do not maintain almshouses. That is the system  https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis  ALMSHOUSE ADMINISTRATION A.ND INMATES  7  by which an individual farmer undertakes for a certain amount of money to board and care for J)RUpers on his own farm and in his own home. This expenditure would have to be included in any complete survey of the entire expense of maintaining _paupers. But inasmuch as no capital investment of public money 1s involved, this form of J>auper maintenance, as well as outdoor relief, does not enter into the present studf of the subject. The system o leasing an almshouse under contract is specifically P!'ohibited by law in three States-:-Connecticut, Indiana, and Utah. Nevertheless, four in Connecticut one in Utah, and one in Indiana are Of.erated under contract. Of the Indiana institution it is reported that 'the superintendent has all the proceeds from the farm for ·the care of two inmates and gets $15.50 p_~r month for all others." The number of inmates is reported as 4. Under the terms of the contract, therefore, the county pays $372 to the superintendent and in addition the superintendent has whatever he clears from his crops. Reporting on this institution the Indiana State- almshouse inspector says: "The SUJ?erintendent should be employed in accordance with the law. The few inmates here could be boarded in some near-by poor asylum cheaper than the p_resent plan of care." 8 Instances of the leasing_of almshouses are found in all States except New Hampshire, New Y orki North Dakota, Ohio, Rhode Islana, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. n Alabama, Arkansas, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Texas it is a common fractice. As a rule, the lessee o an almshouse operated under contract furnishes all his own help, both for the farm and for the house. Under the system of direct control the superintendent is given such help as circumstances determine. With comparatively few exceptions, the wife of the superintendent acts as the matron of the institutioni generally without salary. Cooks and other domestics, and farm aborers are employed in the larger institutions. There seems to be no basis for determining the size or character of almshouse staffs. There are frequent instances of one man running a large institution single handed; there are more frequent instances, as will be shown in detail later, of almshouses in which the employees outnumber the inmates. Able-bodied inmates are supposed to make themselves useful about the home and the farm. But State inspectors and almshouse superintendents all report that the contribut10n of the paupers themselves to the upkeep of the institution grows "less ana less each year." One superintendent of a city home on a 160-acre farm declared it was easier to do the work himself than to try to coax the inmates to help even a little. This, in a general way, outlines the organization and operation of almshouses and the character of their inmates. The invest!f!tion conducted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics covers 2,183 shouses, or 93 per cent of the :r,ublic pauper institutions of the United States. Details of the distnbution and use of the 345,480 acres included in their properties and the distribution of the $150,485,231 of _public money invested therein and of the $28,740,535 sp~nt annually m their support, are given in the following se~tion of this report. • Indiana Bulletin of Charities and Corrections, December, 1922, p. 294.   https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis  8  COST OF AMERICAN ALMSHOUSES  STATISTICAL SURVEY SCOPE OF SURVEY  The investigation on which this study is based was begun in November, 1923, and concluded in November, 1924. The data. given in the report are for the latest fiscal year available-in most cases 1923-24-the fiscal year varying in the se..veral States. All the pauper institutions in the country are not covered herein, as in some cases county officials and almshouse superintendents failed to comply with repeated requests for informa.tion, and in others there was no State agency which could supply the data.. The Census Bureau, in its statistics for the year 1922, reports on 2 222 almshouses in the United States and states that "in addition there were 36 institutions reporting no inmates and 95 institutions· from which no report was received," making a. total of 2,353 almshouses. This report covers 2,183 institutions, 2,046 of which had inmates during the year covered by the report. The record as given is com_pJete for Alabama. Arizona, Ida.ho, Indiana., Iowa., Ka.nsas,.!,1:aine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska., .Nevada, New Ha.mpshireJ... New Jers~_y, New York, North Carolina., NorJh Dakota., Ohiq, ukla.homa,. Pennsylvania., Rhode Island, South Dakota., Utah, Vermont, Virginia., Washing_ton, Wisconsin, Wyoming, and the District of Columbia. Only 28 of 44 institutions in Arkansas reported. Certain of the county- officials of that State not only f a.iled, but in some instances refused, to comply with the bureau's request for information, hence the inadequacy of the :figures so far as Arkansas is concerned. In the remaining States reports were not received from 15 institutions in California, 2 in Colorado, 15 in Connecticut, 1 in Dela.ware, 5 in Florida., 4 in Georgia., 8 in Illinois, 23 in Kentucky, 1 in Louisiana, 3 in Maryland, 30 m Mississippi, 15 in Missouri, 1 in OregQ_n, 1 in South Carolina, 23 in Tennessee, 10 in Texas, and 1 in West Virginia.. This enumeration of delinquent institutions is based on the number in ea.ch State as reperted oy the Census Bureau, or by official State records. In a. few instances, North Carolina, for example, there is a discrepancy between the number of almshouses in the State as shown by the Census Bureau and as shown by the State re_ports. However, it can not be determined whether or not all of these institutions would froperly come within. the scope of this study if reporte~!ecause o the fact that the Census Bureau designa.tes as 'a. puolic s~ouse a. privately owned fa.rm and dwelling in which paupers are housed and boarded at public expense. As almshouses of this character a.re not publicly owned and do not represent investment . of public money they a.re not included in this report. On the other hand, while Census Bureau figures give 36 almshouses without inmates, this report shows 137. The difference is accounted for by the different olijectives of the two reports. The Census Bureau report enumerates the institutional pauper population of the United States, while in this study there was been an endeavor to ascertain the entire a.mount of money invested in pauper institutions. Thus this study includes farms and buildings publicly owned and des~ed for almshouses, whether or not they a.re at present so used. For many States official State sources have been drawn upon tofurnish reports for such counties and institutions as failed to report  https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis  STATISTICAL SURVEY  9  directly to the bureau, and in this wa_y the gaps were filled and the State fully covered by the report. Others, however, Southern States chiefly-, have no State agency with supervision over county activities or with information concerning them, and in consequence there was no central source of information to which the bureau could turn when county officials failed to cooperate in the work. Of the 174 institutions not reportmg, 132 are in States in which there is no State control and in which the contract system is almost universally followed. This is a.t least suggestive of the degree of res.Ponsibility felt by these poor-farm lessees, as well as by county officials. Grouped according to the number of inmates in each, the 2,046 almshouses having inmates are classified as follows: 787 have from 1 to 10 inmates; 586 have from 11 to 25; 334 from 26 to 50; 202 from 51 to lOOi 80 from 101 to 200; 36 from 201 to 500; 16 from 501 to 2,000; ana 5 over 2,000 inmates each. More than half, or 1,373 of the 2,046, are operated for 25 inmates or less, while 38.5 per cent of the total number have not more than 10 inmates each. The total number of inmates as reported to the bureau is 85,889. This figure is at variance with that of the Census Bureau, which is 78,090, but this discrepancy can be readily explained by the shifting nature of the almshouse population and tlie fact that in most cases the figures in this study show the average number of inmates for the year, while the Census figures enumerate those present on a given day. In some instances, principally in Massachusetts and Maine1 when State records have been used to cover institutions which failed to report, some adiustment haE! b~en necessary to adapt the State records to the Bureau of La;'bor Statistics schedule. For example, the records of the States mentioned showed the valuation of the entire almshouse property but did not show land and building valuations separatel_y. In order to make this information conform to that of the rest of the States, as well as to the general plan of the study, estimates have been made based upon the relation between land values and building values as shown by institutions making the division. It has been necess~ to make these estimates for 22 mstitutions in Massachusetts and 24 m Maine, and in isolated instances throughout the report where only the aggregate investment was given. Fjgures shown for value of farm equipment and of furnis~ of buildings are frequently inadequate and incomplete. This 18 chiefly because in many cases the figure for value of farm or for value of buildings includes the value of the equipment, and there has been no general ·basis on which to make an estimated separation. Further, the value offarm equipment and livestock actually used upon the farms and to a less extent the value of household equipment exceed that reported, because very frequently all such equipment is the private property of the supenntenaent. This is especially true on the contract farms. ACREAGE, VALUE OF PROPERTY, AND COST OF MAINTENANCE ALL ALMSHOUSES REPORTING  Tables 1 and 2 show the number of institutions reporting, the average number- of inmates, the total acreage and the acreage untler cultivation, and the value of land and farm equipment and of buildin~ and furnishings, by State. Table 1 gives aggregate amounts, while Table 2 gives the average per inmate.  https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis  ... 0  TilLB  1.-NUMBER OF ALMBHOUBEB, AVER.A.OE NUMBER OF INMATES, .A.ORE.A.OE, AND VALUE OF LAND A.ND FARM EQUIPMENT AND OF BUILDINGS AND FURNIBHINOB, BY BT.A.TE  [A statement of Institutions not reporting is given on p. 8]  -Nwn• Ave~berof ber of In·  State  tu•  re-  ~ Alabama••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••  .Arizona •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••  Arkansas.............................. California •••••••••••••••••••••••••• ·•• Colorado•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Connecticut ••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Delaware ............................. District of Columbia•••••••••••••••••• Florida •••••••••••• ····-••••••••••••••  P~1a::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Illinois •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Indiana ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Iowa.................................. Kansas................................  'f:l:r·::::::::::::::::::::::::::::  Maine.• ...............................  ~=~tts.  r......................  ~1:1=:k:::::::::::::::::::::::::::  ~=pl.::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Montana•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Nebraska .••.••••••••••••••.•....•.•..   https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis  In coltivation  sti• tions  M 7  28 42 25  48 2 1 11  68 10  90 92 97 83 71 5 100 15 144 81 44 27 85 22 M  VBlue of property  Land  Total Males males Total acreage  Land and farm equipment  Buildings and furnishings  Farm  Furnlsh·  Fe-  8M 130 1,955 247 417  448 21 166 J,325 376  452 M 107 78  464  28  1,583 1,041 1,171 316 417 8 262  900 183 381 15,810 1,078 1,371  15,297 560 1,582 3,276 1,777 4,189  235 304  88  233  842 133 5,678 3,218 3,116 1,091 1,036  26  701  290  977  2,321 1,544 l'Z7 108  15,222  889  2,844  23 163  6,059  1,031  238  270 580  200 623  7,871  978  16,738 19,242 22,261 14,463 8,929 215 11,010 2,271 12, 1181 12,355 5, 1185 1,871 10,287 2,164 10,393  equipment  cent  Land  2,228  42. 2  935 1,636 711 1,480 43 150 180 3,450 520 11,995 13,773 16,366 8,487 3,502 40 2,927 1,437 3,683 9,194 3,973  59.1 49.9 40. 0 3o. 3 48. 9 75.028. 9 43.8 53. 2 7L 7 71.6 73. 5 58. 7 39.2 18. 6 26. 6 63.3 28.4 74.4 66. 4 29.4 62. 8 56.2 74.3  $168,610 87,000 84, 1711 1,287,489 225,300 628,500 13,200  $19,300 8,825 15,500 374,052 59,598 141,779  100,000 226,520  2,900  Acres  452 162 216 4,486 702 919 180 197 155 378 106 4,095 2,177 1,945 775 619 17 439 687 3,738 3,678  Per  298 53.2  550  6,463 1,216 7,726  407,105 76,440 2,722,770  2,369,992  600 58,236 12,040 266,838 301,966 829,074 79,013 33,000  4,151,327 1,073,560 604,115 7,200 3815, 106 619,300 2,530,117 1,129,436  128,031 57,440 375,517 .319, 145  666,663  266,869  315,770 1,048,045 142,430 1,384,780  3,650 72,502 23,073  83,359  Total I  $187,910 95,825 99,676 1,661,Ml 284,898 770,279 13,800 100,000  229,420 4615, 341 88,480  2,989,608  2,671,957 4,980,400 1,152,573 637,115 7,200 513,137 676,740 2,905,634 1,448,681 923,532 39,420 1,120,547 165,503 1,468,139  Buildings  $298,650 124,570 269,150 4,362,665 469,647 2,021,615 500,000 200,000 105,300 332,175 204,700 9,281,772 3,2715, 735 3,759,773 976,200 670,200. 3,300  593,594  2,335,100 5,511,468 3,910,168 1,332,500  53,550  4,613,135 310,799 663,100  fngs  $29,665 15,700 27,100 630,649 51,957 147,605 100,000 25,000 10,450  45,990 30,750 2,362,438 201,550 376,915 76,290 66,314 800 102,171 66,900 656,480 596,439 168,232 5,950 218,900 42,445 126,814  Grand total I Total I  $328,315 140,270  296,250 4,993,304 521,604 2,169,120  6()(),000 225,000 1115, 750 378,166 235,450 11,644,210 3,477,285 4,136,687 1,052,490 736,514 4,100 695,766 2,422,000 6,167,938 4,506, 5118 1,500,732 59,600 4,832,035  ~=  $516,2'l5 236,096 395,926 6,664,845 806,502 2,939,398 613,800 325,000 345,170 843,506 323,930 14,633,819 6,149,242 9,117,087 2,206,063 1,373,629  11,300  1 Dl,902 3: oos, 740 9,073,572 15, 9515, 179 2,_424, 264  118,920 5,952,681 618,747 2,148,051  Nevada _______________________________ New Hampshire ______________________ New Jersey_-------------------------York ____________________________ North Carolina _______________________ North Dakota ________________________ Ohio _____________________________ --- -Oklahoma __________________________ .• Oregon ______________________________ . Pennsylvania _________________________ Rhode Island _________________________ South C.aroJina ________________________ South Dakota ________________________ . Tennessee __________________ . ____ ---. -Texas _________________ . _______ -- -- -- -Utah. ________________________________ Vermont ______________________________ Virginia _____ . ___________________ -----_  r  15,.530 655,618 574,903 4, 101, 156 1,218,673 192,812 3,954,114 324,265 239,320 4,534,102 512,429 404,798 683,194 740,157 747,929 80,061 207,286 998,666 490,485 596,966 1,323,815 73,025  135,000 874,350 2,842,000 11,667,000 2,030,085 224,965 7,253,713  687,031 73,950 140,700 915,445 423,150 537,540 1,085,482 61,025  3,500 186,868 75,704 305,056 78,013 31,252 604,460 26,265 27,565 433,227 44,589 20,700 99,408 59,557 60,898 6,111 66,586 83,221 67,335 59,426 238,333 12,000  42,254, 178  6,112,378  48,366,556  36.2 22.3 57.3 58. 8 31. 8 67.2 69.6 56. 0 49.2 60.1 19.9 45.1 61. 4 45.2 53. 5 71.8 33.1 24. 3 71. 7 39.8 69.0 61. 2  12,030 468,750 499,199 3,796,100 1,140,660 161,560 3,349,653 298,000 211,755 4,100,875 467,840 384,098 583,786  Total ___ ------------------------ 2,183 57,688 28,201 85,889 345,480 184,087 53.3  ;~;ffi~a::::::::::::::::::::::::: W yomlng _____________________________  8 11 30 61 97 11 89 31 17  107 719 1,438 6,092  79  7,272 431  20 27 29  59 54  7 38  91 24 45 52 6  830 110 4,844 254  499  229 138 799 657 181 157 632 747 409 1,389 30  19 410 669 3,111 954 48 2,303 92  64 3,401 336  240  48 796 294 79 82 567 115 284 454 3  126 1,129 2,107 9,203 1,784 158 7,147 346 563 10,673 767 469 186 1,595 951  260 239 1,199 862 693 1,843  33  141  5,535 3,857 1!, 389  15,688  3,064 22,629 4,511 1,312 17,300 1,923 4,8i0 6,506 10, 101 8,682 460 6,107 19,330 I, 794 91'688 9,240 3,747  51 1,236 2,209 6,700 4,990 2,059 15,752 2,525 647 10,390  384  2,197 3,992 4,563 4,645 328 2,019 4,688 1,286 3,854 6,379 230  680,600  353,500 10,796,156 1,757,612 261,900 329,120 1,060,800 592,701 532,418 211,700 678,993 1,014,664 940,300 1,793,489 41,000  26,000 101,103 265,596 553,182 64,936 39,784 620,193 19,450 40,900 1,046,575 437,885 21,600 29,452 182,512 58,875 44,381 18,039 101,171 172,679 71,505 247,207 3,500  161,000 975,453 3,107,596 12,220, 182 2,095,021 264,749 7,873,906 307,896 394,400 11,842,731 2,195,497 283,500 358,571 1,243,312 651,576 576,799 229,739 780.163 1, 18i. 343 1,011,805 2,040,695 44,500  91,748,747  10,369,928  102,118,675  288,446  l In some Instances the sum of the details wlll not agree with the total shown because the cents have been eliminated In order to save space.   https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis  176,530 1,631,071 3,682,499 16,321,338 3,313,694 457,561 11,828,020 632,161 633,720 16,376,833 2,707,926 688,298 1,041,765 1,983,469 1,399,506 656,860 437,025 1,778,829 I, 677,828 1,608,771 3,364,510 117,525 150,485, 23  12  COST OF AMERICAN ALMSHOUSES  TABLB l4.-AVERAGE A.OREA.GE OF ALMSHOUSES, A.OREA.GE IN ot•LTIVATION, AND VALUE OF LAND AND FARM EQUIPMENT AND OF BUILDINGS AND FURNISHINGS, PER INMATE, BY STATE IA statement of Institutions not reporting is given on p. 8) Land,per  State  Number ofinstitutlons re-  Total  Acres  tion  M 7 28 42 25 48 2 1 11 S8 10 90 92 97  Kansas ________________ -- ---------Kentucky Louisiana _______ --- --Maryland _____________ Maine. - -------------Massachusetts-------Michigan_-----------Minnesota___________ Misslsslfpi. __________  83  Montana _____________ Mlssour --------·----Nebraska _____________ Nevada _______________ New Hampshire ______ New 1ersey___________ New York ____________ North OaroJina _______ North Dakota_. _____ • Ohio__________________ Oklahoma ____________ Oregon ________________ Pennsylvania _________ Rhode Island _________ South OaroJina ________ South Dakota_______ ._ Tennellllee _____________ Texas _________________ Utah. _________________ Vermont______________ Virginia_______________ W ashln11ton _________ -West Virginia _________ Wisconsi:ii _____________ Wyoming _____________ Total ___________  s. 88  3.06 4.15 .56 L65  8.05  7 38 91 24 45 52 6  .37 .66 2.67 9. 34 7.34 2.95 5.98 7.14 13.25 8.61 8. 60 15. 70 2. 32 2.14 2. 36 5.80 7.86 3. 61 8.01 17.91 1. 12 4.·90 L83 L23 8. 79 19.39 3. 17 13.04 2. 33 L62 2. 51 10.38 34. 98 6.33 9.12 L77 25.115 16.12 2.08 13. 98 4. 92 113. 55  2,183  4.02  71 5 100 15 144 81 44 27 85 22  54 8 11  30  61 97 11 89 31 17 79 20 27 29 59  54  Land and farm equip. ment  Buildings and furnish• ings  In  cul~rt- acreage tivamg  Alabama------·-·····Arizona _______________ Arkansas ••• __ -------Oalifomla•••• ________ • Oolorado______________ Oonnecticut •• __ • ---- _ Delaware. - ----------District of Oolumbla. _ Florida--··-··-------Georgia_-···----··-·-Illinois________________ Idabo--·········--·-·· Indiana _______________ Iowa __________________  Val~ of property, per Inmate  inmate  Land  .  Farm equipment  2.47 $187.34 $21.44 475.41 48.22 1.62 22(). 93 40.68 2.45 22L60 64.38 .28 .66 209.00 55.29 458.42 103. 41 1.08 56. 17 2. 55 .18 .49 328. 95 • 77 972.19 12.45 4. 10 483. 50 69.16 3. 91 574. 74 90.53 479. 53 47.00 2.11 4.28 736. 48 93.84 5. 25 1,332.26 266.07 7.77 984. 01 72.42 S83. 12 31.85 3.38 1.60 288.00 4.17 &.19.37 182. 64 1.47 633. 88 58. 79 417. S8 61.98 .61 1. 76 216. 28 61.12 3.85 646. 66 249.15 160. 29 15. 34 2. 31 2.27 368. 51 25.49 4.liO 627.62 85.46 13.32 2,387.55 143. 72 .40 95.48 27. 78 415. 19 165. 52 1.09 1.05 236. 92 35.93 412.411 33. lS • 73 639.38 4.3. 73 2.80 13.03 1,022.53 197.80 2.20 468. 68 84.SS 7.30 86L27 711.111 L15 376. 12 48.96 .97 384.23 40.59 .60 609. 96 58.13 818. 97 44.14 4.68 21.46 3,138.63 534.45 4.26. 71 .37.34 2.86 4.88 722.43 64.04 284.42 23.50 1.26 588. 70 278. 60 8. 45 3.90 763. 51 69.41 1.49 4.90.89 78.11 775. 67 85. 75 588. 98 129.32 6. 95 1,849.24 363.64  -------  -------  t:• 2.14  491.96  7L17  Total  $208. 78  Buildings  $331.83 623.63 680. 71 261.61 706.43 285. 98 760. 89 264.29 435.67 561.83 1,474.56 58. 72 2,127.77 328. 95 657.89 984.64 451.93 552.66 394.51 665. 27 1,539.10 526. 53 1,634.69 830.32 1,017.94 I, 5118.33 1,206.60 1,056.43 894. 78 614. 97 646.91 288.00 132.00 732. 01 846. 78 692.67 ~390.07 479. 56 909.63 277.40 748. 79 895.81 1,292.43 165. 63 225. 00 394.00 1,622.06 612. 98 1,151.11 2,531.27 953.62 123. 26 1,071.43 580. 71 774.45 272. 85 1,348.84 445. 64 1,267.74. 683.11 1,137.94 1,220.33 1, 4.23. 83 553.26 1,014.113 937.18 833. 66 425.08 627.89 424. 82 1,011.54 668.09 2,29L54 863.11 558. 42 3,673.08 1,769.46 4.64. 05 665.08 786.47 623. 24 307.92 2,047.76 867.30 885. 77 832. 92 566. 30 569.00 1,177.10 86L42 1,356.85 718. 30 973.14. 2,212.88 1,242.42  Fornlshings  $32. 96 85. 79 71.13 lo& 55 48.20 107. 511 425.55 82.24 44.85 54.62 23L 20 416. 07 62. 63 120. 96 69. 93 64.01 32.00 145. 75 88.95 108. 35 114. 22 163.17 25.00 76.97 157.20 218. 64 206. 35 89.55 126.0o 60.11 36.40 25L 79 86. 78 56.21 72.65 98.06 570. 91 46.06 158. 34 114.43 6L91 170. 70 711.48 84.38 200.32 103. 18 134.13 106. 06  Grand total Total  $364. 79 766. /iO 777.56  $573. 67 1,290.13 1,039.17 859.44 1,145.42 483. 87 748. 16 I, 582. 15 2,143.98 2,612.04 1,069.08 496. 78 1,481.42 449.13 1,001.79 I, 770. 30 2,435.57 2, 060. 76 2,577.29 11, 080. 57 1,910.89 1; 327. 56 2,925.89 964. 71 2,021.14 710.92 1,325.89 164.00 452.00 992. 53 1, 724.M 2,479.02 · 3,171.69 1,017.98 1,497.54 863.01 1,140.41 1,455.60 2,351.41 250. 00 415.63 1,699.03 2,093.00 1,308.31 1,921.29 1,172.26 3,703.53 1,277.78 1,40L04 864.00 1,444.71 1,474.89 1,747.7' 1,327.85 1,773.49 1,174.34. 1,867.45 I, 675. 62 2,895.95 1,101.71 1,654.97 889.87 1,827.05 700.54 1,125.62 1,109.60 1,534.42 2,862.45 3,530.54 604.48 1,4.67. 59 1,927.80 5,600.88 779.51 1,243.56 685.15 1,47L62 2,218.46 2,526.38 96L25 1,828.M 650. 68 1,483.60 1,377.43 I, 946.43 1,460.03 2,32US 1,107.27 1,825.57 1,348.48 3,561.36  ~~:  563.13 1,068. 2'J 120. 73 1,188.96  1,752.09  Table 3 shows tlie annual income of the institutions from all sources and_ ~he total annual expenditures, salari~ and wages being shown in detail. Table 4 gives the same data per mm.ate. The income of institutions is divided under three heads: (1) The amount received directly from the tax funds of the political unit operating the almshouse, whether county, township, or municipality. This amount is credited to the institution, either as a direct appropriation out of which all expenses must be met, or by means of paying throl!gh the local treasury all bills contracted by tlie superintendent. (2) The amount of money earned by the farm m the sale of surplus  https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis  STATISTICAL SURVEY  13  produce. Generally, money thus earned is available to the superintendent for the maintenance of the institution, and the amount of money required from· the tax fund is decreased that much. In Massachusetts, however, and in many counties in all the States, all inoney earned by the institution reverts to the local treasury and is reappro;priated for almshouse use through official channels. Whenever this custom prevails the amount appropriated is given as the total income of the institution, the portion of that amount earned by the institution also being shown. Hence the net cost to the community is the difference between the amount appropriated and the amount earned. For example, in Massachusetts, $2,723,313 was paid out of tax funds for the support of the various almshouses. The institutions themselves, however, earned $489,513 of that amount, leaving a net cost to the public of $2,233,800. In all such instances the amounts earned but not used directly by the institution have been shown in the proper columns of the table, but are not included in the amount shown under "Net annual income." (3) Income from "other sources" includes money received from paid-for inmates, from rent of part of the land belonging to the poor farm, and in the case of a large number of contract farms the rent of the farm itself, and such other occasional sources of revenue as the institution may have. The section of the table showing number of employees and the amount of salaries and wages requires no explanation except in the case of the large institutions. Employees in these large institutions have been arbitrarily grouped under the simple divis10ns sufficient for all but a few. Thus the en~e-room staff, electricians, etc. in the very large establishments are mcluded under "laborers," etc., while clerks and other executive employees other than the superintendent· are included as administrative officers, under "superintendents, etc." The item '' All other expenditures" under '' Annual maintenance cost" is a comprehensive one, including all operating costs exclusive of pay roll. There has been no intent or attempt to itemize the vanous elements of this expenditure, but it includes, of course, all the food not raised on the farm; clothing; drugs; medical attendance, except for those institutions in which a staff doctor is included among the employees; burial expenses; fuel; lighting; upkeep and repairs for the institution; and all the expenses incidental to the cultivation of the farm. It has been impossible to secure reliable data on the value of produce raised on the farm and consumed by the inmates and staff. Almshouse superintendents have not the vaguest notion of how much is consumed, to say nothing of its market value. · Efforts of State agencies to secure records on this point have been unavailing, except in Wisconsin, Michigan, and North Carolina. Pennsylvania has been partially successful. Wisconsin, Michig_an, and North Carolina, however, have fairly accurate records. From such material as is dependable $75 is a fair estimate of the value of farm produce consumed per person in a year, assuming a reasonable degree of farm cultivation.   https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis  TABLE 3,-ANNUAL INCOME AND MAINTENANCE COST OF ALMSHOUSES, BY STATE [For explanation of refund, seep. 13) Annual maintenance cost  Annual income fromNumber of!nst!tut!ons  State  re-  portIng  Payroll Public funds  Sale of farm produce  Re-  Other sources  fund  Net annual income 1  Superintendents, etc.  Matrons and nurses  Cooks, domestics, etc.  Laborers, etc.  All other expend!tures  Total I  Num- Amount Num- Amount Num- Amount Num- Amount ber ber ber ber ----  --  Alabama ________________ Arizona _________________ Arkansas ________________ California _______________ Colorado________________ Connecticut _____________ Delaware ________________ of Columbia____ District Florida__________________ ?~t~ia _________________ lliinois __________________ Indiana _________________ Iowa ____________________ Kansas __________________ Kentucky _______________ Louisiana _______________ Maine __________________ Maryland _______________ Massachusetts __________ Michigan _______________ --Minnesota_---------M!ssiss!ppi.. ____________ M1ssoun ________________ Montana________________ Nebraska _______________ Nevada _________________   https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis  55 7  28 42  25  48 2 1 11  58 10  90 92 97 83 71  5 100 15 144 81 44  27 85 22  54  8  $164,022 107,614 102,963 2,510,064 236,216 532,740 77,482 84,752 72,914 214,049 45,651 1,627,547 955,577 771,901 257,277 193,114 5,940 253,921 245,902 2,723,313 1,452,322 371,970 50,637 622,237 143,699 207,654 104,547  $2,789 574 8,358 194,226 17,767 51,552 1,639  $2,000 245 1,480 134,561 8, 7-73 45,580 521  9,800 9,101 5,956 197,516 118,346 309,345 61,573 19,660  683  93,447 14,285 279,906 92,411 60,531 250 49,633 6,167 60; 178 ' 774  1,132 847 36,000 20,443 78,000 9,836 11,625  .................  ...................  iirwr................ 36,567  .................  ----883630  ·------3,598 50,080 13,987  946  ................  29,046 --~258600 4,061 . 209,608 489,513 494,810 480 36,635 15,522 16,337 4,329 9,752 4,171  ------------·---i;ooo---------  $168,812 108,433 112,801 2,823,903 262,757 593,304 79,641 84,752 82,514 223,652 52,454 1,857,465 1,044,285 1,145,260 327,730 224,399 5,940 371,155 263,648 2,723,313 2,039,063 453,615 50,887 688,207 154,196 276,083 109,492  57 '8 27  54 24 47 5 1 11 57 8  99 107 181 74 '73 4 77  24  169 80 42 26 89 23 40  13  $59,076 11,061 43,100 101,122 30,500 42,607 4,140 1,200 11,087 40,828 13,354 123,861 68,141 138,720 75,989 65,920 3,720 48,339 17,605 173,176 92,927 69,858 33,219 113,597 42,349 45,734 24,036  15  $4,493  14  10,734 4,740 319,151 20,219 31,075 2,544 8,550 8,700 5,924 2,400 207,177 35,688 31, 130 12,490 7,230  9 325  32 60 7 16 15 24 3 91 92 72 41 22  ----4941 610 82 21  13,488 25,445 337,748 36,243 9,369  56 18 19 12  36,916 11,819 5,260 13,690  21 8 8 193 42 52 16 6 10 34 6 112 117 106 24 20 1 27 27 298 - 320 34 1 62 13 13 6  $5,792 6,120 4,080 137,128 21,423 23,138 6,108 2,700 3,072 11,608 2,523 51,513 46,582 45,079 10,178 5,099 360 11,956 7,923 164,253 218,630 17,437 120 42,498 6,060 6,092 5,657  21 10 5 146 25 65  ---i97 32 7 415 175 152 39 27  ---6227 316 252 70  ---8219 38 4  $6,384 5,700 2,160 122,510 12,451 47,659 8,527 4,073 8,011 3,055 241,235 76,317 76,767 17,250 IO, 873 35,635 11,118 277,314 192,893 29,006 60,906 6,956 20,145 3,230  $93,034 74,359 FR, 721 1,733,582 161,624 446,673 66,849 63,606 55, 153 151,724 29,524 1,207,318 757,130 823,286 195,267 134,161 1,860 244,598 201,200 1,770,897 l, 395,016 380,329 17,548 427,270 72,925 190,557 62,390  $168,779 107,974 112,801 2,413,493 246,217 591,152 79,641 84,583 82,085 218,095 50,856 1,831,104 1,003,858 1,114,982 311,174 224,183 5,940 354,016 263,291 2,723,388 1,935,708 505,998 50,887 681,186 140,109 267,788  109,003  New Hampshire••••••••• New Jersey•••••••••••••• New York••••••••••••••• North Carolina•••••••••• North Dakota. •••••••••• Ohio •••••••••••••••••••• Oklahoma••••••••••••••• Oregon•••••••••••••••••• Pennsylvania •••.••••.•• Rhode Island ••••.•••••• South Carolina•••••••••• South Dakota. ••••••••.• Tennessee••••••••••••••. Texas ••••••••••••••••••• Utah.•••••••••••••.••••• Vermont •••••••••••••••• Virginia••••••••••••••••• W ashlngton•••••••••••••  ~:a~~::::::::::: Wyoming •••••••••••••••  11 30 61 97 11 89 31 17 79 20 27  29  59 54 7 38 91 24 45 52  6  361,490 759,220 2,552,690 387,170 64,093 2,016,850 99,357 137,889 2,820,177 239,511 120,372 78,072 327,225 223,067 88,358 102,007 253,456 262,655 179,965 432,670 20,635  100,740 53,438  203,894  33,565 15,168 248,787 6,789 4,751 177,120 45,409 15,650 26,062 25,712 52,684 2,536 46,656 36,972 40,752 26,057 81,350 2,600  12  477,366 28,733 13,597 3,210 24,946 790,922 108,198 31,747 2,833,035 3,070 3,560 420,244 85,765 11,003 4,500 118,498 43,752 2,340,383 113,543 7,397 _ 5,672 148,311 193,932 ·is;2ar 3,174,971 326,292 764 42,046 140,572 4,550 .................. 109,218 5,083 6,424 ··a;i14· 354,187 36,186 9,547 302,390 11,619 7,200 95,313 7,450 156,113 2,909 293,338 5,259 ·i1,"sia· 291,053 11,806 217,827 53,332 ................. 567,352 23,235  33 177  94 7 103 27 15 88 24 25 28  ...............  Total •••••••••••••• 2,183 25,662,954 2,912,566 1,326,851 813,169 29,589,202  41,686 121,940 1171, 734 13,708 8,216 184,193 4,400 8,712  285,259  20,138,869  5  1 In some lnstanoes the sum of the details will not agree with the total shown because the cents have been eliminated ill order to save spaoe. • Includes two doctors. • Exclusive of New York City; New York City pay roll ($288,928), not itemized. •Includes New York City pay roll. • Exclusive of New York City; includes 21 docton.   https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis  377,162 522,123 1,962,495  360  60 I  16,496 33 78 41,455 74 116 1207 1124,829 1253 11,420 39 49 6 2,724 15 371 165,375 251 9 4,080 10 33 12,255 29 348 195 104,885 19 23,300 31 20 35 3,921 6 11 1,617 23 8,315 38 20 9,380 37 10 5,600 14 5 1,591 17 37 8,830 82 54 20,800 49 17 46 7,480 70 36,352 62 1 480 1  2234 a2,476,982 , •3195 •2,061,951 12836 •1,475,216 13577 82,298,591  52 6 37 81 25 47  -------· --------·- --·-----  95,693 7,840 110,178 22,945 27,236 120,294 25,153 22,743 27,153 59,591 60,678 7,fl2 28,742 38,708 39,914 56,382 47,528 6,294  19,661 54 62 64,852 1173 • 104,015 53 13,595 13 11,082 274 191,995 11 3,090 22 10,996 410 259,336 74 41,460 15 3,784 16 4,690 46 28,561 26 11,652 6,900 10 11 3,196 62 22,494 18,800 30 17,445 32 22,326 53 2 1,800  52,667 1,652,807 77,290 88,673 2,416,006 219,643 98,743 65,250 235,777 199,759 66,497 111,979 188,297 186,235 119,227 382,379 14,001  58  -------·  15,MO 39,766  I 101,328  259,966  16,374 9,683 6,680 21,845 12,219 7,084 7,445 33,434 24,722 17,273 46,743  470,844 790,136 '2,753,327 419,674 82,529 2,304,548 111,805 147,871 3,160,488  325,930  138,874 105,390 352,089 293,689 93,793 152,953 291,768 290,471 217,807 535,327 22,935 '28, 740, 535  16  COST OF AMERICAN ALMSHOUSES  TABLE 4.-A VERA OE ANNUAL INCOME AND MAINTENANCE COST OF ALMSHOUSES,  .  PER INMATE, BY STATE  Annual income, per inmate, from-  State  Payroll Net Re• annual Sale of All fund income Public farm Other other Total Super• Ma• Cooks, Labor• expen• funds pro• sources intend• trons domes• ers, dltures duce and tics, ent, etc. etc. nurses etc.  Alabama •••••••••• $182.25 Arizona. ••••••••••• 588. 06 Arkansas •••••••••• 270.24 California•••••••••• 432. 02 Colorado .••••••••• 219.12 Connecticut.•••••• 388. 58 Delaware••••••..•• 329. 71 District of Colum• bia .••••••••• · .•. 278. 79 Florida ••••••••..•• 312.94 Georgia............ 254. 22 Idaho•••••••••.•••. , 343. 24 Illinois .•••••••••••• : 286. 64 Indiana•••••••••••• : 296. 95 Iowa.•••••••••••••. 1 247. 72 Kansas •••••••••••• I 235. 82 Kentucky •••••••. .1 186. 40 Louisiana.••••..... j 237. 60 Maine••••••••••••. 362. 23 Maryland......... 1 251. 69 Massachusetts••••• ! 449. 47 Michigan. ••••••••• 278. 12 Minnesota••••••••• 360. 79 Mississippi. ••••••• 212. 76 Missour1. •••••••••• 218. 79 Montana •••••~ •••• 532.22 Nebraska•••••••••. 358.02 Nevada..•••••••••• 829. 74 New Hampshire.•• 320.19 New Jersey••..•••. 360.33 New York .•.•••••• 277.38 North Carolina•••• 217. 02 North Dakota ••••• 405. 65 Ohio.....•••••••••• 282. 20 Oklahoma.•••••••. 287.16 Oregon .••••••••••• 244. 92 Pennsylvania •••••• 264. 23 Rhode Island ..••.. 312. 27 South Carolina •.•. 256. 66 South Dakota ••••. 419. 74 Tennessee .•••••••• 205.16 Texas ..•••••••••••• 234. 56 Utah ••....•••••••• 339.84 Vermont .••••••••• 426. 81 Virginia ..••••••••• 211.39 Washinf!ton .•••••• 304. 70 West Virginia ••••• 259. 69 Wisconsin .•••••••• 234. 76 Wyoming .•••••••• 625. 29  $3.10 3.13 21.94 33.43 16.48 37.60 6. 97  $2.22  $187.57 $65.64 -----........... 592.53 60.44  $4.99 58.65  33.42  486.04 243. 74 432. 76 338.90  54.93 18. 76 22.67 10.83  23.60 19.87 16.88 25.99  1.34 .. 3.88 23.16 $2~57. 8. 14 33.25 26.67 2.22 ..............  ------------------42.06 2.93 3. 79 10. 81 44. 78 34. 79 36. 78 99.28 56.44 18.98 133. 31 14.62 46.20 17. 70 58. 71 .1.05 17.45 22.84 103. 75 6.14 89.23 25.36 22.16 18.81 96.00 34.81 19.62 8.44 16. 60 59.32 33.37 140.12 16. 12 55.40 9. 75 195. 21 30.84 47.28 37.60 44.14 78. 79  Total.. .••••• 298. 79 33.91 t  Annual maintenance cost, per inmate  1.34 • 75 6.37 6.34 ··~6a" 6. 35 15. 56 25.03 4.49 9.02 .87  11.22  ------  ··4i~43· Too· 4. 16 .61 34.59 80. 79 94. 75 .09 35.53 15.05  ···5~74" ............ 16.03 -----16.81 Tiii. 33.10 25.45 fa·04· 1.53 11. 76 1. 72 69.64 16. 58 21.38 10. 07 18.17 54.82 9. 70 27.33 4.03 38.05 44. 69  11.84 3.45 2. 00 28.48 6. 12  -----Tia· LOO  ------  ·3~24· 10.04 27.69  ~  i:::::: ------------- -----3k 6. IO 120.43 17.04 28.94 ................ 21.27  9.46  $6.44  296.06 113.12 12. 44 10. 71  278. 79 354.14 265.62 394. 39 327.14 324. 52 367.54 300. 41 216.60 237.60 529.47 269.86 449.47 390.48 439.98 213.81 241. 98 571.09 475.99 868. 98 422. 83 375.38 307.85 235.55 542. 81 327.i7 328.16 263.43 297.48 425. 41 299. 73 587.19 222. 07 317. 97 366. 59 653.19 244. 66 337.65 314. 33 307.84 704. 08  17.40 28.29 31.08 17.62  $7.09 $103. 37 31.15 406.34 5.67 154.12 21.09 298.38 11.55 149. 93 34. 76 325.80 284. 47 ..  ............  3.95 28.12 8.88 28.05 47.58 37.35 13. 19 17.48 7.04 13. 79 48.49 9.51 100. 41 18.00 18.97 22.97 21.81 36.49 9.07 42.49 27.39 11.09 14.48 23.72 44.52 9.99 14.47 24.64 69.65 11.45 9.33 15.81 5. 79 10.50 63.63 '6.98 148.80 14.40 68. 96 ·iru· 17.06 50.83 18.02 26.04 8.11 11.38 28.58 55. 74 27.11 45. 77 17.80 6.94 41.87 36.94 67. 76 9.09 16.91 28.13 139. 58 .. 50 39.94 "ifiis· 14.94 21.42 156.85 43. 77 22.44 25. 76 78.85 9.07 10.50 34. 73 190. 76 108.65 44. 90 25.63 14. 03 17.41 14. 61 36.92 ·1s. 87 30. 78 19.68 57.87 116.83 l 17.28 120.73 128.52 53.64 7.62 6.40 7.68 49.62 70.14 17.24 52.00 15. 42 26.86 23.14 25. 77 66.32 8.93 11. 79 12. 72 48. 38 19.53 21. 77 15.47 9.83 24.36 11.27 24.30 32. 79 54.05 30.38 21.35 48.49 8.36 20.65 8. 07 145.98 25.22 8.69 35.91 5. 21 13. 70 37.36 16.65 9.86 12. 85 63.80 12. 25 29.66 26.54 21.54 27.25 120.26 13.37 6.66 31.15 32.28 18. 76 7.36 27.88 46.30 21. 81 24.13 28.68 81.36 25.17 10. 79 24.93 25. 79 12.11 19. 72 25.36 190. 73 54.55 14. 55 10.91  344. 51 1 28.84 124.02 1 17.18  ...............  -------  1  26.76  $187.53 590.00 296.06 415. 40 228. 40 431. 19 338. 91  209.23 236. 71 180.20 221. 99 212. 63 235.28 264. 21 178. 98 129. 50 74.40 348. 93 205.94 292.28 267.14 368.89 73. 73 150.24 270.09 328.55 495.16 334. 07 247. 80 213. 25 159. 90 333.33 231.26 223.38 157. 50 226.37 286. 37 210. 54 350. 81 147. 82 210.05 255. 76 468.53 157.05 216. 05 172. 04 207.48 424. 26  278. 23 352.31 259.03 382. 39 322. 49 311.96 357.83 285.22 216.40 237. 60 505.02 269.49 449.48 370.69 490. 78 213. 81 239.52 518. 91 461. 70 865.10 417.04 375. 00 · 299.18 235. 24 522. 33 322. 45 323.14 a62. 65 296.13 424. 94 296. 11 566. 61 220. 74 308. 81 360. 75 639. 97 243. 33 336. 97 314. 29  234.48  334.64  290. 46 695.00  Exclu.sive of New York City.  ALMSHOUSES WITH INMATES  Tables 5, 6, and 7 deal only with the 2,046 almshouses in which there are inmates. These institutions are classified into eight groups, based on number of inmates. Group 1 includes almshouses havmg from 1 to 10 inmates; Group 2, those having from 11 to 25 inmates; Group 3, those having from 26 to 50 inmates; Group 4, those having from 51 to 100 inmates; Group 5, those having from 101 to 500 inmates; Group 6, those having from 201 to 500 inmates; Group 7, those having from 501 to 2,000 inmates; and Group 8, those having more than 2,000 inmates.  https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis  17  STATISTICAL SURVEY  Table 5 gives for each group, by State, the acreage, the value of land and farm equipment and of buildings and furnishings, the number of employees and amount of wages paid thei:p, and the annual maintenance cost. 5,-ACREAGE OF ALMSHOUSES HAVING INMATES, VALUE OF LAND AND FARM EQUIPMENT AND OF BUILDINGS AND FURNISHINGS, ANNUAL PAY ROLL, AND MAINTENANCE COST, BY STATE AND BY NUMBER OF INMATES IN ALMSHOUSE GROUP 1,-INSTITUTIONS BAVING 1 TO 10 INllllTIS  TABLE  Acreage Value Number of bast!- Numtu- berof and tiens inIn cul- Land farm re- mates Total tlvation portequipment ing  State  Al11bama ______________ Arkansas ______________  Arizona________________  California __ ----------Colorado ______________ Connecticut ___________ Florida ________________ Georgia. _______________ Idaho__________________ Illinois_ - -------------Indiana________________  Iowa __________________  Kansas ________________ Kentucky _____________ Louisiana.._____________ Maine________________ . Maryland _____________ Massachusetts-- ------ -  ~::ia::::::::::::: M~pl__ __________ Mlsso Montana--------------______________ Nebraska ______________ Nevada________________ New Jersey____________ N ortb Carolina.. _______ North Dakota ________ Oklahoma _____________ Oregon ________________ Pennsylvania__________ Rhode Island __________ South Carolina ________ South Dakota _________ Tennessee _____________ Texas __________________ Utah-----------------Vermont. _____________ Virginia_-------------Waahine,on ___________ West V rginla _________ Wisconsin _____________ Wyoming _____________ Total ____________  Z1  14 1 1 7  26  4 36 2 16 7 28 43 35 3 62 4 77 11 13 19 24 12  32  a 9  29  3 16 5 11 13 6 22 20 28 2 32 47 10 20 5 2 7B7  '199 •93 10 2 40 159 19 217 12 81 56 180  2,759 923 40  1,~  $66,900 Zl,!¥15  38 40 53 784  87  47  12,000 7,000 14,800 141,584 12,100 140,860 8,000 172,822 114,472 1,062,240 680,220 172,125 1,200 1!¥1,675 23,100 504,780 83,860 209,733 15,960 162,885 56,368 850,009 3,280 48,000 147,365 77,300 107,690 31,885 51,200 93,463 79,150 545,866 184,100 331,ZTO 2,470 170,331 401,820 !¥1, 510 184,811 70,175 10,525  4,458 103,329  46,270  7,255,877  230 1!¥1 13  209  31 440 67 91 105 175 68 140 19 36 176 20 102  44  65 65 42 96 138 165 10 147 253 68 134 35 9  200  218 2,268  88  4,315 42 1,891 1,371 4,651 7,848 3,838 120 7,020 453 6,741 1,480 1,824 1,066 2, 4f¥1 1,145 6,194 62  M3  20 l,686 21 1,212 850 3,611 4,450 1,461  --i;sa5· 252 1,724 945 1,003  283  1,337 523 4,711 20 432  2,747 865 896 - 470 1,195 2,109 161 306 361 866 251 1,503 655 862 2,939 5,076 3,250 1,165 5,253 2,617 9 9 1,664 5,022 2,593 9,986 344 467 4,685 1,657  808  385  ofNumber or Annual emBuildings ployPIIY roll and rurees nishlngs  $82,425 32,800 3,600 4,000 42,334 190,325 15,750 84,160 2,000 129,250 70,600  430,992  324,625 109,200 3,800 212,884 22,250 926,087 123,167 220,348 23,250 117,850 105,412 238,714 30,000 71,500 139,350 00,600 65,450 15,400 99,965 81,607 21,850 244,035 52,900 111,050 8,180 176,439 167,649 65,100 163,605 49,224 10,500  33 14  ------1 10 57 5 63 1 24 19 60 66 45 3 124 12 228 33  $26,524 17,938  Maintenanoe  cost  $44,736 34,174  8,000 730 10,052 ZT,611 3,712  23,094  650 13,963 8,159 48,629 48,689 26,013  3,640 46,968  2,000 26,902 98,633  9,600 54,ffl  5,650 36,224 ZT,302 147,800 !¥1,882  44,904 3,640  169,512 14,170  52 103 26 31 14 2  4,368 104,257 14,812 23,913 14,776 24,844 30,964 39,145 13,054 t.216 2 • 3f¥1 4,720 15,940 9,396 13,853 12,503 6,753 30,869 13,914 31,5Z7 3,232 31,643 ZT,248 21,514 18,414 10,749 2,214  5,139,926 1,514  857,405  2,265,259  $30,453 23,582  $54,303 21,926 40,239  20,908  38,754 69,862  Z1  20 36  29  62 8 13 44 7 32 8 30 32 13 48  30  45 4  368,594  61,739 65,372 24,580 43, 19'2 53,843 85,539 21,504 15,734 61,732 15,900  45,430  16,536  45,205 46,067  14,560 78,Z72 31,117 76,670 4,856 103,102 69,877 00,318 43,467 22,398 5,463  GROUP 9,-INSTITUTIONS BAVING 11 TO 96 Ill'll[ATBS Alabama ______________  Arizona_ - _----------Arkansas-______________ California _____________ Colorado ______________ Connecticut ___________ Florida________________ Georgia_ --- - ---------Idaho- ___ ------------Illinois. - - ------------Iowa Indiana. _____________ - -- ----------·____ Kansas ________________ Kentucky _____________   https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis  21 2 10 5 8 10 4 14 6 31 34 24  22  25  339  Z1 153 86 136 179 69 253 84 628 619 405 339 404  1,751 145  548 232 158  826  185 2,198  665  5,169 7,010 5,873 3,509 4,142  740 40 398 72 71 268  00  1,249  363  3,639 4,740 4,074 2,365 1,576  $44,285  $68,690  16,500 37,200 30,650 31,000 87,476 61,320 189,720 56,680 741,682 692,008 1,069,012 351,470 296,700  36,800  85,950 211,500 73,400 176,780 30,000 126,250 52,200 781,849 664,050 882,212 338,325 177,950  43 8 15 24 23 36 12 40 16 87 137 89 45 47  6,815 20,470 23,282 6,960 17,620 14,057  69,863 57,441  60,908  28,047 31,403  84,099  20,ffl 60,060 30,606 174,808 217,017 201,236 81,651 72,042  18  C0$1' OF AMERICAN A.t:MSHOUSES  TABLE 5.-ACREAGE OF ALMSHOUSES HAVING INMATES, VALUE OF LAND ANO FARM EQUIPMENT AND OF BUILDINGS AND FURNISHINGS, ANNUAL PAY ROLL, AND MAINTENANCE COST, BY STATE AND BY NUMBER OF INMATES IN ALMSHOUSE-Continued GROUP 2.-INSTITUTIONS HAVING 11 TO 26 INMATES-Continued  value ofAcreage Number of Numinst!- Number of Annual tu- ber of emtions inand 13uildlngs ploy- pay roll In cul- Land and furre- mates Total tivation farm ees portequipment nishings ing  State  Louisiana _____________ Maine ______ -·-- _______ Maryland _____________ Massachusetts_________ Michigan______________ Minnesota ____________  1 9 5 35 19 20 6 41 9 7 3 2 1 42 3  ----322-  5 20 24 2  676 159 89 40 31 14 719 48 122 148 164 111 26 130 29 514 235 16 52 370 86 347 390 24  15 901 987 2,605 2,173 2,367 695 5,037 947 1,280 45 185 363 6,924 978 1,177 1,022 758 611 202 2,193 480 4,874 1,624 53 347 5,912 458 4,239 4,791 80  586  9,707  86, 724  46,653  :~n:~~r~  1:::::::::::: Montana ______________ Nebraska______________ Nevada _______________ New Jersey ____________ New York _____________ North Carolina ________ North Dakota _________ Ohio __________________ Oklahoma _____________ Oregon_-------------Pennsylvania _________Rhode Island __________ South Carolina ________ South Dakota _________ Tennessee _____________  6 9 9 8 2 10 2 29 14 1 3  Texas_ -----·----------  Utah_----------------Vermont ___ -----------  Virginia_-------------Washiniton ___________ West V g!nla _________ Wisconsin _____________ Wyoming ___ --------- Total___ , ________  12 139 90 571 343  23  303 88  525 737 1,542 1,664 222 3,251 653 1,030 4 110 180 2,199 704 930 570 366 469 40 897 310 2,247 1,072 53 130 1,445 275 1,684 3,334 3  (1) $61,561 59,000 268,131 196,825 294,128 17,460 451,480 99,688 180,900 2,750 82,550 13,500 454,460 • 51, 93S 105,527 60,075 114,150 83,450 62,322 116, 705 50,075 239,070 194,725 9,100 23,500 463,544 98,300 299,955 673,2(J7 2,500 8,536,  2771  $300 117,815 73,500 644,504 378,980  534,009 30, 750 751,150 177,488 63,500 40,000 44,550 29,000 848,950 99,751 93,139 67,246 155,500 123,950 31,714 50,950 43,000 181,150 131,600 26,000 44,500 182,024 33,800 220,700 576,660 27,000  2 35 26 137 68 43 6 - 75 35 18 8 8 5 107 14 41 14 26 29 7 32 6 47 22 3 10 77 18 62 91 5  $540 17,361 7,523 70,906 43,821 41,081 11,813 71,850 30,220 16,306 10,276 4,370 3,508 65,477 11,220 16,068 11,160 26,852 10,384 3,848 12,757 3,525 43,504 26,644 1,850 5,279 24,884 18,334 32,698 47,361  Main-  tenance cost  $2,400 75,338 21,813 274,177 144,960 126,013 16,307  183,509 70,003 42,156 39,771  9.2,908  23,527 188,681  23,361 48,552 42,000 52,833 41,351  4,980  18,920 35,682 11,003 93,586 78,105 4,800 28,888 80,341 39,072 77,553 158,352 15,171  9,529,136 1, 69811, 098, 210  ~. 238,162  GROUP 8.-INSTITUTIONS RAVING 28 TO 60 INMATES 3 __ -----------Alabama Arizona.. _______________ 2 Arkansas ______________ 2 California _____________ 14 Colorado ______________ 3 Connecticut ___________ 3 Delaware______________ 1 Florida ________________ 1 Georgia_ _______________ 3 Idaho__________________ 1 Dlinois ________________ 23 37 -----------___ Indiana Iowa ___________________ 29 Kansas ________________ 4 Kentucky _____________ 7 Maryland _____________ 3 Massachusetts_________ 7 Michigan ______________ 30 Minnesota_____________ 5 Mississippi. ___________ 1 14 __ ----------Missour1. Montana ______________ 1 Nebraska______________ . 1 Nevada _______________ 2 New Hampshl;e_______ 2 New Jersey ____________ 6 New York. ____________ 13 North Carolina________ 16 Dakota_________ North 1 Ohio___________________ 42 Oklahoma_____________ 1 Pennsylvania__________ 9  'Rented premises.   https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis  95 76 60 513 128 116 30 45 97 37  804  1,302 1,084 120 231 121 252 1,105 142 45 482 43 33 67 77  239 534 543 35 1,478 42 383  345  245  31 456  208 164 (') 30 621 41 4,783 7,828 6,977  860 520 426 522 4,674 765 80 1,835 72  240 34  900  967 1,_689 4,246 378 9,506  240  1,529  175 210 24 241 99 41 (') 5  230 36 3,666 5,947 5,323 480  205 360 164 3,592 437 30 1,325 40 160 27 155 499 1,211 1,398  285 6,671  200 850  $48,500 71,970 35,000 719,750 126,000 68,000 132,550 25l 100 (') (' 20,000 50,500 45,105 26,886 175,500 12,800 1,307, 712 838,242 1,409,365 1,067,070 1,277,368 1,417,204 88,640 so, 083 126,500 98,390 95,400 78,900 202,575 173,480 957,427 542,167 162,540 93,476 5,000 4,000 471,500 202,450 70,344 9,447 27,950 31,000 9,500 91,000 32,600 72, 100 62,875 229,890 194,618 707,660 319,831 645,053 58,998 20,514 2,054,535 1,143, 6331 22,000 26,000 751,522 229,170 $32,025 55,525 7,500 242,750  • Not reported.  16 13 5 171 23 9 2 8 19 8 134 180 146 17  24 18 71 155 19 1 37 9 6 19  20 40 95 58 9  307 2 47  $6,300 12,000 3,380 122, 101 16,860 6,272 1,200 4,439 7,087 6,625 82,026 91,066 95,921 10,860 17,486 6,763 39,318 91,010 13,538 '6,750 22,995 6,000 3,780 23,283 11,199 18,999 56,574 32,123 3,082 160,410 215 23,700  a Contract.  $17,524 38,048 12,389 369,551  53,268 39,494 8,141 10,277 27,137 14,600 298,922 376,734 385,999 42, 160 56,665 32, 163 104,712 338,307 59,342 10,000 96,323 16,264 12,000 47,727 36, 181 83,812 198,507 104,487 14,429 533,514 6,335 131,501  19  STATIS'.t'ICAL SURVEY  'TABLE 5.-ACREAGE OF ALMSHOUSES HAVING INMATES, VALUE OF LAND AND  FARM EQUIPMENT AND OF BUILDINGS AND FURNISHINGS, ANNUAL PAY ROLL, AND MAINTENANCE COST, BY STATE AND BY NUMBER OF INMATES IN ALMSHOUSE-Continued GROUP 3.-INSTITUTIONS HAVING 26 50 INMATES-Continued  ro  Value ofAcreage Num• ber of Num• lnsti• Num• ber of Annual tu• berof em• pay roll Land and Buildings ploy• tions inIn cul• and rnr. farm re• mates Total tivatlon ees equipment nisblllgs porting  State  Maintenanre cost  --Rhode Island.•••.••••• South Carolina ••.••••• South Dakota •••..•.•• Tennessee •.••••..••... Texas•.•.•••••••.....•• Utah .....••••.•...•.•• Vermont •.•••••• : ••••• Virginia .•••••••••••••• Washington •.••••••••• W!l5t Virginia ••••.•••. W1sconsm ••••••••••••• Total ••••••••••••  1 6 2 4 2 2 1 5  33 182 61 141 75 73 40 185 126 81 633  4  3 17 834 11,  6  1,102 330 650 444  212 328 1,426  80  75 362 227  263 345 2,381  1,710  9891' 58,699  •as, 139  163 4  4 33 6 12 10 15 5 24  $3,130 14,321 5,706 4,750 6,920 7,474 2,520 8,236 15, 740 83,548 40,679  $9,005 49,632 16,074 15,681 24,080 26,791 18,383 29,145 47,279 49,846 159,911  8,107,961 • 18,911, 718 1,920 1,146,385  4,022,341  $6,620 151,443 33,253 48,800 52,700 35,401 3,700 80,278 81,000 62,000 858,991  6 455 303 392 280  $12,500 160,500 57,536 37,650 41,000 83,619 3,500 107,285 65,500 831,500 799,619  19  31 78  GROUP 4.-INSTITUTIONS HAVING 51 TO 100 INMATES  Alabama •••••••••••••• Arizona ...•••••.••••... Arkansas ••••••••...•.. California •••.••••••••• C1olorado ...••••••••••. Connecticut .•••••••••. Florida ......•••••••.•. Georgia.••••••••••••••. Illinois .••••••......... Indiana.••.•.•.•....... Iowa ..••••••••••...... Kansas ..••••.••.•••••. Kentucky ...•••.•••••. Maine••••••••.•••••... Maryland •...••••••••. Massachusetts ..•••••.. Michigan ..••••.••..... Minnesota•••••••••.••. Missouri •....•......••. New Hampshire ..••••. New Jersey..•......... New York ..••••••••.•. North Clftolina.•.••... North Dakota •••..•.•. Ohio .......•.•••••••••• Oklahoma•••••••••••.. Pennsylvania•..••••.•. Rhode Island •.••••••.. South Carolina .•••••.. Tennessee ..••...•••••. Texas ••••••••••••••••.. Washington ••••••••••• West Virginia ••••••••. Wisconsin ••••••••••••• Total •••••••••••.  2 1 1 14 2 2 l 2 13 10 11 4 3 2 1 8 18 1  170 471 539 1,669 225 55 1,970 54 1,849 100 115 100 98 246 131 308  370 120 40 1,158 528 165 120 167 3,162 2,065 3,355 606 249 440 97 720 3,284 90 200 2,705 1,657 4,753 1,339 134 7,213 480 4,754 32 408 8 100 351 519 1,165  202 14,283  42,549  123 70 76 1,053 129 110 100 148 853 688 822 277 204 128 82 497 1,245 84  2  6  8  24 4 1 28 1 18 1 2 1 1 3 2 4  900  $20,100 4,800 25,000 372,608 65,914 58,500 100,000 66,875 752,744 518,208 816,891 65,700 49,900 148,000 21,090 331,869 404,219 54,234 27,732 255,308 145,209 487,109 254,943 15,630 1,129,354 107,500 753,824 824,343 49,500 14,500 19,255 116,500 50,200 192,638  26,277  7,814,693  113  -------30 664 94 95 50 105 2,185 1,541 2,391 387 200 105 75 274 2,525 60 163 960 888  2,645 450 120 5,376 140 2,943 30  220  --------3 195 350  $73,700 25,000 140,000 1,074,000 132,010 172,000 50,000 37,250 1,487,028 704,870 998,699 223,500 316,864 125,000 20,150 465,008 878,974 40,284 251,000 660,850 583,728 1,692,170 348,682 50,000 1,872,065 147,500 1,889,903 183,454 49,000 75,000 81,106 115,936 296,000 189,212  14 19 15 218 25 14 17 15 98 94 77 25 26 17 7 86 112 13 11 74 82 236 19 11 271 9 181 46 17 8 7 36 18 27  $5,688 14,800 9,180 186,301 12,540 9,340 11,040 8,010 63,672 48,163 51,648 16,011 15,120 11,930 3,060 61,682 67,010 8,496 5,340 45,971 57,952 140,184 11,669 10,840 164,079 7,200  $19,216 40,000 26,000 627,138 42,109 34,598 40,000 40,697  248,664 224,660 230,227 59,706 50,571 41,527 12,060 192,694 288,585  26,883 26,230 256,081 216,332 549,623 43,402 28,840  40,036 6,300 6,300 3,400 27,841 13,920 13,699  614,487 18,000 450,667 72,515 89,000 25,000 12,249 79,149 46,941 54,594  15,449,942 1,945 1,257,978  4,778,446  99,556  '  GROUP 5.-INSTITUTIONS HAVING 101 TO 200 INMATES $24,600 32 32 1 144 Alaboma •••...•.••••.• 164,000 300 90 3 526 California ••••.•.•••••• 88,574 340 250 1 123 Colorado .•.••••.•.•.•. 83,911 1 110 200 50 Connecticut ••.•.•••••. 38,500 350 150 1 132 Georgia•••••••••.•.•••. 311,619 1,011 793 857 6 Dlinois .••••••••.•••••. 163,200 728 495 3 328 Indiana ••••••••••••••• 161, 790 710 375 377 3 Iowa ••.••••••••••••••• 19,000 125 160 70 1 Kansas ..•••••••••••••• 9,650 104 84 75 1 Maryland •••.••••••••• 430,987 829 648 350 6 Massachusetts ••••.•.•. • Figures for 1 Delaware institution, not reporting, not included in  29965°-25t--Bull. 386--4  https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis  $55,000 932,500 102,110 125,298 85,000 938,371 617,500 284,417 70,000 62,000 542,261 total.  8 87 30 24  10 93 39 24 21 17 178  $6,780 69,304 18,251 6,306 10,560: 59,823 i 28,760 15,991 12,000 7,059 147,307  $33, 000 393,970 43,958 30,071 35,928 201, 382 104, 01 3 80,36 l 29, 500 33,287 439, 548  20  COST OF AMERICAN ALMSHOUSES  T.t.BLB 5.-AOREAOE OF ALMSHOUSES HAVING INMATES, VALUE OF LAND ANI) FARM EQUIPMENT AND OF BUILDINGS AND FURNISHINGS, ANNUAL PAY. ROLL, AND MAINTENANOE OOST, BY STATE AND BY NUMBER OF INMATES\ IN ALMSHOUSE-Oontinued GROUP 6,-DTSTITUTIONS lJAVING 101 TO flOO IlfXATBS-Oontinued Value of-  Acreage  Num•  ber of  Num•  insti• Num• tu. berof tions In·  State  ber of Annual em•  and Buildinp ploy• payroll In cul· Land and fur. re- mates Total tlvution farm ees portequipment nlshinp Ing  Michigan•••••••••••••• Minnesota.•••••••••••• Missouri••••••••••••••• New Hampehire••••••• New Jersey•••••••••••• New York••••••••••••• North Oarolina •••••••• Ohio••••••••••••••••••• Pennsylvania•••••••••• Tennessee ••••••••••••• TexBB••••••: •••••••••• Utah •••••••••••••••••• Virginia ••••••••••••••• Washington ••••••••••• Total••••••••••••  1 1 1 1 2 17 1 5 16 1 3 1 1 2  184  206  189  239  142 181  229  280 2,325 121 704 2,387 145 378 161 185  1,500 375 3,303 100 1,014 4,142  6611 654 6 10  336  255  80 11,371  17,151.  1115 239 160 75 240 1,922 35  $32,000 168,925 104,000 40,898 101,375  680  ····m·  36o, 375 1,387,903 00,400 122,198 17,000 6,100 97,175  9,982  4,562,735  539,255 2o, 300  2, 7118 275  420 6  $113,000 461,461 238,000 130,416 1,531,600 2, 7o6, 714 100,000 952,000 3,735,515 141,500 278,221 447,000 78,818  907,007  9 31 10 17 29  239 7 72 247 7  48 18 18 511  111,576,598 1,342  $4,915 27,181 8,INO 10,800 21,378 168,479 3,750 42,225 168,448  4,080  25,438  Main•  tenanoe oost  $28, 6113  171,929  33,264 40,4111 ffl, 'IJf1 689,8111 31,373 182,456 797,474 14,000 102,684 57,346  ~=  910,505  3, 7511, 9611  fl, 152  $22,282  14,740  43,820 74,652  GROUP 8.-IlfSTITUTIONS HAVING 801 TO 6CIO IlfllATBS  Oali(ornla ••••••••••••• Oonneeticut ••••••••••• Delaware.. ••••••••••••• District of Oolumbla•• Indiana ••••••••••••••• Iowa •••••••••••••••••• Maine•.•••..•••••••••• Messachusett.s••••••••• Minnesota••••••••••••. Nebr88ka.. ••..•.••••••• New Hampshire ••.••.. New Jersey••.••••.• , •• New York••••••••••••• Ohio •••••••••••••••••• Oregon •••••••••••••••• Pennsylvania.......... · Tennessee ••••••••••••• Virginia ••••••••••••••• Wisconsin ••••••••••••• Total••••••••••••  1 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 6 1 7 2 1 1  491 697 205  304 225  250  225 683 222 318  70  70  437 88 200 240 475 100 97  240 43 150 200 375 75  260  140  400  154 380  242 861 1,598 355 2,119 567  428 1,334 190 3,204 678  206 477  36 10,335  70  26  30  68,488  420  161,280 323,812 104,894 201,224 542,800 81,285 1,098,335 199,287  6,192  3,86o, 981  46 40 337 1,095 100 1,805  --------------35 -------8,440  $24,000 328,909 13,800 100,000 122,000 373,264 48,000 51,800  17,804  $20,000 1,364,667 600,000 225,000 111,000 263,000 200,000  8  83  ~:::I 300,000  26 31 21 29 38 62 9 28  112,087 442,828 1, 15G, 778 1,688,850 22o, 000 1,605,186 742,112 236,018 42o, 982  43 113 216 65 216 61 38 35  66  10,222,659 1,188  71,768 11, 5112 20,977 13,140 18,600 32,709  59,187 11,460 18,000 26,712 58,098 118,259 1611,299 22,951 172,494 43,765 24,590 40,460'  304,063 71,500  84,ll83 54,132 ~3511  7$;322 168,973 M,460 128,094 138,167 137,063 253,474 577,811 78,503 508,743 172,711 68,120 139,572  916,213  3,100,913  $273,853  $969,819 19,400 149, 7118  GROUP 7.-INSTITUTIONS KAVNG 501 TO 9,000 Ill'XATBS  Oali(ornla ••••••••••••• Oolorado.•••••••••••••• Maryland ••••••••••••• M8888Chusett.s ••••••••• Missouri•••_••••••••••• New Jersey•••••••••••• New York.•••••••••••• Ohio••••••••••••••••••• Pennsylvania..••••••••• Rhode Island.-•••••••• Total••••••••••••  3 1 1 •1 2 1 2 2 2 •1  3,139  522  861  1, OO'J, 300 162,000  10  1,000 450 2  285,450 672,424 15G, 000 16,000  5,597  2,588  3,594,308  1,199 740 1,304 1,275 1,888  335  543  16 11,959  $82o,034 1,100  4 150 10 108  224  800  459  5  MD  167  •..•826. ••••40$• 2,385  785  485,000  $2,024,554  209  38,000 2,148,700 1,024,000 3,002, 5311 200,000 1,883,860 1,212,417 1,623,990 1,886,000  12 39 215 120 70 89 200 156  59  5,982 33,318 141,358 12o,847 102,000 89,633 103,660 152,126 46,110  15,043,956 1,168 1,068,887  353,795 298,668 247,000 346,473 347,728 614,795 177,094 3,514,573  GROUP 8,-IlfSTITUTIONS HAVING OVBB 8,000 IlfllATBS  Illinois ••••••..•••••••. MIISSIIChusett.s••••••••• Ml~-············ New ork••••••••••••• Pennsylvania•• -••••••• Total_ ••••••••••• · • B08ton Almshouse.   https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis  1  722 794  2,555 2,087 2,278 2,496 2,371  479 28 1,000  ··--,oo·  5 11,787  3,023  1. 599  '1  1  •1 1  500 214  435  •State Almshouse,  $172,500 122,818 18S, 012 2,380,000 767,000  I 3, 630, 330  $7,000,000 1,912,206 2,052,450 4,000,000 2,000,000  303 375 lli8  $344,440 327,316 318,865 234, 1115 113,920  $872,105 816,166 1,082,324 691,905 570,M3  16,964,656 1, 619  11, 338, 736  4,003,041  r State Inftrmary.  429 354  • Home for the A&ed.  21  STATISTICAL SURVEY  Table 6 shows for the almshouses having inmates the average total acreage and acreage in cultivation and value of land and farm equipment and of buildings and furnishings, per inmate, classified by State and by number of inmates in the almshouse. 6.-AVERAGE ACREAGE OF ALMSHOUSES HAVING INMATES, AND VALUE OJ!' LAND AND FARM EQUIPMENT AND OF BUILDINGS AND FURNISHINGS, PER IN· MATE, BY STATE AND BY NUMBER OF INMATES IN ALMSHOUSE  TABLE  Acreage, per Value, per inmate, inmate ofNum• ber of institu• tions In ~ ~nd Buildings report· Total C14tiva• equip• fl!ld .fur• ing I t1on ment mshings  1-----.---1----~--  State, and number of Inmates In Institution  ---------------------!---·!--- --- - - - - - Alabama: 1 to 10 Inmates ...••••.••••••......••••••••.•.••.•.•.... 11 to 2.,; Inmates ..•.....••••••.•....••.........•••.•.... 26 to 50 Inmates ..•...•...•.•••••••.••.........•••••.•.• 51 to 100 inmates .•••••.........•••.••...•......•.•••••• 101 to 200 Inmates .•••.•.•..•••••••.••.•...•...••••••••• Arizona: 1 to 10 inmates .•••••••.••••••.•...•••........••••.••••• 11 to 25 Inmates •..•..•.••••.•.•...•••......•..•.•.•.... 26 to 50 Inmates ..•...•.••..••••.•..••.........•••.••••. 51 to 100 inmates ...•••.••••••••.•.•••.•.......•••••••.• Arkansas: 1 to 10 Inmates .•..•..••••....•.•.•...••••...••••.•••••• 11 to 25 inmates .......••.......•.....••••.•.••.••.••••• 26 to 50 inmates .......•••...............••••••....••.•• 51 to 100 Inmates •.•••.•........•••..•••..••••.••••••••• Oalifomia: I to 10 inmates.•••••••••••••••.••.•••...•.••.••.•...... 11 to 25 Inmates ..••..•.•••........•..••••••.••.•.•••••• 26 to 50 Inmates ..•••..........•.••....•.......••••••.•. 51 to 100 inmates ...•.•...•••••....•••......•.•....•.•.• IOI to 200 Inmates .•••.•.••••......•.•.......••........• 201 to 500 inmates ......•••••......•......•••••...•.••.• 501 to 2,000 inmates ...••••............•••••••....•.•••. Colorado: 1 to 10 inmates..•••..••....••••••..••...............••• 11 to 25 inmates ..•.••.....••••••..••......•.•.......•• 26 to 50 inmates ................••....•...•...•.•...•.. 51 to 100 inmates ..•••....•••••••.•••..•.••••••....•.•• 101 to 200 Inmates ...•.•.•••••....•••.....••••.....•... 501 to 2,000 Inmates ....••••.•......•.••.•••••.••••••••• Connecticut: I to 10 inmates •....•.•••.•......•..••..•.....•••••.•.• 11 to 25 inmates •••.•••.....••••••.••.......•••........ 26 to 50 inmates .•••••.....••••...•••....•••••.......•. 51 to 100 inmates •..•.•••••......•...••.•.....••••••••• IOI to 200 inmates ..•.•.••..•.••••.•••........•...•.•.• 201 to 500 Inmates ...••••••••••...••••••••••••••••••••• Delaware: 26 to 50 Inmates ..••..•....•••••..•••..•••••••..••••••• 201 to 500 Inmates ••••.••••••.....•••••••••.•.••••••••• District of Columbia: 201 to 500 inmates •••••••••.. s••••••••••••••••••••••••• Florida: 1 to 10 inmates ..•.••.•• ~ ••..•••••..•......•••••.•..... 11 to 25 inmates •••..••....•••••••••.....••.••.....•.•• 26 to 50 inmates .••..•.....•••••...••..•••••••....•.•.• 51 to 100 inmates ...••.••••••••...••.•.••••.••••••••••• Georgia: I to 10 Inmates •••••.••....••••••.•••...•••••••..•••••• 11 to 25 inmates •••..........••....••.....••••...••.••• 26 to 50 inuates ..•••.•.......••••..................... 51 to 100 inmates ....••..•...........••.......••...••.. 101 to 200 lmnates ...•...•••••••..••...•••••••••••••••• Idaho: . 1 to 10 Inmates .••....•.......•.•..........•••.....•••• 11 to 25 Inmates ••••..•.......••••...........•.....•.•• 26 to 50 Inmates ••..........•.•....••....••.•...•..•••. Illinois: I to 10 inmates ..•....•........•••....................• 11 to 25 Inmates •..•..........•..................•..... 26 to 50 Inmates ..•..........•.....•.........•..•.••••• 51 to 100 Inmates ....•.•.••••......•...•.........•..... 101 to 200 Inmate.~ ...•••••••••••••••.........•••..•.... Over 2,000 inmates ..•••••••••••••...•••......•••••.•.. 1 As to Institutions having no inmates seep. 27, and Table 8. 1 Not reported.   https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis  27 21 3 2 I  13.86 5.17 3.63 3.01 .22  5.87 2.18 1.84 .92 .22  $331.16 130. 63 337.11 163. 41 170.83  $414.20  1 2 2 1  4.00 5.37 3.22 I. 71  3.80 I. 48 2. 76  1,200.00 611.11 730. 59 61.43  350. 00 1,362.96  14  9.92 3.58 • 52 • 53  4.87 2. 60 .40 .40  300. 81 243.14 125. 00 333. 33  352. G9 561. 76 583.33 1,866.67  100. 00 2. 70 .89 1.09 .57 -14 .27  20.00 .84 .47 .63 • 17 .14  .15  3,500.00 856.40 473.20 858.85 311. 79 48.88 261.24  2,000.00 2,459.30 l, 403. 02 1,019.94 1,772.81 40. 73 644. 97  5.45 1. 16 1.63 4.00 2. 76 .01  1. 33 .52 • 77 . 73 2.03 .01  370.00 531. 25 510. 96 720.11 2.11  1,058.34 . 539. 71 984.38 1,028.84 830.17 74.52  26 10 3 2  14. 26 4. 61 1. 41  4.93  l  1.82 .63  • 45 .34  890.46 488.69 216. 38 531. 82 762. 83 471.89  1,197.01 987.60 1,142.67 1,563.64 1,139.07 1,957.92  IO 2 I  1 5 14 14 3 1 3 7  8 3 2 I 1  1. 50 .35  1. 50  (1)  .86  946. 97 357.14  .21  67.32  (1) 2,926.83  (1)  (') .43  227.94  202.63 510. 53 599. 19 381. 94  .66  .49  328.95  740.13  1 1  4.63 2.68 .67 1. 20  1.05 1. 30 • 11 .50  636.84 888. 70 1,122.22 1,000.00  828. 95 434. 78 444.44  36 14 3 2 1  19.88 8.69 6.40 1.17 2.65  7. 77 4.94 2.37 • 73 1.14  649.12 749.88 277. 17 467.66 291. 67  387.83 499. 01 465. 00 260.49  643.94  2 6  3.50 7.80 1.11  1, 75 4.32 .97  666.67 674. 76 345.95  166. 67 621.43 4,743.24  23. 35  14.96 6.89 4. 56 2.56 .93 .20  2,133.60 1,404.70 1,042.59 882. 47 36.1. 62 67. 51 .  1,595.68 1,480.77 1,626.51 ], 743. 29  4  4  1 16 31 13 6  9.79 5. 95 3. 71 1. 18  1  .28  23  500.00  I, 094. 95 2,739.73  22  COST OF AMERic:AN ALMSHOUSES  TABLE 6.-AVERAGE ACREAGE OF ALMSHOUSES HAVING INMATES, AND VALUE OF LAND AND FARM EQUIPMENT AND OF BUILDINGS AND FURNISHINGS, PER IN• MATE, BY STATE AND BY NUMBER 9F INMATES IN ALMSHOUSE-Continued  Num• State, and number of Inmates In Institution  Indiana: 1 to 10 Inmates••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 11 to 25 inmates •••••••••••.••••••••••••••••••••••.••••• 26 to 50 Inmates••••••••••••••••••••.••••••••••••••.•••• 61 to 100 Inmates •••••••••••••••••••.•••••••••••••••••• 101 to 200 inmates•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 201 to 500 Inmates •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Iowa: 1 to 10 Inmates ••••••••••••••••••••.••••••••••••••••••• 11 to 25 inmates •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 26 to 50 Inmates •••••••••••••.••••••.•••••••••••••••••• 61 to 100 Inmates •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••  :~ t~ ~ =::::.-.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::  Kansal!:  int~E:1r========================================= 51 to 100 Inmates•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••  101 to 200 Inmates•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Kentucky: 1 to 10 inmates •••••••••••••••••••••••••• .' •••.••••••••• 11 to 25 inmates ••••••••••••••.••••••••.••.•.•..•••••••• 26 to 50 inmates •••••••••••••.•••••••••••.•..•••••••••• 51 to 100 inmates•••••••••••••••••••••••••••..•••••••••• Louisiana: 1 to 10 inmates •••••••••••••••••••••••••.•.••••••••••••• 11 to 25 Inmates••••••••••••.••••.•.•.••.•.•.•••••••.•.• Maine: 1 to 10 Inmates••••••••••••••••••••••••••••..•.••••••.•• 11 to 25 inmates••••..•••••.••••••••••.••.•.••.••••••••• 61 to 100 inmates •••••••••••••••••.•.••.•••••••.••.••••• . 201 to 500 Inmates•••.••••••••••••.•••.••••.•••••••••.•. Maryland: 1 to -rn Inmates •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.••••••••••• 11 to 25 inmates••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.••••••••• 26 to 50 Inmates••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.• 61 to 100 Inmates.••••••••••••••••••••.•••••.••••••••••• 101 to 200 Inmates••••••••••••••••••.•••.••••••••••••••• 501 to 2,000 Inmates •••••••••••••••••..••.•••••••••••••• Massachusetts: 1 to 10 Inmates•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.••••••••••• 11 to 25 inmates ••••••••••••••••••••••.••.•..••••••••.•• 26 to 50 inmates•••••••••••••••••••••••.•••.••...•.••••• 61 to 100 inmates._ ••••••••••••••.•••.•••••••••.••••••• 101 to 200 inmates•••••••.•••••••••••..••••••••••••••••• 201 to 500 inmates •••••••••••••.••••••.••••.••••.•.••••• 501 to 2,000 Inmates•.•••••••••.•••••••••••••.•••••••••• Over 2,000 Inmates••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Michigan: 1 to 10 inmates •••••••••••••••••••...••.••••••••••.•••• 11 to 25 inmates ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 26 to 50 inmates •••••••••••••••••..••..•••••••••••.•••• 61 to 100 Inmates •••••••.•••••.••••••..••••••••.••••••• 101 to 200 inmates •••••••••••••••••••••...•.•••••••.•.. Over 2,000 inmates ••••••••••••••••••••••.••••••••••••• Minnesota: 1 to 10 inmates •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 11 to 25 Inmates •••••••.•••••••••••••.•••..•••••••••••• 26 to 50 inmates •.•••••••••••••••••••••..••••.••••••••• 51 to 100 inmates ••••••••••••••••••••••...•.••••••••••• 101 to 200 inmates •.•••••••••.•••••••.••••....••••••••• 201 to 500 inmates •••••••••••••••••••••••..•••••••••••• Mississippi: 1 to 10 inmates ••••••.••••••••••••••••••••••••.•..••••• 11 to 25 Inmates ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 26 to 50 inmates •••••••••••••••••.•.••••••••••••••••••• Missouri: 1 to 10 inmates .•••••••.••••••••.••••••••••••.••••••••• 11 to 25 Inmates •••••••••••.•••••••••.••••••••.•••••••• 26 to 50 inmates ••••••••.••.•.••••.•..•••••••..•••••••• 51 to 100 inmates .•••••••.•••••....••.•.••......•.•••••  :t t~ runii:;i:i~t.ei:.·::::::.-::::::::::::::::::::::::::1   https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis  Acreage, per Inmate  Value, per Inmate, of-  ~li~.l----,,---1---~--tions In Land aud Buildings re/;.°:t· Total cu~ti va• e~[Jt,. and fur• nlshings ment t1on  7 34 37 10 3 1  24.48 11.32 6.01 3.00 2. 22 1.07  15.18 $2,044.13 7.66 1,117.95 4. 57 819. 56 745. 94 2.24 497. 56 1.51 542.:n .89  28 24 29 11 3 1  25.28 14.50 6.44 4. 08 1.89 1.90  20.06 10.06 4. 91 2. 91 1.01 1.50  5,901.33 2,639.53 1,307.38 993. 78 431. 44· 1,493.05  2,394.40 2,178.30 1,178.38 1,214.96 758.44 1,052.00  43 22 4 4 1  34.12 10.35 7.17 2.19 1.28  19.35 6.98 4. 00 1.40 .56  2,522.70 1,036.78 667. 36 237.18 152. 00  1,411.41 998.01 738.67 806.86 560.00  35 25 7 3  19.48 10. 25 2. 25 1.22  7.42 3.90 .89  873. 73 734. 41 425. 93 244. 61  554.31 440.47 547. 62 1,553.25  3 1  9.23 1. 25  92. 31  292. 31 25.00  62 9 2 1  33.59 6.48 3.44 .44  8. 78  945.81 442. 89 1,156.25 213. 33  1,018.58 847.59 976. 56 888. 89  4 5 3 1 1 1  14.61 10.97 3. 52 1.18 .81 .41  8.13 5.83 2.98 • 91 • 72  .'J:1  745.16 655.56 652.07 257. 20 92. 79 883.42  717. 74 816. 67 788. 43 245. 73 596.15 3,913.84  77 35 7 8 6 2 1  l  15.32 4.56 2. 07 1.45 . 78 .17 • 21 .38  3.92 1.29 .65 .55 .42 .04 .01 .10  1,147.23 469.58 688. 41 667. 74 519.89 88.85 1,252.88 58.85  2,104.74 1,128. 73 803.87 935. 63 654. 11 740.22 1,280.00 916. 25  11 19 30 18 1 1  2:f.09 6.34 4. 23 2.64 1.12 .21  14.10 4.50 3.25 2.03  1,251.63 573. 83 490. 65 324. 67 173. 91 82.53  1,838.32 1,104.90 866.45 706.()() 614.13  13 20 5 1 1 1  20.04  12.01 5.49 3.08 . 71 1. 26  .63  2,304.76 970. 72 658.28 645. 64 893. 78 308. 50  2,421.41 1,762.41 1,144.65 479. 57 2,388.63 399.10  19 6 1  10.15 7.90 1. 78  2. 70 2.52 .67  152.00 198. 41 111.11  221.43 349. 43 88. 89  24 41  14.'J:1  7.64 4. 81 2. 75 .96 1.13  930. 77 667. 87 420.02 163. 13 732.39 135. 11  673.43 1,111.17 978. 22 1,476.47 1,676.06 2,504.20  !I  1  7. 81 5. 39 1.07 1.26 1.17  7.45 3.81 1.18 1. 61 .28  .98  -------- ---------2. 32 .82 .33  .84  .19  .09  $1,258.93 1,072.78 1,082.46 1,024.52 1,577.74 4ll3. 33  900. 99  28  STATISTICAL SURVEY  6.-AVERAGE ACREAGE OF ALMSHOUSES HAVING INMATES, AND VALUE OF LAND AND FARM EQUIPMENT AND OF BUILDINGS AND FURNISHINGS, PER IN• MATE, BY STATE AND BY NUMBER OF INMATES IN ALMSHOUSE-Continued  TABLE  Num•  State, and number of Inmates in institution  Montana: l to 10 inmates .• ···--·········-·····~·-·--·-···--·-·-ll to 25 inmates_··--···--·--···-·-····----·---·--······ 26 to 50 lnmates __ ·······-·-····-·--·-····-···-·--·-···Nebraska: 1 to 10 inmates ••.•••••••. •·-·············-············· 11 to 25 inmates ..•.•••••••... •-·····-····-···········-· 26 to 50 inmates_·-·········-·········-····-············ 201 to 500 inmates·-······················•············ Nevada: l to 10 inmates ..............•.••..•.•...........•••••.. 11 to 25 inmates .•.........•.••••...•.......•....•••.••. 26 to 50 inmates .••••.••..•.....•.....•....••.••••••.•.. New Hampshire: 26 to 50 inmates .•.•••••••••••..•.....•..•••.•••••.•.... 51 to 100 inmates .•.•••••••••...•..•...•.•.•••.••.•..•.. 101 to 200 Inmates ..•••••.••...•..••.....•..••.•••...•.• 201 to 500 inmates •.••••••••....••••.•.•.•••••••••...•.. New Jersey: 1 to 10 inmates .......•••..•••.••...............••••••. 11 to 25 inmates ........................•.......•.••••. 26 to 50 inmates .••..••.••••.........•..•..•....•••.•.. 51 to 100 inmates ..••.•....•............••......•••.•.. 101 to 200 inmates .••••••.•••........•.•••.•••.••.••••. 201 to 500 inmates ..•••••••.•.....•..•.....•.•••••.••.. 501 to 2,000 inmates .•..••••.•.••....•••.•.••••••••••••. New York: 11 to 25 inmates •••••••....••••.••••.......•....•.••..• 26 to 50 inmates •••••••••••••.•......••.•••.•...••••••. 51 to 100 inmate.~ .. ··················-················· 101 to 200 inmates_ .•.••••..•••.••..•......•..•.•••.••. 201 to 500 inmates .•••••..•...•.....••..•...••.•••••••. 501 to 2,000 inmates ••••.•..•••.••.•••.....•..••••...•. Over 2,000 inmat~s .••..•..••..•............••..•.••.•. North Carolina: 1 to 10 inmates •• ··············-······················· 11 to 25 inmates ••••••••.•..•..............••..•.•..•.. 26 to 50 inmates .•• ···············--··················· 51 to 100 inmates .•..•.••••••..•......••..•.....•••••.• 101 to 200 inmates .................................... . North Dakota: l to 10 inmates •.••••••...•••.••••••..•.•..••••.••••••• 11 to 25 inmates ••••••••.....•••••.•••..•..••.••••.•••• 26 to 50 inmates •.•.•••••••••.•.. : ...••..•••••••••••••• 51 to 100 inmates __ •.••••••••••••••....•.•••.•.•••••••. Ohio: 11 to 25 inmates ••.•••.•••••••••••••••...•..••••••..•.•• 26 to 50 inmates •.••••.•..••.••••••.••.•.•.••.••••..•••• 51 to 100 inmates ..•••.•.....••••••......•.•..•••...•••• 101 to 200 inmates .•••.•.....•••.••.••...•.....•......•• 201 to 500 Inmates.•••••.•.•.••••.•.••.•••. , .•••••.•••.• 500 to 2,000 inmates .•••.•••••••..••.•••••••••••••••••.• Oklahoma: l to 10 inmates••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 11 to 25 inmates....................................... . 26 to 50 inmates•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.••.•••.• 51 to 100 inmates...................................... . Oregon: · 1 to 10 inmates •••••••••.......•..•..•..•........•..•••• 11 to 25 inmates ••.•••••.•..•.. ----··-··············-··· 201 to 500 inmates ••..••.•.... -·-·-·-····-·········· ...• Pennsylvania: 1 to 10 inmates•.••••.•••••••••••••..•••••.•.•...•..•..• 11 to 25 inmates••••••••••••••••..••••••••••••••••.. _..• 26 to 50 inmates .•••••••••••••••••.••••••••••••••.....•• 51 to 100 inmates••••••••••••••••••••••••••••... -.••.••• 101 to 200 inmates .•••••••••••••••••••.....•.........•.• 201 to 500 inmates•••••••••••••••.....••••..••..•••.••••  ~!et;>2:~,=~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::   https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis  Acr&age, per inmate  Value, per inmate, of-  ,~:~,f~.1--~~--1------tions Land and Buildings In report• Total cultiva• fa~ and fur• Ing ei'i;~~· nishings tion  12 9 l  16.84 5,96 1,67  7.69 4.11 ,93  $828.94 626. 97 219. 70  $1,550.18 1,116.28 1,635.91  32 7 1  l  44.24 14. 38 7.27 .48  33.65 11. 5i 4.85 .09  6,071.49 2,082.58 846. 97 507.17  1,705.10 713. 48 939. 39 943. 40  3 3 2  3.26 1.13 • 51  1.05 .10 .40  172. 63 68. 75 141. 79  1,578.95 1,000.00 1,358.21  2 6 1 1  11.69 5. 74 8. 29 .95  2.01 2. 04 • 41 .12  423.38 542.06 225. 96 809. 53  900. 36 1,403.08 720. 53 280.22  9 2 6 8 2 1 1  15.08 5.97 4.05 3.07 1.34 ,29  12.00 3.55 2.09 1.65 .86 .17  1,333.33 2,662.90 263.08 269. 41 362.05 433. 45  1,986.11 1,437.10 961.88 1,082.98 5,470.00 1,829.87 270. 27  25. 93 3.16 2.85 1.42 .50 • 63 .01  12. 86 2.27 1. 58  964.29 364.45 291.86 231. 94 233. 71 218. 90 953. 53  2,071.43 1,325.21 1,013.88 1,185.68 1,336.56 1,444.68 1,602.56  4. 91  1  15. 61 9.6:! 7.82 5. 95 .83  3.04 2. 57 2.00 .29  837.30 632.07 589.01 1,133.08 167. 77  791. 76 1,180.74 1,187.94 1, 5411. 70 826. 45  3 3 1 1  44.80 20.38 10.80 2.44  23.50 14.67 8.14 2.18  3,865.00 1,082.04 586.11 284.18  2,525.00 2,078.15 1,685.64  6 42 28 5 6 2  9. 65 6.43 3. 66 1. 44 .83 1.87  7. 62 4. 51 2. 73 .97 .69 • 78  864. 98 773. 77 573. 28 511. 90 339. 67 527.39  763. 43 1,390.08 950. 29 1,353.55 1,056.85 950.92  16  20.68 6. 91 5. 71 8. 89  11. 72 3.85 4. 76 2.59  1,055.78 405. 91 619.05 1,990.74  641. 67 454. 37 523. 81 2,731.48  5 9 1  6,95 4.62  3.66 2.23  .54  .28  724.66 696.04 228. 97  948.17 619. 72  11 8 9 18  13.32 5.50 3.99 3.52 1. 74 L51  5.40 4. 23 2. 22 2.18 1.17 .85  .42 .42  .19  787.69 751.80 598.36 558. 80 581. 44 518. 33 79.45 323. 49  1,537.92 1,116.67 1,962.20 1,400.97 1,564.94 757.52 860.16 843. 53  1 13  24 17 3 2 1  29  42 16 4  9 1  1  16  7 2  l  -------- -------- -------·-.83 .39 • 31  .24  909.09  350.00  24  COST OF AMER,ICAN ALMSHOUSES  TABLE 6.-AVERAGE ACREAGE OF ALMSHOUSES HAVING INMATES, AND VALUE OF. LAND AND FARM EQUIPMENT AND OF BUILDINGS AND FURNISHINGS, PER IN- ' MATE, BY STATE AND BY NUMBER OF INMATES IN ALMSHOUSE-Continued  State, and number of inmates In institution  Rhode Island: 1 to 10 inmates••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 11 to 25 inmates••••••••.•..•••..•••.•..•...••••.•.•...• 26 to 50 inmates..••••••••••.•••••••.•.....•.•...•...... 51 to 100 inmates....................... a ••••••••••••••• 501 to 2,000 •••••••••••.••.•••••••••.•..•..•.....•••.... South Carolina: 1 to 10 inmates•••••••••••..••.•..••••••••••••••••.•••.• 11 to 25 inmates ••.•••••.••......••.••••••.••.••••.••..• 26 to 50 inmates .•..•••.••.•..•..•••••.••.•..••••.•••.. 51 to lOOinmates ...•.•••..•..•.••...•..............•.. South Dakota: 1 to 10 inmates ..•••••••.•..•.•.•••••••••••..••.•.•.... 11 to 25 inmates ••.••••..••...•.••..........••....•.... 26 to 50 inmates .••••.•.•..•..•.•••.•••...•.••.....•••• Tennessee: 1 to 10 inmates •••••••••••••••.•..•.••••••••••••.••••.• 11 to 25 Inmates •••••••••••.•••••..••••.••••••••••••••• 26 to 50 inmates ••..••••.•.••.•......•....••..•...••••• 51 to 100 inmates ..••.•••.....•.••....•...•.•..••...••• 101 to 200 Inmates ••.••••.••••.••••.•••.•.•...••.••••.. 201 to 500 inmates ..•••••••.•••.•••••••.••.••.••••••.•• Texas: 1 to 10 inmates ••••••••••••••••.....•.••.••.•..•.••.•••• 11 to 25 inmates ••••.•••••••.••...••••.•...••••••.•••... 26 to 50 inmates•.•••••.•.•••.•••••........•.....•.•.•.. 51 to 100 inmates ..••••••••.•.••.••........•........•••. 101 to 200 inmates .••••••••••••••...•....••.••.••.•••••• Utah: 1 to 10 inmates .•••••..•••••••••.••..••..........•.•.••• 11 to 25 inmates•••••.••••••••••••••.•.•...•.•.....•.••• 26 to 50 inmates.••••••••.•.••......•.•..•.......•.•.••. 101 to 200 inmates •••••••••••••.••••.•••••••.•••.••.•.•• Vermont: 1 to 10 inmates•.••.••••••••.•.••••.•.••.•••••...•.••••• 11 to 25 inmates .••••••••••••••••••••.•..•.•••...••••••. 26 to 50 inmates •••••.••.•••••••••••••••••••••••••••...• Virginia: 1 to 10 inmates.••••••••••••••.••..••••••••.••.•.••.•••• 11 to 25 inmates.•••••••••••.••.••••••••••••••.••••••••• 26 to 50 inmates••••.•••.••••••••••••••..••••••••••••••• 101 to 200inmates.•••.•••••••.•••••••.•...•..•.••••.•• 201 to 500 inmates••••••••••••.•••••••••.•.•••••••••.•.. Washington: 1 to 10 inmates••••••••••••••••.••••••••••..•••••.••.•.. 11 to 25 inmates •••••••••••••.•..•.•.•••.•.••••••••..... 26 to 50 inmates .•••••••.•••••••••••.•••••..••••..••.•.. 51 to 100 inmates•••••••••••••••.••••••••.•.•••••.••.•.• 101 to 200inmates ..••••••••••••..•••••••••••••••.•.••.• West Virginia: 1 to 10 inmatlljl .•••••••••••••••..•••.••••..••••••.•••••• 11 to 25 inmates ...••...••.•••••••••••......•...•....•.. 26 to 50 inmates .•.••••••....•••...•.••••.•.•..••....•.• 51 to 100 inmates•.••••••••..•••••.••••••....•.•••..••.• Wisconsin: , 1 to 10 inmates ..•••••••••••••.••.•.••.•.•••••••.•••.••• 11 to 25 inmates .•••...•.•.•.•.•••.••....•.•.•.•...••.•• 26 to 50 inmates ....•.•.••...•...•.•....••••...•.•...•.• 51 to 100 inmates...•••.•••.••••.•.••••.•.•.••.•.•..•••• 201 to 500 inmates ••.••.••...•.....••.•...••...••...•..• Wyoming: 1 to 10 inmates •••••.•.•••••.•.•••.•••...•.•.•.••••••••• 11 to 25 inmates••••••••••...•.••..••....•••...•.•.••••• All States: 1 to 10 Inmates .•••••••.•.••.•••...••••.• • ...••••..••.• 11 to 25 inmates•••••••••.••••••...•..•••.....•.•...••.• 26 to 50 inmates .•••••.••••••.•.•.••.••••...•••.•.••.•.• 51 to 100 inmates ••••••••••••.•...•..•••••.•••.•••••.••• 101 to 200 inmates••••.••••••.•...•..•••...•••.••••••••• 201 to 500 inmates ••••.••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 501 to 2,000 inmates .•••••••.••••••..•.•••.•••••••••.••• Over 2,000 inmates .••.•••••••••••••••• ~ ••••••••••••••••   https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis  Acreage, per Value, per inmate, inmate ofNum• ber of 1 - - - ~ - - l - - - ' - - - - institu• tions In Lafu~,:'d Buildings report• Total ~tlva• equip- 9¥d _furmg tlon ment mshmgs  •13 2 1 1  23.12 7. 77 . 18 .32. .02  6 10 6 2  20.52 16.87 6.05 3.55  13. 21 6.90 2. 50 1. 91  1,884.52 897. 73 832.10 430.43  520. 24 391.92 881.87 426.09  22 2 2  52.88 16. 55 5.41  30. 61 10. 69 4.97  5,686.10 1,726. 72 545.13  2,542.03 1,482.76 943. 22  20 29 4 1 1 2  23. 55 9.48 4. 61 .08 3.83 1.22  8.44 4.37 2. 78  1,189.13 465.12 346.10 145.00 416.55 357. 79  383.33 352. 43 267.02 750.00 975.86 1,332.34  28 14 2 1 3  31.84 6. 91 5. 92 1.02 1. 73  15.86 3. 73 .03 1.11  2,007. 70 828.62 702. 67 196. 48 323. 28  673.03 560.00 546. 67 827. 61 736.03  2 1 2 1  .90 3.31 2.90 .04  .90 3.31 1.10 .04  247.00 568. 75 486.18 105. 59  818.00 1,625.00 1,145.46 2,776.40  32 3 1,  34.16 6. 67 8.20  11. 32 2. 50 1.88  1,158. 72 451.92 92.50  1,200.27 855. 77 87.50  47 23 5 1 1  39.47 15. 98 7. 71 . 05  10. 25 3. 91 1. 96  1,588.22 1,252.82 433. 93 27. 57  662. 64 491.96 579. 92 426.04 1,145.72  10 5 4 3 2  6.87 5. 33 2.09 1. 43 . 76  5. 06 3.20 1.80 . 79 . 73  1,433.97 1,143.02 642. 86 473. 58 289.21  957. 35 393. 02 519. 84 471.28 2,699.43  20 20 3 2  34.22 12. 22 4.26 3.96  12.37 4.85 2.01 2. 67  1,379.19 864.42 765. 43 383. 21  1,220.93 630. 02 4,092.59 2,259.54  5 24 17 4 1  23. 09 12. 28 3. 76 3. 78 .07  11.00 8.55 2. 70 2.92  2,004.99 1,726.17 567.13 625.45 37.33  1,406.39 1,478.61 1,263.22 614. 32 882. 56  2 2  9.67 3.33  5.22 .13  1,169.44 104.17  1,166.67 1,125.00  787 586 334 202 80 36 16 5  23.18 8.93 4.90 2.98 1. 51 .82 • 47 . 26  10.38 4. 81 3.18 1. 84 .88 .50 .22 .14  1,627.61 879. 39 676. 28 547.13 400. 38 373. 58 300. 55 307. 99  1,152.97 981.68 1,160.37 1,081.70 1,369.85 989. 1a 1,257.96 1,439.27  l  3.86 $1,437.89 1. 54 2,396.99 .18 200. 61 .30 3,243.43 .004 29.47  1. 90 . 75 4. 56  -------- -------- ----------  $1,255.49 1,219.78 378. 79 1,834.54 3,471.46  25  STATISTICAL SURVEY  Table 7 gives for the almshouses having inmates the number of inmates to each employee, and the average labor and maintenance cost per inmate, classified by State and by number of inmates in the institution. 7.-AVERAOE LABOR COST AND COST OF MAINTENANCE PER INMATE OF ALMSHOUSES HAVING INMATES, BY STATE, AND NUMBER OF INMATES IN ALMSHOUSE  TABLE  .  Num- Number ber Cost,perlnmate, of ofof State, and number lust!- intu- mates of inmates in tions per Institution reemEm- Mainployee ployees tenance  Num- Number ber Cost,perlnmate, of ofof State, and number Inst!- intuof inmates in mates tions per Institution reemr,ort- ployee Em- Mainngl ployees tenance  ~  Alabama:  1 to 10 Inmates ____ 11 to 25 inmates ___ 26 to 50 inmates ___ 51 to 100 inmates __ 101 to 200 inmates_ Arizona: 1 to 10 inmates ____ 11 to25 inmates____ 26 to 50 inmates ___ 51 to 100 Inmates __ Arkansas: 1 to 10 inmates __ ;_ 11 to 25 inmates ___ 26 to 50 Inmates ___ 51 to 100 Inmates __ California: 1 to 10 inmates ____ 11 to 25 Inmates ___ 26 to 50 inmates ___ 51 to 100 Inmates __ 101 to 200 inmates_ 201 to 500 inmates_ 581 to 2,000 inmates Colorado: 1 to 10 inmates ____ 11 to 25 inmates ___ 26 to 50 Inmates ___ 61 to 100 inmates __ 101 to 200 inmates_ l!Ol to2,000!nmates Connecticut: 1 to 10 Inmates ____ 11 to 25 Inmates ___ 26 to 50 inmates ___ 61 to 100 inmates __ 101 to 200 inmates. 201 to 500 inmates_ Delaware: 26 to 50 inmates ___ 201 to f,()() inmates_ District of Columbia: 201 to 500 inmates_ Florida: 1 to 10 inmates ____ 11 to 25 inmates ___ 26 to 50 inmates ___ 51 to 100 inmates ••  Georgia:  1 to 10 inmates ____ 11 to 25 inmates ••• 26 to 50 inmates ___ 61 to 100 inmates •. 101 to 200 inmates_ Idaho: 1 to 10 Inmates ____ 11 to 25 inmates ___ 26 to llO inmates ••• Illinois: 1 to 10 inmates ____ 11 to 25 inmates ___ 26 to llO inmates ___ 61 to 100 Inmates __ 101 to 200 inmates_ Over 2,000 inmates..  Zl 21 3 2 1  6. 03 $133. 29 7.88 89.83 5. 94 66.32 8. 79 46.24 18. 00 47.08  (1) 1 2 . 3. 37 2 5. 85 1 3. 68  _252._39_ 157.89 211.43  $224. 80  160. 18 184. 46, 156. 23 229.17  800.001 812.07 500. 63 571.431 367.46 262. 93  10 2 1  6. 64 10. 20 15. 00 5. 00  192. 88 154. 13 56.33 122. 40  1 5 14 14 3 1 3  2. 00 3. 58 3. 00 4. 83 6. 05 61.38 15. 02  365,00 1,000.001 450. 63, 238.82 238. 01 176.92 131. 76 748. 99' 45. 341 14. fi7 87.24 305. 771  7 8 3 2 1 1  4. 00 5. 91 5. 56 5.16 4.10 43. 50  251.30 153. 74 131. 72 97. 21 148. 38 11.46  14  206. 48  346.671  ~ifi  672. 54 440-17 ~16.16 326. 43 357.38 37.17, I  26 10 3 2 1 3  2. 79 4.97 12. 89 7.86 4. 58 8. 40  181. 92 130. 07 54. 07 84.91 57.33 102. 97  620. 33 469.82 340. 46 314. 53 Zl3. 37 436. 25  1 1  15. 00 7.88  40-00 56. 55  348. 78  1  7.24  72.95  Zl8. 24  4· 4 1 1  3. 80 5. 75 5. 63 5. 88  195. 37 100. 87 98.65 110.40  500. 00 297.49 228. 39 4()().00  36 14 3 2 1  3.44 6. 33  9.53 13. 20  106.42 69.64 73.06 56.01 80.00  250-11 237.39 279. 77 284. 60 272.18  2 6 1  12. 00 5.60 4.63  54.17 167.34 179. 05  470. 83 364. 36 394. 59  5. ll  Z/1.38  Indiana: 1 to 10 inmates ____ 11 to 25 inmates ___ 26to 50 inmates. __ 51 to 100 inmates __ 101 to 200 inmates_ 201 to 500 inmates_ Iowa: 1 to 10 Inmates_ --11 to 25 Inmates ___ 26 to 50 Inmates ___ 51 to 100 inmates __ 101 to 200 inmates_ 201 to 5QO inmates_ Kansas: 1 to 10 inmates ____ 11 to 25 inmates ___ 26 to 50 inmates ___ 51 to 100 inmates __ 101 to 200 inmates_ Ken tu10 ck ates ____ 1 to 11 to 25 Inmates ___ 26 to 50 inmates ___ 51 to 100 inmates __ Louisiana•: 1 to 10 inmates ____ 11 to 25 inmates ___ Maine: 1 to 10 inmates ____ 11 to 25 inmates-•• 51 to 100 inmates_. 201 to 500 inmates_ Maryland: 1 to 10 Inmates ____ 11 to 25 inmates ••• 26 to 50 inmates ___ 51 to 100 inmates-101 to 200 inmates_ l!Ol to 2,000 inmates Massachusetts: 1 to 10 inmates ____ 11 to 25 inmates ___ 26 to 50 inmates ___ 51 to 100 Inmates __ 101 to 200 inmates_ 201 to 500 inmates_ 501 to 2,000 inmates Over 2,000 inmates_ Michigan: 1 to 10 inmates ____ 11 to 25 inmates ___ 26 to 50 Inmates ___ 51 to 100 inmate.s __ 101 to 200 inmates_ Over 2,000 inmates. Minnesota: 1 to 10 Inmates ____ 11 to 25 inmates ___ 26 to 50 inmates ___ 51 to 100 Inmates __ 101 to 200 inmates_ 201 to 500 inmates_ Mississippi: 1 to 10 mmates ____  434.86 16 3. 38 172. 38 331. 07 31 6. 07 113. 38 6.00 102. 02 371.79 23 8. 70 291. 52 13 74. 64 234. 99 9.22 69.81 6 341.33 8. 43 134.89 1 1 As to Institutions having no inmat'38 seep. 27 and Table 8. : Paupers housed in county hospital, no separate care.   https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis  Lim  7 34 37 10 3 1  2.95 $145.69 4. 52 92.80 7.23 69.94 7.32 70.00 8.41 87.68 10. 71 58.40  28  3.00 4.-65 7.42 10.68 15. 63 8.62  270-16 150.39 88.49 62.83 42.64 74.40  821.11 496. 88  1  3.48 7.53 7.0Q 11.08 6.96  !Ill. 69 82. 73 90.50 57.80 96.00  425. 57 240.M 351.33 215.M 236.00  35 25 7 3  4. 38 8. 60 9.63 7.85  132.05 77. 73 75. 70 74.12  227.94 178. 32 245. 31 247.90  3 1  5. 50 4.67  212. 73 124. 29  212. 73 257.14  62 9 2  1  1. 69 3.97 7. 53 Ii. 92  224. 73 124. 90 93.20 145. 37  763. 21 542.00 324.43 339.20  4 6 3 1 1 1  2. 58 3. 46 6. 72 11. 71 6.12 14. 08  140.90 83.59  457.10  77 35 7 6 8 2 1 1  1.93 4.13 3. 54 5. 20 4. 65 9.43 3. 72 4. 86  236. 95  11 19 30 18 1 1  2.03 5.04 7.13 11.12 20.44 6.44  221.07 127. 76  13 20 5 1 1 1  3. 37 7.05 7.47 6. 46 6.10 24.67  262, 78  19  5. 25  140. 72  24 29 11 3 1 43 22  4 4  ~g~  67.88 60.69 124. 17 156. 02 124.11 177. 69 101. 52 176. 70 156. 84  82.36 53.82  26. 71 139. 98 136. 58 95.34 101. 14 143. 82 51. 62  $487.53 350.59 289.35  326. 54  317.11 24o. 59  356.09 280.08 214. 30 277.44  242. 36  265. 81 147.07 320.07 272. 86 837. 71 480-16 415. 52 387. 71 530. 21 289.83  442. 24  391.07 772. 22  422. 62  306.16 231. 79 155. 07 475.12 71&.37 416. 88 417. 90 320.04  909.68 254. 32 234.10  26  COST OF AMERICAN ALMSHOUSES  7.-AVERAOE LABOR COST AND COST OF MAINTENANCE PER INMATE 01!' ALMSHOUSE HAVING INMATES, BY STATE, AND NUMBER OF INMATES IN ALMSHOUSE-Continued  TABLE  Num• ber of State, and number instituof Inmates in tions institution re• portIng  .  Mississippi-Contd. 11 to 25 inmates ••• 26 to 50 inmates ••• Missouri: 1 to 10 inmates •••• 11 to 25 inmates ••• 26 to 50 inmates ••• · 51 to 100 inmates .. 101 to 200 inmates. 501 to 2,000 inmates Montana: 1 to 10 inmates •••• 11 to 25 inmates ••• 26 to 50 inmates ••• Nebraska: l to 10 inmates •••• 11 to 25 inmates ••• 26 to 50 inmates ••• 201 to 500 inmates. Nevada: l to 10 inmates •••• 11 to 25 inmates ••• 26 to 50 inmates ••• New Hampshire: 26 to 50 inmates ••• 51 to 100 inmates••• 101 to 200 inmates. 201 to 500 inmates. New Jersey: l to IO inmates •••• 11 to 25 inmates ••• 26 to 50 inmates ••• 51 to 100 inmates .. 101 to 200 inmates. 201 to 500 inmates. 501 to 2,000 inmates New York: 11 to 25 inmates ••• 26 to 50 inmates ••• 51 to 100 inmates •• 101 to 200 inmates. 201 to 500 inmates. 501 to 2,000 inmates Over 2,000 inmates North Carolina: 1 to 10 inmates •••• 11 to 25 inmates ••• 26 to 50 inmates •• _ 51 to 100 inmates .• 101 to 200 inmates. North Dakota: 1 to 10 inmates_ ••• 11 to 25 inmates ••• 26 to 50 inmates_ •• 51 to 100 inmates •• Ohio: 11 to 25 inmates ••• 26 to 50 inmates ••• 51 to 100 inmates •• 101 to 200 inmates. 201 to 500 inmates •• 501 to 2,000 inmates Oklahoma: 1 to 10 inmates .••• 11 to 25 inmates ••• 26 to 50 Inmates ••• 61 to 100 inmates.   https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis  6 1 24 41 14 2 1  Number Cost,perinmate, of ofinmates per emEm- Mainployee ployees tenance  14. 67 $134. 24 45.00 150. 00  $185.31 222.22  2  4.86 9.01 13.03 15.45 14. 20 9.99  141. 96 106.29 47. 71 31.41 56.62 100. 79  246. 81 271. 46 199. 84 154. 29 234. 25 249.10  12 9 l  2. 34 4. 54 4. 78  455.36 190. 06 139.53  791. 80 440.27 378. 22  32 7 l l  2.26 4. 94 5. 50 11.36  279. 61 183. 21 114.55 56.60  610. 99 473.66 363. 64 402. 81  3 3 2  2. 38 5.00 3. 53  2 6 l l  3.85 6. 36 10.65 6.07  145.44 97.60 59.67 64.28  469.89 543. 70 223. 29 345.42  9 2 6 8 2 l 1  2. 77 3. 88 5.98 6.57 9.66 5.63 10. 57  144.89 140. 97 79.49 107. 52· 76. 35 240.07 137.84  437.06 738. 96 350. 68 401.36 240. 31 566.38 333. 78  687.04 I, 131. 80 256. 90 994. 28 712. 35 347. 51  1 2.80 13 5.62 24 7.07 17 9. 73 3 7.62 2 a14. 65 1 6. 66  250.59 1. 680. 48 105. 94 371. 74 329. 31 83.99 72. 46 296. 70 114.12 294.40 68. 74 265. 70 277. 21 93.85  29 42 16 4 1  4.00 6. 72 9.36 11.84 17.29  121. 57 91.07 59.16 51.86 30.99  3 3 1 1  2. 86 3.43 3. 89 5.00  236.00 197.10  795.00 486. 68 412. 24 524. 36  6 42 28 5 6 2  2. 98 4.81 7. 'JJ 9. 78 7.40 6. 38  131. 71 108. 53 83.29 59.98 103. 44 81.30  397. 97 360.97 311.92 259.14 361. 58 272. 73  16 9 1 1  3.19 10.57 21.00  156. 27 75.41 5Ll9  445. 39 283. 78  133.33  333.~  6.00  233. 75  88.06  293. 93  262. 42 192. 43 192. 90  259.28  150.83  Num- Number ber Cost,perinmate, of of ofState, and number insti• intu- mates of inmates in tions per in~titution re- emP,Ort• ployee Em- Main1ng ployees tenance Oregon: 1 to IO inmates ..•• 11 to 25 inmates •.• 201 to 500 inmates. Pennsylvania: 1 to 10 inmates .••• 11 to 25 inmates •.• 26 to 50 inmates ••• 51 to 100 inmates •• IOI to 200 inmates. 201 to 500 inmates. 501 to 2,000 inmates Over2,000inmates. Rhode Island: 1 to 10 inmates •••• 11 to 25 inmates ••• 26 to .50 ii:unates .•• 51 to 100 mmates •• 601 to 2,000 inmates South Carolina: l to 10 inmates •••• 11 to 25 inmates ••• 26 to 50 inmates ••• 61 to 100 inmates •• South Dakota: 1 to 10 inmates •••• 11 to 25 inmates ••• 26 to 50 inmates ••• Tennessee: l to 10 inmates •••• 11 to 25 inmates ••• 26 to 50 inmates .•• 51 to 100 inmates •• 101 to 200 inmates. 201 ffl 500 inmates. Texas: 1 to 10 inmates.••• 11 to 25 inmates ••• 26 to 50 inmates ••• 51 to 100 inmates .• 101 to 200 inmates. Utah: l to 10 inmates •••• 11 to 25 inmates ••• 26 to 50 inmates .•• 101 to 200 inmates. Vermont: 1 to 10 inmates .••• 11 to 25 inmates ••• 26 to 50 inmates ••• Virginia: 1 to 10 inmates •••• 11 to 25 inmates ••• 26 to 50 inmates ••• 101 to 200 inmates. 201 to 500 inmates. Washington: l to 10 inmates ••• _ 11 to 25 inmates ••• 26 to C,O inmates ••• 51 to 100 inmates •• 101 to 200 inmates. West Virginia: 1 to 10 inmates •••• 11 to 25 inmates ••• 26 to 50 inmates .•• 51 to 100 inmates ••  5 9 1  5.50 $213. 54 6.31 163. 73 5.46 64.65  $375.80 322.15 221.14  9 18 16 7 2 l  2. 17 3.83 8.15 7.45 9.66 9.81 12.18 15.01  213. 13 93.55 61.88 73.80 66. 38 81. 40 80.58 48.0S  695.46 372.53 343.34 334.07 334.09 240.09 325.63 240.63  13 .2 1 l l  2.03 3. 71 8.25 2.17 9.20  192. 35 148.00 94.85 400.36 84.92  708. 72 727.69 272. 87 725.15 326.14  6 10 6 2  3.23 4. 06 5.52 6. 76  160. 79 98.13 78. 69 54. 78  346.66 274. 48 272. 70 339.13  22 2 2  2. 00 4.83 10.17  321. 55 121. 55 93.54  815. 33 379.43 263.51  20 29 4 l l 2  4.60 10.94 11. 75 12. 50 20. 71 9.13  100.82 84.64 33.69 63. 00 28.14 78.57  225.45 182. 07 111. 21 250.00 96.55 310. 07  28 14 2 l 3  3.67 10.68 7.50 14.00 7.88  191. 07 113. 38 92.27 67.30  464.67 332.36 321.07 124. 99 271.39  2 1 2 l  2.50 5. 33 4.87 8.94  323.15 115. 63 102. 38 91.56  485.61 300.00 376.00 356.18  32 3 1  2. 83 5.20 8.00  215.26 101.52 63.00  701. 37 555.54 459.57  47 23 5 1 l  2.46 4.81 7. 71 10.28 5.42  107. 70 67.26 44.52 97. 74 119.37  276.19 217.14 157. 54  10 5 4 3 2  2. 62 4. 78 6.63 6.83 5.69  316. 38 213. 18 124.92 113.17 61.93  739.98 454.33 375. 23 321.74 222. 18  20 20 3 2  4.32 5. 60 2.61 7.28  137.42 94.23 414.17 106.26  324. 38 223.49 615.38 358.33  11 8  '  34.69  236.87  330.68  STATISTICAL SURVEY  .i  27  TUI.II 7.-AVERAGE LABOR COST AND COST OF MAINTENANCE PER INMATE  OF ALMSHOUSES HAVING INMATES, BY ST.A.TE, .A.ND NUMBER OF INMATES IN ALMSHOUSE-Continued  Num• ber of State, and number inst!• tuef Inmates In tlons Institution reportIng Wisconsin: 1 to 10 Inmates •••• 11 to 25 Inmates ••• 21 to 50 Inmates ••• 51 to 100 Inmates •• 20l to 500 Inmates. W7()Dling: 1 to 10 Inmates •••• 11 to 25 Inmates •••  5 24 17 4 1 2 2  Num• ber Cost, per In• of mate, ofIn· mates per em• Em• Main• ployee ployees tenance  2. 50 $307.11 $639.93 4.29 121.44 406.03 64.26 252.62 8. 67 44. 48 177.25 11.41 13.63 84.82 292. 60 4. 50 4.80  246.00 207.50  607. 03 632.14  Num- Num• ber ber Cost, per In• of of mate,ofState, and number lnsti- Intu- mates of Inmates In tions per institution reemport• ployee Em• MainIng ployees tenanoa  .A.II States: 1 to 10 Inmates •••• Ji to 25 Inmates ••• 26 to 50 Inmates ••• 51 to 100 Inmates •• 101 to 200 Inmates. 201 to 500 Inmates. 501 to 2,000 Inmates Over 2,000 Inmates  787 2.94 $192.33 $508.13 586 6. 72 113.13 333.69 334 6. 24 96.62 336.liO 202 7.34 88.08 334.65 80 8.47 80.07 330.66 36 8. 70 88. 65 300.91 16 10.24 89.38 293.89 5 7.28 113. 58 342.18  ALMSHOUSES WITHOUT IlVMATES  One hundred and thirty-seven poor-fa.rm. properties, comprising 19,968 acres, were reported as having no inmates. Fifty-eight of these are wholly idle, apparently abandoned; 44 are leased to tenant farmers; 12 are maintained as almshouses, with superintendents  and other employees, but having, for the time being at least, no inmates; and 23 are worked by private individuals on a crop-share basis or are let for pasture. Rent on the leased farms ranges from $60 to $1,500 a year and totals $11,870, averaging $270. The amount returned to public funds from sale of produce, pasturage, hay, etc., is $20,444. The total earnings of the 19,968 acres of land is $32,314, or $1.60 an acre. However, more than half that amount, $18,831, is paid out again in salaries to superintendents retained in the unused almshouses, for caretakers, repairs, upkeep, insurance, and so on. The expenditures for salaries and wages is $7,347. The valuation of these 19,968 acres of public land is given as $980,120. With publicly owned equipment amounting to $33,276, the value of these unused poor farms IS over a million dollars. The buildings valuation, with $7,646 worth of furnishings, is $280,091. Most of the almshouses are large, ranging from 8 to 30 rooms, unused except for those occupied by tenants and their families. Aside from the inadequate returns from the farms whi<'h are yield. ing any revenue at all, 1t must be borne in mind that not only they but the 58 unproductive properties are J>Ublic land and hence nontaxable. Accordingly, we firid an unproauctive investment of more than a million and a quarter dollars, in nearly 20,000 acres of tax free land, which yields less than a dollar an acre to the communities whose _property it is. Table 8 gives detailed information with regard to •unused poor fa.rms in each of the States in which they are found. 29965°-25f-Bull. 386---ii   https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis  28  COST OF AMERICAN ALMSHOUSES  TA.Bu 8.--AOREAGB OF ALMSHOUSES HAVING NO INMATES VALUE OF LAND  AND FARM EQUIPMENT, AND OF BUILDINGS AND FURNISHINGS, AMOUNT OF REVENUE RECEIVED, AND COST OF MAINTENANCE  Num ber  Land  Value of property  Rev-  1'! 1---.--1-------------.-----i :;,i;;:  ~--  ... tlons Total reed  port-  A-  --  Land and farm equipment  iD1  acres co •  tlva• Farm tlon Land equip. Total  ment  Buildings and  MalnteDBDOB cost  1---,--  sale  of SalaGrand prod- rles total reucent', and Tetal Build Farnish• Total etc. wages iDgs ings furnishings  SBLJ!'-SUPPOBTING INSTITUTIONS  Aside from those farms which are leased to tenants in exchange for the full support of paupers committed to them and which are· maintained without actual money cost to the community, 18 alms-. houses scattered throughout the country were reported as being• self-eupporti~. These 18 farms embrace 4,208 acres, of which 2,432 are in cultiva:. tio~. The aggregate. value of the land and the publicly owned eqwpment ·and stock JS $515,509. The total amount ·earned by these farms in the sale of farm produce, stock, etc., was $82,014.75, of which $66,694.36 was expended in the maintenance of the institutions. The number of paupers cared for was 115. One large county farm in Virginia returns a substantial revenue to the county each year after all the exJ!~es of a well-managed institution are met. The Maine State house inspector, com-   https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis  PHYSICAL AND SOCIAL CONDITIONS IN ALMSHOUSES  29  menting on one of the town farms in that State, sa~ that it is "a. :financial asset to the community,'' as.well as being 'one of the few in the State which would meet with public approval." A county farm in Kentucky is operated in conjunction with a ferry, the concession for which is given the man who runs the farm. The fen-y, operated by almshouse inmates, earned $2,000 of the $2,500 which the institution cost for the year reported.  PHYSICAL AND SOCIAL CONDITIONS IN ALMSHOUSES STATE REPORTS ON PHYSICAL CONDITIONS  Physical and social conditions surrounding almshouses and inmates were not considered in this study. The figures themselves, however1. show plainly what actual conditions are from the standpoint ot adequate equipment, sanitation, and decent food and care. For example, a report from one county shows a 2-story 16-room house valuea. at $5,000 and equipment valued at $400. It has 12 inmates and 4 empfoyees. The total maintenance expense is $5,220, of which $1,920 is paid in salaries and wages, the average operating cost (exclusive of pay roll) per inmate being $275 per year. That does not mean that $275 can De fairly charged to inmate care. Included in the $3,300 operating cost (exclusive of pay roll) are farm expenses and repairs and the maintenance of the supenntendent and his family and one, perhaps both, of the other employees. The State almshouse inspector's description of the same institution translates these figures into words: This building is very old and in poor condition. Considering its condition the institution is clean and well kept. It is lighted by electricity and heated by stoves. The water supply is from a well and a pump. A tin tub in the washhouse is used for bathing, in which the inmates bathe weekly in the summer. The toilets are outside. The furniture consists of beds, stands, and chairs. The bedding consists of ticks, quilts, blankets, pillows, and pillow-cases. No provision is made for sick or custodial cases. 9  Another county in the same State has an almshouse which the inspector describes as "a 2-story frame shingle-roofed structure in poor condition. While the plastered walls have been lately painted they are thickly populated with bedbugs. The institution is lighted by electricity and heated by steam. The water su_pply is from msterns which practically are dry in summer. There 1s no fire 1>__:i:<>tection. There are two bathtubs, neither of which can be used. The bedding consists of straw ticks, cotton blankets, pillows, and comforts." 10 This house of 18 rooms and a farm consisting_ of 80 acres of "moderately good land" are valued at $13,000. There are 17 inmates and the total annual cost is reported as $2,930, of which $980 goes into wages. These almshouses are in Indiana, a State with a well-developed almshouse syst~, having rigid statutory regulations and adequate State inspection. One county in Georgia, a State in which State responsibility has been lax and inspection almost negligible, reports a county farm of 5 acres, 4 of whicli are under cultivation, with 23 inmates housed in •Indiana. Bulletin of Charities and Corrections, December, 1922, p. 310. p. 324.  11 ldem,   https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis  30  COST OF AMERICAN ALMSHOUSES  4 small cott~es.  Total maintenance expense is given as $1,586.84, On the basis of $842.84 cliargeable to inmate support, the cost per inmate is $36.64. This institution, according to the State inspector-  of which $744 IS pay roll.  consists ·of four cottages, two with two rooms each, one with one room, and one with three rooms. All the buildings are old and dilapidated, too old to stand much repair. Each cottage is equipped with beds, chairs, and some other pieces of furniture. None of the furniture is much good and the beds are in pretty bad shape. Each room has a fireplace and kerosene lamps. The place was all wired once for electric lights, but they are not being used now. The superintendent did not know why they were not being used. There are no facilities for bathing and it seems there is no particular ruling enforced about bathing. All the water used is carried in buckets from the well. The inmates bad the appearance of not having bathed in some time. The toilets are the regular outhouse surface type. The inmates are not given their meals in a body but most of them prepare their own in their own rooms. Each cottage is equipped with some sort of stove for cooking. Their supplies are given them by the superintendent from the supply house.  Commenting on the :financial showing of this institution the inspector says: . With the salaries eliminated the cost per person at the almshouse would amount to $36.63 for the No person can be supported properly on that amount. It is hardly believable that the food of a person can be bought for that amount, not to speak of clothes, heat, lights, hospital care, recreation, and the many other things needed for the care of dependents broken in mind and body.  -,ear.  To give a more adequate idea of physical conditions existing in almshouses, extracts from State inspection reports are given for such States as print data of this character. The selections Ii.ave been made at random. ALABAMA11  In most of the counties of the State the almshouse property consists of a farm varying from & small tract of land in some, to quite an extensive acreage in others, and houses for the superintendent and the inmates. The buildings generally are very cheap box affairs, constructed of rough lumber, and are provided with no conveniences. The furnishings are in keeping with the structures and the surroundings are uninviting. In & large majority of cases water for ~l purposes is obtained from surface wells, drawn in buckets. No bathing facilities being provided, the inmates use small tin tubs for this purpose, or go without ablutions for indefinite periods of time. Ordinary surface closets are in use in the main, and they are both offensive and dangerous. It can be readily seen that the simplest principles of sanitation can not be enforced, and that comfort is impossible under such conditions. * * * The institution consists of & house for the keeper, and two 5-room houses for the inmates, all frame, with no conveniences. The keeper is paid on a per capita. basis, and he provides all food, clothing, shoes, etc., for the inmates, the county providing the house furnishings only. In special cases of sickness the county provides a nurse or attendant, otherwise all the work about the institution is done by the keeper's family and the inmates. This institution is on & steep mountain side, and at times is inaccessible. The keeper is paid on a per capita. basis for the board, care, and clothing of the inmates, the county providing house furnishings only. The keeper has the use also of a few acres of tillable land, upon which the institution is located, as part compensation. The help includes the keeper's family and one hired woman who is paid by the keeper. There are five very ordinary frame houses, with no conveniences. u Alabama.  state Prison Inspector.   https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis  Report, um.  PHYSICAL AND SOCIAL CONDITIONS IN ALMSHOUSES  31  The inmates are housed in numerous buildings, all of which are frame, equipped with modem conveniences, are in good condition and are kept in proper order. Ample provision is made for the care and comfort of the inmates. Vegetables are supplied in quantity, and a dairy is maintained and some meat raised for use at the institution, on the farm of about 30 acres of land. The keeper is paid a salary, and the county provides food, clothing, medicines, physicians, matron, trained nurse, etc., together with sufficient help for the proper conduct of the institution. CONNECTICUT 11 Almshouse is owned by the town and about 40 acres of land are included in the property. The house is a very old structure and when last visited was found in poor repair. Upon recommendation by the department to that effect the local officials agreed not to maintain the place as an almshouse. Recent town reports, however, give evidence that one or two public charges are boarded there.  The buildings consist of a modern brick structure for the administrative section and the men's department, together with an older wooden one for the women's department. There is also a separate building in which a number of demented and senile patients are cared for. The general condition of the institution, when visited, has been one of good order and reasonable comfort.  The building occupied is an old farmhouse, and when last visited appeared to be in poor condition. The only water supply for the whole farm was one well situated in the yard. The inmates had the same food as the keeper's family, but the standard of cleanliness in their personal appearance was not high.  The group of buildings erected for the almshouse was first occupied July 1, 1916. The institution is a model of its kind, arranged on the group plan, with separate pavilions for the different classes of inmates, connected by inclosed corridors. The buildings are two stories in height, of brick and stone, fireproof in construction, and all departments are equipped with the best modern apparatus and furnishings. The whole institution was found in excellent condition. Among improvements just completed prior to the visit were a new artesian well and a complete refrigerating machine. A dietitian is employed and as a result a greater variety of food is provided for the inmates at a lower cost. All of the bread and milk used in the institution is provided from its own bakery and dairy. One hundred and sixty-two acres of land are included in the property, of which 142 acres were under cultivation.  The house is an old wooden structure of good size, but did not appear to have been kept in very good condition. The water pipes for the bathroom, which was situated on the second floor, froze a few years ago and were cut off, so that this feature of the house is practically useless. The heat provided for the inmates consists of one stove in a central sitting room on the second floor.  The almshouse is a large brick structure, with a number of dormitories and a hospital department on the fourth floor under the charge of two graduate nurses, one for male and the other for female patients. The farm in connection with the home is a source of considerable revenue, which helps to pay the expense of the almshouse. All departments of the institution presented an appearance of comfort and good order, and the inmates gave evidence of kindly treatment. 11  Oonnectloot. Department of Public Welf81'8. Report for 1921-22.   https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis  82  COST OF AMERICAN ALMSHOUSF,S  INDIANA 13 The farm consists of 300 acres of fairly good land. There is half an acre in garden and an orchard of 3 acres. There is not much small fruit. The products are used in the institution. The house is a brick structure in good condition, neat and clean. It is lighted by electricity and heated by steam. The ventilation comes from the windows. The water supply is by means of a force pump. Fire extinguishers and a. small garden hose furnish the fire protection. There are two bathtubs and two closets on each side of the building. The furniture consists of chairs, stands, and beds. Mattresses and blankets are used on the beds. In serious illness inmates are cared for in a hospital room, otherwise in their own rooms. There is sex separation. The inmates are clean and well kept. They bathe once a week and have good, clean clothing. The general health is good. This institution is a two-story brick, fireproof building, in poor repair. It shows hard usage and neglect. The women's department was fairly clean, but that for the men was dirty. The institution is heated by steam. The ventilation comes from doors and windows. There is a private system of water supply, which is inadequate; also private sewerage system. The fire protection is inadequate. There are bathtubs and closets. The furniture consists of beds and chairs. The bedding is standard. The custodial cases and the sick are poorly cared for. The hospital rooms are used for storage purposes. The custodial building showed hard usage and neglect and it is dirty. The sex separation is good. The inmates are fairly clean. They bathe weekly, have fairly good clothing, and the general health is good. Repairs have been neglected and the institution has not been painted since it was built. The superintendent is required to furnish farm help, which is contrary to law. The farm contains 200 acres of fairly good land. The institution is composed of a main two-story brick building, a separate two-story brick building for ·men, and a one-story brick custodial building for women. All of the buildings are very: poor. The institution is fairly clean. It is impossible to keep it wholly samtary on account of the poor condition of the buildings. It is lighted by electricity and heated by steam. The ventilation is adequate. The water supply is from driven wells and two cisterns. Three small hydrants in the yard and some hose furnish fire protection. There are two bathtubs for men and one for women, and there are three closets for men and two for women; also two outside closets. The furniture is shabby. Single iron and wooden beds are used with straw ticks, blankets, quilts, and pillows. Most of the bedding · is in good condition. One insane woman is locked up most of the time. The sick are only fairly well cared for; there is little provision for special care. The inmates appeared clean. The food is ample and good. This institution is a two-story brick, modern, well-equipped structure and very clean. It is lighted by electricity and heated by steam. The ventilation eomes from the windows. There is a good sewerage system and excellent water supply. Chemical extinguishers and hose furnish the fire protection. There are bathtubs and closets in each department, in excellent condition. The bedding is in good condition. ';I'wo men_ and one woman are insane. There is complete sex separation. The inmates are very clean. They bathe weekly or oftener and their clothing is clean and well kept. Three meals a day are served, prepared by the inmates and employees. The food is ample and good, The farm contains 210 acres of good land. There is a garden of 6 acres, all in fine condition. The farm buildings are ample and good; the fences are poor; the dooryards are neat. The institution is well supplied ·with farm machinery. 11 Indiana.  Bulletin or Charities and Corrections, December,   https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis  1922.  PHYSICAL AND SOCIAL CONDITIONS IN ALMSHOUSES  38  The institution is a two-story brick buildiag of the old type, much worn and inconvenient. A two-story brick annex is fairly good. The institution is quite clean. It is lighted by electricity and heated by stoves. There is excellent water supply. Fire protection is inadequate. Both departments are equipped with bathtubs and closets. The furmture is old and uncomfortable. The bedding is clean and in good condition. The county nurse is available upon call. Sex separation is complete. The inmateo are quite clean. They bathe once a week aµd have good, clean clothing. Three meals a day are served, prepared by the matron and employees. The food is ample and good. ILLINOIS u There are some excellent almshouses in Illinois, handsome, homelike, wellequipped; and in every way modern and admirable. There are some almshouses that are dirty hovels. Every degree of good and bad housekeeping can be found illustrated in these institutions. Every ideal of a good home for old people and every conception of how to "care for paupers" can be discovered by a tour of these institutions. Vermin, filth, immorality, still find their way into this class of institution. Kindness, cleanliness, good sanitation, and intelligent management are prominent in others. * * * The evolution from the tragic old poorhouse with its ghastly "crazy house" attached to the modern comfortable home for olcl people is gradually coming about. Every stage in this evolution can be found somewhere in Illinois' collection of county almshouses. KENTUCKY The Kentucky State Board of Charities has been established less than five years and so far has dealt only with State institutions. The need of county work is so apparent, however, that efforts are being made to increase the scope of the board's work. Some almshouse inspection has been done by the field workers of the Eastern State Hospital, but there is no State agency through which this work is carried on. To relieve the appalling overpopulation of the Eastern State Hospital for the insane an attempt is being made to place in the almshouses of their home counties a considerable number of harmless senile patients now in the insane hospital who because of age can not be restored mentally and who need only custodial care and good food. Accordingly an investigation of conditions in these county institutions has been undertaken. So few of them have been considered fit habitations, particularly for custodial patients, that slight progress has been made in carrying out the plan of the hospital executives. Reports of the field agent of the 'hospital, covering what were selected as one representative, two good and two bad county homes in Kentucky, are presented. The judge of one county refused the agent permission to visit the almshouse of that county, because it "wasn't fit for a lady to p:o into." [The "representative" institution] consists of four two-room shacks on a dry, stony hillside farm of 40 acres. The superintendent's residence burned down two years ago and has never been rebuilt. Since that time his family has made shift to live in one of the pauper cottages with an additional room and inclosed porch built for kitchen and inmate dining room. The cottages have galvanized iron roofs, the interiors are ceiled with plain boards. Heating is by means of old-fashioned grates very much out of repair. Coal-oil lamps are used for lights. Water supply is from the cistern. The only sanitary conveniences are two rough privies, not at all weatherproof. Furniture is scanty and very much battered. Bedding consists of old comforts and blankets in various stages of disrepair. Only a few beds are provided with sheets. The superintendent has been there for several years. He is a pleasant, easygoing man, very kind and indulgent to inmates. He deplores conditions but says it is impossible to get any money out of the county commissioners, as the county is so heavily in debt. He is allowed the use of the farm and $11 per month per inmate. u Illinois. Institution Quarterly, lune-September, 1920, p. 76. "County Institutions and agencies  In llilnols," by Elizabeth 1ack, Inspector for board of public welfare.   https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis  84  COST OF AMEBJOAN ALMSHOUSES  The county infirmary has been in its present location since 1876. It consists of a fertile, well-cultivated farm of 150 acres, where eight neat little cottages are grouped around a fine old-fashioned farmhouse1 all the buildings in excellent reP,air and shining with fresh paint. All were clean and neat and furnished with good, durable furniture. Ma:,;iy up-to-date features were noticed. A system of concrete walks connects all ouildings. • Patients have large airy dining room in a separate building. The laundry building is equipped with modern washers, centrifugal wringer, drying room, and ·mangle. Bathrooms are also in this building. The entire plant is lighted by electricity. There is an excellent system of outdoor toilets whereby each toilet is numbered to correspond to the riumber of the cottage room, enabling the superintendent to fix responsibility for keeping" these places clean. · · The superintendent reserves one cottage as a receiving ward and holds all newcomers for a period of quarantine. County physician makes daily routine visits. The superintendent, who has had charge of the infirmary for 18 years, is proud of his institution and is always planning ways of improvement. The buildings consist of a superintendent's residence, which is a single-story frame farmhouse not well kept up, and four shacks which comprise the pauper quarters. These are grouped around an untidy yard, are very much out of repair, dreary, and depressing. On the right is the cottage for women, four rooms all in a row. Then comes a cottage of two rooms for male paupers. Directly opposite is a cottage for colored inmates, also with two rooms. The fourth cottage is at the end of the yard and is used for storage of supplies, junk room, isolation hospital, or morgue, as necessity dictates. The shacks have tin roofs and at some time have been whitewashed. A rough bowlder at each door serves as a •front step. Grates are used to heat these buildings but are poorly constructed and in bad order. The water supply is drawn by hand from a well in the superintendent's yard. No light is given the inmates. No sanitary conveniences of any kind were found. 18 The furniture is very scanty, consisting mainly of dilapidated cots, with dirty, verminous bedding. Cooking is done in the superintendent's building, the meals being served in the paupers' dining room at the rear of the kitchen. This room has oilcloth covered tables and a scanty assortment of battered dishes and cutlery. The place was not clean. This is quite a pretentious institution. There is a large three-story brick building containing about 48 rooms situated on a good farm of 190 acres. There is a fine lawn in front of the house, with handsome trees, so that the place bas the general appearance of a boarding school or summer hotel. According to the county clerk, "the county infirmary was a disgrace, consisting as it did some 30 years ago of three or four log cabins in an almost inaccessible hollow far from any sort of road. The· present infirmary was built in 1890, and as we wanted an extra nice one we built it a lot bigger than we will ever need. " There is an ell at each end of the building, one of which is reserved for male inmates. The kitchen and dining room and the quarters for woman inmates are in the other wing. At present there are 8 inmates, 6 men and 2 women, practically all senile cases. The buildings seemed in a fair state of re:pair, clean and orderly. The equipment is old and scanty. The institution 1s heated by steam and lighted by oil lamps. There is a bathroom in each ell but only one is used. Thematron said that the inmates bathe in laundry tubs, !, as they are used to that." Toilets are outside, in separate buildings for sexes, well constructed, with concrete vaults. None of the rooms on the second :floor is occupied, although two are reserved as hospital rooms. Except for screening there is nothing to differentiate them from the others in the way of furniture or equipment. 11 When questioned by the bnreau representative as to whether this meant that there were no prlvlel, the State agent 8D8Wered "Yes."   https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis  PHYSICAL AND SOCIAL CONDITIONS IN ALMSHOUSES  85  The large amount of space makes possible a "chapel," "sitting room," "reception room," "office," etc., on the first floor, but these are rather cheerless in all their aspects. . The agent noticed a plentiful supply of fire extinguishers located at important points. This institution is situated 'on a farm of 330 acres, only one-third of which is considered first-class land. There are two buildings, each two stories high, very old and of cheap, poor construction. They are hardly worth the repairs and paint so badly needed. Equipment is worn out and scanty in the extreme. One could hardly describe the hopeless, poverty-stricken air evinced by the sagging doors, broken walls, soiled, ragged wallpaper, which in the first place was merely samples or newspapers pasted on haphazard, broken furniture, trampled, frowsy front yard, all contributing to a most unhappy picture. NORTH CAROLINA  11  County homes in North Carolina include every type and condition of building, from wretched shacks to creditable plants. A number of counties have the cottage system. The typical institution of this class consists of a group of tworoom wooden buildings. A few homes built on this plan have brick cottages. The tendency is away from this type of institution. The newer homes consist of one building or of a group of connected buildings, usuaj!y of brick. Thirty counties each have buildings valued at $15,000 or more. Eleven of these each have buildings valued at $40,000 or more. Some of the better buildings, however, were poorly planned. Few of them, in fact, show evidences of having been planned by one who had any definite conception of the problems presented by the county home. There is rarely adequate provision for the segregation of the sexes. There is not always complete separation of the races. Nine counties report hospitals or infirmary wards for the care of the sick. Two of these, however, are not equipped; one is not ordinarily used; and another is now. being used as living quarters for inmates. We have yet to see such a ward adequately equipped. The furnishings in general are of the crudest sort. A cheap bed-usually a double bed-a chair, sometimes a table; these are the typical furnishings of a room in a county home. Such luxuries as closets, bureaus, or mirrors in the rooms of the inmates are unknown in many county homes. To supply water for drinking there is often a bucket with a common dipper. SOUTH CAROLINA 17 With few exceptions, homes for the poor in South Carolina are unpainted, dilapidated shacks. The food and clothing provided for the inmates are in keeping with their surroundings. Sanitary facilities are primitive and ill kept, and conveniences are almost unheard of. Medical attention is severely handicapped because of the lack of facilities and reasonable compensation to the physicians. Vocational training, recreation, and religious exercises are for the most part subject to the attention of a few remaining faithful friends. lnstitu.:. tions of this kind are a detriment to the body politic. The buildings and grounds are well cared for, the food given the inmates is exceptionally good, and the attitude of the superintendent toward the institution and its paupers is commendable. The disposal of sewage is probably the great drawback to this institution. The little outhouse which is used by all has two compartments, is in bad state of repair, and is not kept in the proper sanitary condition to insure safety. The repairing of the cottages, including the screens, and the addition of some new equipment would add greatly to the comfort, and thereby the health, of the inmates. Because of the heavy duties incident to the almshouse farm there is little time to care for the inmates properly. Two or three inmates do their own cooking. All of the inmates care for their cottages the best they can. The cottages are in need of repair and are not screened. The food or rations given out are fair and varied. The superintendent keeps no record of the personnel or activities of this institution. H North 11  Carolina. State Board of Charities and Public Welfare. Blenn!BI report, 1920-1922, p. M. South Carolina. State Board of Public Welfare. Fourth annual report, 1923.   https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis  86  COST OF AMERICAN ALMSHOUSES  Some improvements of value have been made within the past year. A chemi-  cal fire engme is now in readiness to protect the aged and infirm in case of fire, New barns and chicken houses have been erected that will move the livestock  farther away from the living quarters of the superintendent and the inmates, which is a decidedlf good move from a sanitary standpoint. The walls of the inmates' houses, which are in a bad state of repair, are to be fixed. The grounds are kept in fair condition. The .inmates' quarters and their beds are kept in satisfactory shape, the bedding being especially clean. The disposal of sewage is not adequate or properly handled. The feeding of the. inmates is very good. Milk, eggs, and chickens are freely . used. A good garden is also at hand. The attitude of the superintendent and his assistants toward the inmates is commendable. None of the buildings is designed or built to care adequately and comfortably for the indigent poor of the county. The food given the inmates is fair and well prepared, but variety is lacking. The-disposal of sewage 11.t this almshouse is an outstanding menace. The outhouses are shabby and not properly handled, consequently little used. Medical attention seems commendable, but little can really be done without an assistant to carry out the doctor's instructions and attend the sick. Taking into consideration the present equipment and the old buildings in need of repairs, the inmates are made fairly comfortable and the entire institution is kept reasonably sanitary and clean. The food is good and is prepared and handled properly. The races are separated but the sexes are not, which is a constant threat to society and the county administration. VIRGINIA The latest inspection of almshouses by the Virginia State Board of Charities to be published was made in 1909. Commenting on that report and its use at present the secretary of the State. board had this to say to the bureau representative: "In a few cases there has been marked improvement in the county almshouse beyond the conditions outlinei;i in the 1909 report. · Several counties have discontinued their almshouses since then. On the whole, however, the -chief difference between that report and a similar one published to-day would be that the later survey would show merely 15 added years of depreciation, neglect, and decay." The following statements are tak~n from the 1909 report: Three wooden cottages erected in 1859. Seven rooms for paupers. Heated by :fireplaces, lighted by lamps. No water in cottages, which are in fair condition. Sexes are separated "when it can be done." No definite recreation; those who are able have·"household duties"; if they refuse to work, they are "whipped if necessary." · No one except the superintendent is employed to care for the inmates. Built on cottage plan.  Cotltages have two rooms each, capacity two paupers  to a room. Arrangements for sleeping are straw beds and blankets. Heated  by open :fireplaces, lighted by lamps. No water in cottages. The institution is clean and well kept. Sexes are separated; inmates are "at liberty to come and go as they please"; the form of punishment for those who refuse to work is whipping. Two employees to care for inmates, the superintendent and a colored woman who "waits on the inmates, cooks, washes, cleans and does anything necessary."   https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis  PHYSICAL AND SOCIAL CONDITIONS IN ALMSHOUSES  37  Brick building for white inmates and wooden cabins for negroes, erected "100 years ago." Twenty-four rooms in all; from one to four paupers kept in a room, single beds. Heated by wood stoves, lighted by lamps. No water in building. · Well kept. Three persons are employed to care for the inmates-superintendent, matron, and one assistant. Constructed on cottage plan; buildings all old and dilapidated. The inmates are housed in three unplastered cottages and one room of the superintendent's building. Heated by fireplaces, lighted by lamps. No water in cottages. Two one-story frame houses, total, three rooms, and another with five rooms· "from two to four put in a room." Heated by fireplaces and stoves, light;f generally by pine knots. No water in buildings. In fairly good order.  CHARACTER OF SUPERVISION  Conditions in almshouses depend to a very great extent upon the character and efficiency of the superintendents and matrons. 18 In the personnel and management of _pauper institutions there is _probably as wide a range of adequacy and fitness as there is in the physical aspects, with perhaps just as great a preponderance of unfit persons in charge as there is of unfit quarters. With very few exceptions, almshouse superintendents are the political apJ?omtees of county or other local officials, and accordingly ch~e 'Ylth every change in the political complexion of the community. . Massachusetts affords an exception to this general rule, at least to a great extent. The superintendency of the almshouses of that State seems to be more nearly a calling than a political job, and the State almshouse inspector records length of service in that capacity as great as 34 years in one institution, with numerous instances of 15 years and longer. However, especially under county organization, the position is a political one. The very conditions of employment in themselves are such as to make the position unattractive to the type of person best qualified to fill it. _Salaries in the small institutions seldom exceed $600 a year. To be sure this is in addition to quarters and full maintenance for the superintendent and his family, but even aside from the compensation, Jaousing conditions and the nature of the work itself militate against attracting competent service. Suppositionally the superintendent of an almshouse should qualify as a successful farmer, a capable executive and manager of a public institution, and a social worker with an attitude of benevolence and kindly fair dealing toward- his charges. Certainly the situation is one which calls for these attributes. Needless to say the facts are in direct opposition to the theory. Far too frequently the superintendent "belongs to a class only slightly superior to the majority of the inmates. He is rarely in a class with the other officials of the county. He is not the type of man who could be elected register of deeds or clerk of the court. There are a few exceptions, but they are exceptions." 19 ts Illinois. Institution Quarterly, June-September, 1920, p. 76. "County Institutions and agencies in Illinois," by Elizabeth Jack, inspector for board of public welfare. 11 North Carolina, State Board of Charities and Public Welfare. Biennial report, 1920--1922, p. 00.   https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis  38  OOST OF AMERICAN ALMSHOUSES  One of the chief difficulties encountered in making this study has been the almost universal illiteracy of almshouse superintendents. The reports of State inspectors frequently contain such notes as "supenntendent can read and write a little"; "superintendent is very low gi-ade and his wife, who is matron, nas even less intelligence than he-evidently a moron." This, then-in most instances in the small almshouses, especially those comix!g within the two smaller inmate groups (less than 26 inmates), wl:iich comprise more than 50 per cent of all institutionsis the type of man depended upon to care for our paupers. Larger institutions, as a rule, fare better than the small ones in securing competent service. The salary is larger and more assistance is given the man in charge. But in most of these institutions the man appointed to the superintendency is primarily a politician or some one to whom it is advisable or convenient to give political preferment. If he is a good farmer or an able executive, that is the good fortune of the county and the institution, since it is quite incidental to the issues determining his choice. In any case, larger _pauper institutions are not in themselves a problem to the extent the small ones are, and there are comparatively few of them. . In the average small institution the superintendent has a large farm to work. A pauper farm seems, by some trick of circumstances, to be either the best or the worst land in the vicinity. In either case its cultivation presents a problem. For efficient and economical development of 100 acres of land, whatever the quality~ knowledge and long experience in farming are req_uired. SuccessfUI farmers are not apt to become almshouse supenntendents. Confronted with the necessity of working, practically single-handed, a large farm, the politically selected supermtendent meets it by doing the best he can with one-third or less of it, raising what is needed and can be used by the inmates and his own family and disregarding the rest. As a consequence the greater proportion of the public land embraced in poor farms is idle land. The situation is materially different on those farms which are leased to a superintendent on contract. In that case, almost with- · out exception, t.he man who is operating the farm is entitled, after supplyi!}g the needs of the inmates, to whatever he can make out of it. Naturally it is to his advant~e to develop the farm as fully as possible. In such cases the supermtendent is likely to be a good farmer, and as a rule he is able to pay for labor to help him work the farm. Contract farms show a much higher percentage of land in cultivation than do farms where the superintendent is employed on a salary and is required to· turn back to the local treasury or to the maintenance of the almshouse whatever is made from sale of sur_plus produce. On the other hand, while the farm may fare better under the contract system, the inmates undoubtedly receive less attention than under the direct employment system. The interest of the man operating the institution, so far as he has an interest, is in the farm~ not in the inmates. Even if his inclinations are toward kind ana humane care of his charges, his time is almost fully occupied in running the farm. The result is a public institution which 1s permitted to run itself.   https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis  PHYSICAL AND SOCIAL CONDITIONS IN ALMSHOUSES  39  Not infrequently tp.e lessee of a pauper farm does not live on the premises, but on an adjoining farm, leaving the inmates of the almshouse with no supervision. In one sucli case in Georgia the lessee assured the State inspector that the inmates "get along better without anyone around. They look after themselves all right." At the same time he admitted having recently gone over the almshouse for the first time in several days and having found a negro woman inmate dead on the floor of her room. When she had die<l or why no one seemed to know or to feel any- special concern. Exceptional cases of this kind merely emphasize conditions which are far too likely to obtain under what one State official terms the "permcious contract system." Under itthe supervision, care, direction, and control of the inmates of the almshouses are practically left to the superintendent in charge. He and members of his family usually look after the inmates and, in addition, do the work required about the premises and the farm. The contract is entered into by the county on account of its supposed saving in money to the treasury, and by the superintendent as a means of providing a support for himself and his family and of laying up money for the future. It can readily be understood that the inmates necessarily frequently suffer from neglect, this being especially the case among those who are ill 20  The report quoted states that this system is used "in a majority :>f the counties" of Alabama, a situation which also exists in practically all of the Southern States. In Arkansas, Mississippi, and Kentucky, particularly, there are few almshouses which are not operated under contract. Even under the direct employment plan the superintendent must necessarily give most of his attention to the farm, if it is worked at all, for in the small institution he seldom has sufficient help with the farm work. In most instances this leaves the actual management and operation of the almshouse as a public charitable institution to the superintendent's wife, wlio thus becomes matron of the institution for no better reason than that of her relationship to its superintendent. It is seldom, indeed, except in the really large institutions, that a woman is employed to serve as matron of an almshouse. Such an official is needed, of course, however small the establishment may be. But she is there, ready to hand, in the person of the wife of the superintendent. In fact it was reported, but not verified, that in one State the law requires that an almshouse superintendent be a married man and that his wife act as matron. There are some instances, about 20 in all, in which the matron is the official in charge. In such cases, however, she has been considered the superintendent and treated as such in the report, regardless of sex. The matron of a small almshouse, then, 1s a public official "by marriage." Her qualifications for the position are even less a matter of public concern than are those of the selected official. Yet socially her responsibility is greater, for she has the direct care of the inmates and the management and direction of the household. As a rule she has only such help as the inmates give her. Three hundred and forty-eight of the 1,349 institutions having not more than 25 inmates employ a cook, laundress, or other domestic to assist the matron. In .the rest of them she works without paid help. 111 Alabama.  State Prison Inspector. Report, 1921-22, p. 73.   https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis  40  COST OF AMERICAN ALMSHOUSES  Household management in an institution such as most of our almshouses are m'ust call for a degree of efficiency and intelligence possessed by few of those who undertake it. Old houses, many of · them very_ old, without lighting facilities, .without running water, generally heated by stoves or grates, almost always inconvenient and badly arranged, and almost always in need of some essential repair-with such material an almshouse matron is expected to provide clean, comfortable quarters for the public charges committed to her care. Cleanliness under these circumstances, in addition to the personal habits of most of the inmates, is achieved-when it is achieved at all-only by eternal vigilance, hard work, and constant struggle against vermin. Cooking or supervising the cool?ng ,of the meals, laundering clothing and bedding for her own and her official family, nursing sick old people, are tasks that she must do or have done some way. Inmates, especially the able-bodied old women, freguently do the cooking and the dishwashing for the smaller institutions. But whatever nursing care is necessary generally devolves upon the matron. The element of inmate care which receives the least attention is that which humanity demands should have the most-the nursing of sick, helpless old people. The matron has not the time to attend properly to nursing the sick, even if she had the knowledge and •experience. Nurses are rarely found on the staff of almshouses with less than 100 inmates, and where they are it is mostly because of insane patients in the almshouse. Medical attf,mtion is given either by the county physician, who makes routine visits, or by a p4ysician who is retained by the county or town officials to respond to call when needed. .· Consequently the matron is chiefly, often solely, responsible for the care of inmates in illness, a responsibility which, considering the usual age of the patients, ma_y mean life or death. But that, too, in the management of a small almshouse, apparently, is "all in the day's work." . Granting that the wife of the superintendent of an almshouse may have no harder life as an individual than the wife of the farmer on the neighboring farm, nevertheless circumstances have placed her in the poSition of public servant, wholly without regard to ber ability or her willingness to perform the work. For this public service many of these women receive no pay in their own name. They get their living, of course, as does the superintendent. Exclusive of the 270 aJmshouses run by contract, in which the lessee's wife serves as matron, 375 of the small inmate groups almshouses report matrons without salary. When they are paid at all the amount is usually $10 or $15 a month and occasionally as high as $40. In Ohio, New York, and Pennsylvania, where most of the institutions come under the large inmate groups, matrons are paid salaries ranging · from $200 to $900 and averaging $600 a year. Nurses, cooks, and kitchen help are added to the staff of the larger institutions. The number of nurses is considerably larger in the large inmate groups, because almshouses of two or three hundred inmates and more are in effect hospitals. The kind of care received by inmates in the Ja~e institutions differs greatly from that accorded inmates in the small ones, not because their need is greater but because conditions make it possible to give more adequate attendance and care.  https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis  a  PHYSICAL AND SOCIAL CONDITIONS lN ALMSHOUSES  41  STATE REPORTS ON SOCIAL CONDITIONS  The unavoidable conclusion seems to be that dilapidation, inadequacy, and even indecency are the outstanding physical features of most of our small almshouses. Ignorance, unfitness, and a complete lack of comprehension of the social element involved in the conduct of a public institution are characteristic of a large part of their managing personnel. Among the inmates themselves insanity, feeble-mindedness, depravity, and respectable old age are mingled in haphazard unconcern. It is idle, then, to imagme that social conditions in these institutions could be other than deplorable. In this investig_ation no attempt was made to study these conditions at first hand. Reports made by State officials, however, contain authentic stories which are vividly illustrative of mismanagement and indifference in the administration of these public institutions, and of the disgraceful state of affairs which results. Stories of illicit relations among male and female inmates of almshouses, because of inadequate or indifferent supervision, are numerous in State reports, and State boards complain of the number of cases of feeble-mmded illegitimate children born of almshouse inmates-cases which the child welfare agencies of the States must look after because of laxity on the part of the local officials. A small institution in Kentucky has as inmate a young negro woman who is an epileptic, given to frequent violent seizures. The matron has no assistance in the care of the home and the inmates, and the other woman inmates are all old and feeble. None of them is able to look after the epileptic. The county could not, or at any rate did not, provide a nurse for the institution. To meet the problem of attending and restraining the woman during her spasms, which might occur at any -time of the day or night, the superintendent assigned a negro man inmate to act as her nurse. The "nurse" has been occupying the same room with the patient ever since, with a result which might readily have been foreseen, that of the birth recently of a child. In the first instance a violent case of epilepsy has no place in an almshouse, esrecially in an almshouse in which it is impossible to secure any kind o care. In the second place, however grave the problem confronting the superintendent, meeting it in this way merely increased the problem for the almshouse and for society. In a certain county home in the State [North Carolina], in one room of a tworoom cottage, lies an old man with cancer of the stomach. There is no matron in this institution and no nurse. The superintendent looks after the 400-acre farm belonging to the county home and a farm of his own. He is at the home but little except at night. In the meantime the old man lies there without attention. When a Red Cross nurse visited the home with the idea of instructing some of the inmates in looking after the others she found no one, able to work, with intelligence enough to follow instructions. And the old man continues to lie there without attention. The odor that comes from his room is such that it is difficult to approach within a radius of 20 yards from the door. 21  The State inspector for South Carolina reports an almshouse in which "all of the inmates are incapacitated for work of any kind. The one white woman inmate was -found all alone in a cottage and very ill. This cottage was insanitary in every way and "flies were swarming about the unfortunate woman, who was too weak to brush "North Carolina. State Board of Charities and Public Welfare. Biennial report, 1920-1922, p. 61.   https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis  42  COST OF AME:lUCAN ALMSHOUSES  them away. The only attention she gets is an occasional visit from \ the superintendent's wife or from the negro cook at mealtime.'' 22 .1 Illinois reports a case in which "it took the superintendent several 1. hours to thaw out a man who had frozen one night sleeping in the almshouse," and mentions one county home which under inspection "would try to hide its dirt, its bed in the coal cellar, and to shield from publicity the peculiar mixture of families and sexes that have been permitted to room together." 23 . Practically everywhere the small almshouse stands out as the victim of a web of indifference and neglect which begins first with a public which either knows nothing of its existence or has so little concern that it pays no attention to conditions. Given an indifferent public, it is rarely indeed that the elected officials of that public will feel or show a deeper interest. These officials accordingly discharge their obligation to the pauper element of the population in the easiest way, which proves to be neither the best nor the cheapest. Indifferently selected by supervisors who have no interest and who have back of them no public sentiment to compel an interest, the man to whom is intrusted the immediate care of paupers and the pauper institution follows the same route of indifference, callousness, and deliberate neglect. Possibly the large almshouses have been institutionalized until that somewhat indefinable guality known as "the milk of human kindness" has become considerably curdled. Nevertheless the object of their rigid routine is attention to the actual physical needs of the inmates, and by virtue of the machinery itself those needs are supplied. Where there is no ·machinery and no facilities for meeting these needs they are not met, and by and large, the quality of human kindness is no less lacking. · COST OF SMALL ALMSHOUSES That ·an unnecessarily high cost, inefficient methods, and inadequate care are the result of t;iie_ multiplicity of small almshouses is shown by a study of the stat1st1cal data shown on pages 8 to 29. As Mary Vida Clark says, in an article in the Survey: 24 The multiplication of almshouses is extravagant and ineffectual to a pegree seldom realized, because these institutions are too uninteresting to be contemplated by the modern health or social worker long enough to be understood. Take, for instance, the State of New York outside New York City, with about 5,000,000 people in its 57 counties, which contain 62 county and town almshouses. Other States have even more county institutions than New York. Consider, for instance, Indiana, with a population under 3,000,000, and with 90 counties, each with its almshouse. Let the expert in State finance picture these scores of little institutions, with their miscellaneous and unclassified populations, purchasing supplies and running farms, each according to its own self-selected plan, in its ·_own political milieu, generally changing such policy as it may have and losing most of the experience it may have gained with every election of county officers.  The Indiana almshouses offer an interesting study along this line. There are 92 of them, instead of 90 as given in the above quotation. Seven are in the 1 to 10 inmate group; 34 in the 11 to 25 group; 37 " South Carolina. State Board of Public Welfare. Fourth annual report, p. 168. " County Homes of Illinois. "The Survey, July 26, 1919. "The passing of the county farm," by Mary Vida Clark, executive secretary Women's Prison Association, New York,   https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis  COST OF SMALL ALMSHOUSES  43  in the 26 to 50 group; 10 in the 51 to 100 group; 3 in the 101 to 200 group; and the largest is in the 201 to 500 group, having 225 inmates. There are therefore 78 almshouses in Indiana with less than 51 inmates each. The average cost per inmate in these institutions, as shown in Table 7, page 25, ranges from $487 .53 in the 1 to 10 inmate group to $240.59 in the 201 to 500 group. The average cost per inmate in the group containing the greatest number of mstitutions is $289.35. In the smallest inmate group in Indiana there is one employee per 2.95 inmates, with an average labor cost per inmate of $145.69. In the two more representative groups we find 4.52 inmates to each employee in the 11 to 25 group, with an average wage cost per inmate of $92.80, and 7.23 inmates per emfloyee in the 26 to 50 group, with an average wage cost per inmate o $69.94. Figures for the largest institution show 10.71 inmates per employee and a labor cost per inmate of $58.40. The total acreage is 19,242, practically 6 acres to each inmate, and the total investment is $6,149,242, an average of $1,911 per inmate. In New York, the other State mentioned by Miss Clark, the 61 institutions are distributed among the inmate groups as follows: 1 in Group 2 (11 to 25 inmates); 13 in Group 3 (26 to 50 inmates); 24 in Grouj> 4 (51 to 100 inmates); 17 in Group 5 (101 to 200 inmates); 3 in Group 6 (201 to 500 inmates); 2 in Gro1:1:p_7 (501 to 2,000 inmates); and 1 in Group 8 (over 2,000 inmates). While New York has none in Group 1 (1 to 10 inmates), more than half have less than 100 inmates each. Costs per inmate decrease steadily as the size of the institution increases, the average cost per inmate per year being $1,680.48 in Group 2; $371.74 in Group 3; $329.31 in Group 4; $296.70 in Group 5; $294.40 in Group 6; and $265.70 in Group 7. The one institution in Group 8, which is the New York City Home for the Aged, on Welfare Island, shows a slightly higher cost per inmate-$277.21. Labor costs per inmate show the same decrease through the different groups, from $250.59 in Group 2 to $68.74 in Group 7, except in Group 6 in which one institution with a large corps of nurses, laborers, and engine-room employees brings the labor cost per inmate up to $114.12. The ratio of employees to inmates varies from 1 to 2.8 in Group 2 to 1 to 14.65 in Group 7. The total number of acres in the poor farms of New York is 11,389, an average of 1.2 acres per inmate, with 6,700 acres, or 59 per cent, under cultivation. The total investment in land, buildings, 1;1,nd equipment is $16,321,338. The average amount of investment per inmate is $1,773, and the average maintenance cost per inmate for the entire State is $299.18. As a matter of fact, Indiana and New York rank on the whole considerably above the average in the matter of economy and good management. They are both States in which local responsibility is pretty clearly fixed and in which State authorities have influence and maintain a constant and fairly thorough inspection over the county institutions. Figures for other States more effectively support the contention that the small almshouse, and that means, generally speaking, the   https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis  44  COST OF AMERICAN ALMSHOUSES  small.,.unit (political) almshouse, is an extravagant and inefficient public institution. Maine, for example, has 100 town almshouse properties, 26 of which are without inmates. The 74 which are serving their normal function contain a total of 701 inmates. Sixty-two of these 74 almshouses fall in inmate Group 1, 9 in Group 2, 2 in Group 4, and 1, that in the city of Portland, with 225 inmates, in Group 6. There are fewer inmates in all the 62 almshouses in Group 1 combined than there are in the Portland almshouse, the total number of inmates in the almshouses in Group 1 being 209. These 62 almshouses have 7,020 acres of land, 1,835 of which are cultivated. The value of land and farm equipment is $197,675, and the total value of the buildings is $212,884. The Portland almshouse has 100 acres of land, 75 of which are reported as being productive. The total investment represented by this institution is $248,000. There are 124 employees in the 62 small establishments, an a.verage of 2 each, and of 1 to each 1.69 inmates. Portland employs 38 persons, or 1 to each 5.92 inmates. Because of the extent of contract leasing in the small institutions labor cost per inmate is scarcely ascertainable, since the amount of money paid the superintendent is for inmate board as well as labor hire. Costs per inmate, however, are of course comparable. The average annual cost per inmate in the 62 small almshouses is $763.21; that in the Portland almshouse, $339.20. That is the financial side of the story. The social side is no less a picture of waste and mismanagement. Almshouses in Maine, almost uniformly, are very old farmhouses, utterly devoid of improvements or modern facilities of any sort. Inspection reports in the office of the State board of charities contain numerous recommendations for the discontinuance of places which are so old and so hopelessly out of repair that their use as public institutions is wholly impracticable. They are frequently quite inaccessible, and hence probably receive scant attention from the community. The contract plan of operation prevails to a large extent, a few of the contracts calling for full maintenance of the paupers by the lessee-that is, clothing, medical care, drugs, and the like are furnished by the superintendent instead of by the local poor officers. It is not difficult to imagine that a superintendent, under such circumstances, may convince himself that such expenditures are not vital to the welfare of his charges. Under the best of conditions, the degree of care and comfort enjoyed by the inmates would necessarily depend wholly on the character and good will of the men and women to whose care they are committed. Fifteen of these 62 small almshouses have one inmate each. In one case the building is a 10-room house, in another a 22-room house, in a third a 16-room house. In the first instance the almshouse property embraces 100 acres of land, 25 of which is cultivated, and there are 2 salaried employees. Idle land and empty cheerless houses are prominent characteristics of almshouses of this nature. For an equivalent investment Portland frovides a creditable modern institution. With a staff consisting o a superintendent at a salary of $1,700, a paid matron, a graduate nurse on a $1,400 salary,   https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis  COST OF SMALL ALMSHOUSES  45  a nursing staff of 14, a staff chaplain, and a salaried farm supervisor in charge of a productive farm, it is reasonable to surmise that it provides care and comfort and good food as well. Maine is not an extreme case. Kansas and Nebraska figures show a similar situation so far as concerns the number of small almshous)s operated at great expense. Seventy-four of the 83 almshouses in Kansas are used, having 1,091 inmates. Forty-three are in the smallest inmate group, and 22 in Group 2. The largest institution has 125 inmates. Seventeen of the 43 in Group 1 are operated under contract. Average costs per inmate in this State are: $425.57 for Group 1; $240.56 for Group 2; $351.33 for Group 3; $215.54 for Group 4; and $236 for Group 5. Nebraska has 54 county almshouse properties, 41 of them functioning at present as county homes. Thirty-two of these are in Group 1, with a total of 140 inmates. To run these 32 individual almshouses the citizens of these 32 counties employ 62 people and s_pend $85,539 in one year, an average cost per inmate of $610.99. These 32 properties contain 6,194 acres of land, valued, with livestock and equipment, at $850,009; homes and furnishings aggregate $238,714, making a total investment of $1,088,723, an average of $7,777 per inmate. Massachusetts has 137 town and city almhouses in present use. Seventy-seven of them are in the smallest population group; only 25 of them have more than 25 inmates each. As has been stated previously, Massachusetts almshouses are in reality homes for the indigent old. The motley assortment characterizing almhouse populations elsewhere has been largely weeded out, classified, and redistributed to specialized institutions, leaving in the almshouses only the aged and infirm. The total almshouse population of Massachusetts reported is 6,059, nearly half of which, 2,887, is in two large institutions, the Boston Almshouse and the State Infirmary. The number of inmates in the 77 small almshouses is 440, only 4 of them having as many as 10. Ty~ical Massachusetts almshouses are large, many-roomed structures, with the number of inmate rooms ranging from 6 to 30. The State inspector says that "many of the almshouses were purchased as farmhouses and remodeled," and speaks further of ''houses originally built for taverns and remodeled for almshouse purposes." 25 The remodeling of the farmhouses usually takes the form of building wings and additions to old homes already containing numerous rooms. The result is that we find repeated instances like the following, taken from the tabulated reports: Six inmates in a 30-room house; four in a 26-room house; eight in a house with 48 rooms. The farms, too, are large, the total acreage being 12,981, with only 3,683 acres under cultivation. More than half the acreage is contained in the farms included in the small inmate group, averagirrg 15.3 acres per inmate. · Moreover, being town organizations in a thickly settled territory, they are astonishingly close together. The bureau representative can vouch for one striking instance at least where there are two whi.ch are only seven minutes' walk apart. Costs per inmate in these Massachusetts almshouses show the same decrease from the small inmate group to the larger ones as do those 11  Massachusetts. Department of Public Welfare. Annual report, 1921, p. vi.   https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis  46  COST OF AMERICAN ALMSHOUSES  in the States already noted: In Group 1 the 77 almshouses, with a total of 440 inmates, have 228 employees, a ratio of 1 to each 1.93 inmates, a labor cost per inmate of $236:95 and a total maintenance cost of $837.71 per inmate. Group 6 (201 to 500 inmates) shows the lowest per capita cost, $289.83, and t4e lowest labor cost, $101.52, per inmate, with one employee to each 9.43 inmates. In the two largest inmate groups costs rise somewhat, being $442.24 for the Boston almshouse and $391.07 for the State Infirmary, due to high hospital costs and the expense of medical and nursing staffs. The aggregate investment in land, buildings, equipment, and house furnishings is $9,073,572, which amounts to $1,498 per inmate. Pennsylvania, with its confused system of county, township, borough, and municipal organizations, has in Group 1, 65 inmates in 11 institutions, at a cost per inmate of $695.46; and in Group 2, 111 inmates in 8 institutions, at $372.53 per inmate. The 19 establishments in these two groups contain less than half the number of inmates included in the almshouses in Group 3 (26 to 50 inmates), which house 383 inmates in 9 institutions at a cost of $343.34 per inmate. In Group 6 (201 to 500 inmates) the maintenance cost per inmate is $240.09. Treating the institutions of this State on the basis of their organization rather than of the number of their inmates, we find that the borough institutions, mostly wretched, unfit quarters houising two or three inmates, represent an investment in land, building, and equipment per inmate of $3,029, and a cost of $508.74 per inmate annually. The aggregate investment in township almshouses, no less unfit than those of the boroughs on the whole, averages $1,760 per inmate; maintenance costs average $396.82 per inmate. Some of the county establishments, so far as physical conditions go, are among the worst in the State; others are first-class institutions with good buildings, well equipped and well managed. Investment per inmate in county institutions amounts to $1,882, costs J>er inmate to $321.87. The number of inmates in the institutions in the county group varies widely, from 10 in Forest County to 516 in Allegheny County. Between these two extremes there are 7 institutions in the 26 to 50 inm~te group with an average piaintenance cost 9f $377 .19 per inmate; 14 m the 51 to 100 group, with an average mamtenance cost of $334.19 per inmate; 14 in the next groul? (101 to 200 inmates) in which maintenance costs average $274.71 per mmate; and 6 in the 201 to 500 group, with a cost per inmate of $229.55. Cases of individual institutions scattered throu~hout the country, while admittedly selected as "horrible examJ>les,' may nevertheless be used to illustrate fairly the lengths to which extravagance and ill-considered expenditure can go in the operation of a small almshouse. For instance, one institution in Mississippi has one inmate and two employees. Of the total expenditure of $1,100, the employees receive $720, leaving $380 for "all other expenses," which includes, besides the care of the inmate, the maintenance of the superintendent's family, expenses incidental to the operation of the farm, repairs, and so on. Rhode Island figures show an almshouse with two inmates and three employees, the employees receiving $1,200 of the $1,630 expended. One county farm m Virginia, valued at $22,150, reports four inmates and four employees, and a total expenditure of $1,400, of which $936 is pay roll.   https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis  COST OF SMALL ALMSHOUSES  47  Montana has one county home on a 160-acre farm, in which there is one inmate, a superintendent and a matron both on salary, and a paid farm hand. The pay roll, to be sure, is low, only $875 for all three employees, while the total cost of the institution for the year is $4,375. Nothing is reported under "Sale of farm produce," indicating that there is no return to the county from the 160 acres on which two men are employed. On the face of the report then, the support of one pauper costs the county $4,375. Illinms figures show a county home on a 160-acre farm in which there are three inmates and three employees. The wage cost is 57 per cent of the total cost. In this case, however, the farm earned $1,400 of the $1,860 expended. Tennessee has a 750-acre farm with 40 acres under cultivation supporting 20 inmates and 4 employees at a cost of $3,156.56, of which $1,615 is pay rqll. One farm in Texas cultivates 75 of its 420 acres, houses 5 inmates in a 12-room house, and employs 2 persons whose salaries are more than one and onehalf times the total of all other expenditures. Two groups in Table 5-Group 3 and Group 7-afford opportunity to make comparisons of costs of small and large institutions, since, after eliminating one institution in Group 3 which did not report the value of land, buildings, and equipment or the extent of its holdings, they have the same number of inmates-11,959 .. In the first group, with the one institution eliminated, there are 333 institutions and in the second 16. Taking the smaller inmate group first we find an investment in land and farm equipment amounting to $8,107,961 for the 333 institutions reporting investment, or $678 per inmate. Buildings and furnishings are worth $13,911,713 in the aggregate, or an average of $41,777 per institution and $1,163 per inmate. Total investment of land, buildings, and farm and home equipment amounts to $22,019,674, or $1,841 per inmate. There are 58,699 acres embraced in these 333 institutions, 38,139 of which were under cultivation in the year covered by the reports. On a per inmate basis this gives 4.9 acres to each inmate with 3.2 of them producing. There are 1,918 employees working in the interest of the 11,959 inmates in this group, or 1 to each 6.24. The cost of ~alaries and wages per inmate is $95.76, and the pay roll is 28.5 per cent of the total maintenance cost. The maintenance cost per inmate is $335.66. The second group includes the populous, well equipped, scientifically conducted infirmaries of San Francisco and Los Angeles; Baltimore; Boston; St. Louis and...Jackson County (Kansas City) in Missouri; Hudson County (Jersey City) in New Jersey; Staten Island (New York City) and Erie County (Buffalo) in New York; Cleveland and Cincinnati, Ohio; Philadelphia, Pa.; and the Rhode Island Infirmary. These institutions are hospitals as well as almshouses, operating on hospital principles, with hospital standards of cleanliness and dietetics, and havmg staff doctors and large corps of nurses, both graduate and student, and orderlies, in addition to the required domestic a.nd farm force. The acreage owned by the 16 institutions in the group is 5,597, with 2,588 under cultivation, giving an average acreage of 0.4 7 per inmate, and 0.22 acre cultivated. The total amount invested in land and farm equipment is $3,594,308, an average of $301 per inmate. The buildings of the 16 institutions with their equipment are worth  https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis  48  COST OF AMERICAN ALMSHOUSES  $15,043,1)55, an average of $940,247 per institution and $1,258 per inmate. The investment in land, buildings, and farm and home . equipment per inmate is $1,559. For the care of the 11,959 inmates in this group 1,168 people are employed, or 1 to each 10.24 inmates. The pay roll amounts to $89.38 per inmate, or 30 per cent of the total cost of operation. The total maintenance cost per inmate is $293.89. One institution in the group has reported in its total cost for the year an item of $145,500 expended in permanent improvements. Deducting that sum from the annual running expenses of the almshouse reduces the cost per inmate for the group to $281.72. Three hundred and thirty-three almshouses, then, on farms comprising 58,699 acres of land and representing an aggregate investmtmt of $22,019,674, are affording asylum, at an annual cost per inmate of $335.66, for the same number of paupers as 16 other institutions, with less than one-tenth the acreage and $3,381,411 less in investment, care for at an annual cost of $281.72 per capita. Nor does that tell the whole story of the difference in these two kinds of institutions. Consider the contrast in the working equipment and the facilities, buildings and furnishings of public institutions the average value of which is $41,777 in group 3 and $940,247 in group 7. Obviously an expenditure of nearly a million dollars will produce an establishment witli facilities, comforts, conveniences, even luxurie!!!, that are impossible in one costing $42,000. Furthermore, 333 institutions require 333 directory heads and staffs of varying sizes. Of the 1,918 persons employed not more th~n 800 can fairly be attributed directly to pauper care. The remainder are farm hands used on the immense farms, unskilled labor, and domestics in the 333 separate kitchens aild dining rooms. For the entire 26 to 50 inmate group there are only 135 nurse::s reported, one to each 89 inmates, and only 9 of the institutions in the group are shown as having staff doctors. There is a resident physician in each of the 16 institutions in the second group, while nurses and orderlies, employees directly concerned with the care of the inmates, are estimated as numbering 566. Despite the fact that a large proportion of the employees in the second group are skilled professional men and women, the labor cost per inmate is $6.38 less per year than in the first group where labor overhead is spread over 21 times as many institutions. Manifestly, it is reasonable to assume that the 11,959 indigents who are hoµsed in institutions constructed and equipped to care for them in illness or in health and who are in the care of trained persons are better off than are the 11,959 scattered throughout 333 institutions with 333 different standards of treatment ap.d of efficiency in management. There are two State almshouses in New England which care for the paupers who have n9 legal residence in a town. The Rhode Island State Almshouse contams 70.8 per cent of the "inside poor" of that State, the remaining 29.2 per cent being housed in 17· other institutions. The cost per inmate in the State mfirmary is $326.14, while the average per capita for all the others in the State is $664.44. The Massachusetts State Infirmary cares for 2,087 of the 6,059 paupers reported, at a cost per inmate of $391.07. The average cost per mmate for all town institutions is $480.17.   https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis  COST OF AMERICAN ALMSHOUSES  49  TREND TOWARD CONSOLIDATION Taking into consideration the amount of money tied_ up in more than 2,000 institutions which, even when they are fulfilling their mission of providing decent guarters, comfort, care, and kindly treatment to the hopeless derelicts whom we call paupers, are doing so against tremendous odds; the amount of money required annually to maintain them even as indifferently as they are maintained; the thousands of acres of idle land; the duplication of effort and the extent of unproductive employment-it is difficult, indeed, not to subscribe unreservedly to the conclusion reached by the North Carolina State Board of Charities, which declares thatMeasured by any decent standard of social efficiency the county home is a failure. From the very nature of the problem it could not be a success. The number of paupers in most county homes is so small that it is not economical to maintain them in well-kept count;i, homes. 26  What is true of the county home is truer still of those o_perated by subdivisions within the county. "The smaller the political unit represented in the almshouse the more impossible it is that the institution shall be properly maintained," 27 to quote the Pennsylvania Welfare Commission. In most of the States in which an official body is active in the study and treatment of social problems, the almshouse and almshouse conditions are receiving intelligent consideration as part of those social problems. In practically every one of them the conclusion is the same-that, as the Alabama board says, it is because of the system under which they are operated that conditions have become insufferable, "and a betterment can not be expected until a radical change is inaugurated." 28 There is not only almost universal agreement with the Sout.h Carolina board that "the establishment of district almshouses, well planned, well equipped, and well managed, with the main idea in mmd, the care of the poor, seems to be the most practical and efficient solution of the problem at this time," 29 but there is also a very determined effort on the part of many State boards to bring about the abolition of the small-unit (political) almshouse and to replace it with an organization founded on a unit large enough to make efficient, effective, economical administration feasible. Legislation is, as a rule, the first weapon relied upon to effect consolidation. Laws already passed, however, have been merely advisory and have accomplished little. In many States opposition from county political rings has been so strong that the State boards have been powerless to secure the passage of the mild advisory legislation they propose. In Virginia, for instance, the effort of the State board of charities to abohsh the county almshouses and to establish instead one large institution in each congressional district met with so much opposition from almshouse superintendents and county politicians that the State board had difficulty in finding a member of the legislature willing to sponsor the bill. It was introduced but was killed in committee. North Carolina, West Virginia, Illinois, and Michigan are among the States in which the State boards are working toward the abolition of the small-unit institution "North Carolina. State Board of Charities and Public Welfare. Biennial report, 1920-1922, p. 63. " Pennsylvania. Commissioner of Public Welfare. First biennial report, p. 24. " Alabama. State Prison Inspector. Report, 1921-22, p. 74. 19 South Carolina. State Board of Public Welfare. Fourth annual report, 1923, p. 162.   https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis  50  OOST OF AMERICAN ALMSHOUSES  and the creation of a centralized home that shall more adequately meet the needs of decent pauper care. In most of them Virginia's experience has been repeated, at least in part . . The political importance to the county organization of having the post of almshouse superintendent at its dis:posal is sufficient incentive for the local "bosses" to fight for its retention. And, unattractive as the job itself may be, in many instances it carries with it perquisites which the man filling it is eager to defend. That is especially true, of course, on the contract farms where the superintendent is given the proceeds from the farm. Often, too, the wife of the superintendent, while not receiving a salary as compensation for her work as matron of the institution, is allowed to keep what she can make on eggs and chickens. As one State officer observed: "When the county tax fund pays for the chickens and the feed, and provides a place to keep them, there is a fair amount of money in the chicken and egg business." Other concessions came to light in Virginia when the State board's consolidation measure was so summarily pocketed-insignificant, many of them, but sufficient to influence political currents. In another State one county home is the social center for the local politicians, who enjoy a get-together dinner with the superintendent nearly every Sunday, at county expense. The efforts of the North Carolina State Board of Charities and Public Welfare to establish district almshouses resulted in the passage of a bill permitting groups of counties to unite in such an undertaking. Instead of taking any steps toward consolidation, however, 25 counties of that State haYe built new county _homes within the past five years or have such buildings now in process of construction. The aggregate cost of these new homes has been a million dollars. Most of them have an inmate capacity far in excess of the needs of the community. One county opened a new home•in 1922. Within a year all of the inmates died and the almshouse has not been used since. On the other hand, county officials in Alabama have cooperated with the State board in its work toward centralizir...g institutional pauper relief. A bill introduced in the last Alabama legislature passed the senate without opposition. Because of lack of time it did not reach a vote in the lower house, but according to State officials it is certain of enactment by the next legislature. The plan which the Alabama State officials are confident of being able to carry out differs in some important details from that which other St_ates have attempted. Instead of selecting a congressional district as the unit, the Alabama plan divides the State mto four districts, grouping ~ounties so as to include as near~y as possib_le comparable populat10n, wealth, and taxable _properties. The bill provides that upon the establishment of the district almshouse '' all indigent and dependent infirm" must be committed thereto and that outdoor relief must be discontinued except in emergencies, wheri it may be granted for a specified time. In the main the bill provides that each county in the district shall contribute to the initial investment in a district hospital an amount based on the assessed valuation of the county. It is recommended, but not required, that the counties sell their present county farm holdings and reinvest the proceeds in the ;:iew project. Participation in the group enterprise is optional on the part of the county.   https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis  TREND T'OWARD CONSOLIDATION  51  The chairmen of the board of county commissioners of the counties comprising the district become the board of directors of the district institution. They shall appoint a superintendent "whose education, training, and qualifications fit him to discharge the duties required," and shall pay him a salary "sufficient to command the services of one adequately equipped and trained." They shall also employ a competent physician, on salary, to give his entire time to the care of the mmates, with the help of such nurses, orderlies, etc., as conditions determine, the hospital staff to be responsible to the resident physician and not to the superintendent. The expense of operation is to be borne by the counties participating on a per capita basis, the expense of upkeep to be prorated on the basis of the original assessme:st. The last New Jersey Legislature passed a similar law. However, no steps have been taken in any of the States enacting such legislation to carry the plan into effect. A bill was introduced into the Maryland State Senate to establish a State home for "aged white men and women," to be situated on the farm of one of the State insane hospitals. The introductory resolution declares that "the present system of maintaining in the several counties of the State almshouses or homes for the aged and infirm who have no means of support has proved to be unsatisfactory and uneconomical." Petitioning for State pauper institutions in Missouri, a former almshouse supervisor of that State, after presenting some distressing conditions in county almshouses, says: The point I wish to make is that most of these counties, particularly the hill counties, are doing all they possibly can do on the limited county funds available. Consequently it is clear that the solution of the problem can not be found if our present plan of each county for itself is continued. Many counties have a very small number of inmates, and this fact keeps some well-to-do counties from building suitable institutions * * * After a Statewide survey of almshouses in Missouri and a careful consideration of the problems presented, it is my conviction that the aged and infirm poor can best be cared for by one or more State almshouses accessibly located. 30  Some States, notably Virginia, in which conditions in the small almshouses have become intolerable and must be corrected, have concluded to try more direct methods than advisory legislation. The policy which the Virginia State Board of Public Welfare is now adopting is to prevail upon the county officials in the rural counties where almshouse conditions are bad to close the institution and trans-· fer the inmates to county homes with better facilities. The argument used, of course, is that the few county charges can be boarded in better institutions at less expense to the county than is involved in the present system. Their first experiment in that direction was not encouraging. The county officials of one county were induced to transfer the one inmate of the home to a neighboring county almshouse, which agreed to board and care for him at a very reasonable rate per week. The county retained the property, h0wever, and continued to pay the superintendent's salary. It was not long before the superintendent had found two or three more old men who were willing to cooperate ,. Missouri. State Board of Charities. Bimonthly Bulletin, August, 1922. "Recommendations as to the solution of the county almshouse problems in Missouri," by William S. Miller, almshouse supervisor, Missouri State Board of Charities.   https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis  52  COST OF AMERJC~N ALMSHOUSES  with him in his determination to keep the institution in operation. More recently the county again closed the home and is now negotiating for its sale. Circumstances, such as death or resignation of the superintendent, the death of the only inmate, and fires, have tended to assist the Virginia State officials in their efforts to eliminate the worst of their county almshouses. The latest report of the State body lists 10 counties as having entered into or completed arrangements to dispose of their county homes and to care for their paupers in more satisfactory q_uarters. In the opimon of some State welfare officials, consolidation of that nature is to be preferred to joint operation of a district almshouse by several counties. The point is made that political differences and community bickerings make the success of a joint venture very doubtful, while the use of available quarters in one county as a boarding place for the charges of surrounding counties will leave the institution under unified management. In view of the many almshouses having a capacity many times the needs of the community they serve, this plan should :prove feasible a.nd result in improved conditions even without additional investment in new quarters. AB suggested by Mary Vida Clark: Suppose we were to select from the almshouse group the one best located in or near a city or town easily reached by train or trolley from other parts of the district, and set this apart as a district home for the aged and infirm, where the respectable aged poor might receive home and infirmary care, in a place accessible to relatives and friends, from which they might themselves be privileged to emerge to visit their friends or enjoy the life of the streets, the church, and the "movies." 81 Suppose that the county farm provided with the best farm lands should be set aside as a colony for subnormal boys and men, where, under adequate State regulation and supervision, the able-bodied but feeble-minded might live a healthy, self-supporting existence under proper custodial restrictions. Another -county farm might be_ used for the men of the tramp and vagrant class, the aged but not respectable poor, with whom it is such a hardship for decent old people to be forced to associate. The fourth almshouse, especially if conveniently located, might be used for ain industrial colony for subnormal girls in need of custodial care. Of course, if any of these plants were good enough to be converted into local sanatoria for tuberculosis patients, this is another possibility. Anyone who has seen how a State hospital for the insane or a State institution for the feeble-minded can take in hand an ordinary farmhouse and turn it, at small expense, into that cross between a hospital and a home, with the comforts · of both, that is the happy invention of the· scientific mind working in everyday materials, will realize what a delightful place an almshouse might be if subjected to the same revolutionizing genius.  In the social evolution of the past quarter century the care a.nd treatment of tuberculosis and insanity have become State functions; State institutions to care for the blind have become numerous; schools for training the feeble-minded and colonies for epileptics are being established by the States in rapid succession.• State homes for children have displaced almost entirely the old-time" orphan asylum." But the "county poor farm" remains. Care of the indigent old has been left just about where it was when the United States began its march of progress in social welfare. It is but a step in that march to give to derelict old age the same thought and consideration that State agencies now accord to the mentally diseased and the tubercular. 11 The Survey, July 26, 1919. "The passing of the county farm," by Mary Vida Clark, executive secretary Women's Prison Association, New York.   https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis  APPENDIX PROVISIONS OF STATE LAWS AS TO ALMSHOUSES Control.-F>y the various State laws the control of almshouses is vested in the following bodies: Commissioners-District of Columbia. Board of county commissioners-Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado,· Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Minnesota, Montana, Neoraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohi~ Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington, Wyoming (28 States). Town-Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont (7 States). Board of supervisors of county-Arizona, Iowa, Mississippi, Virginia (4 States). County superintendent of poor-California, Michigan (2 States). County court-Missouri, Oregon, West Virginia (3 States). Board of trustees of county-Delaware, Wisconsin (2 States). Ordinary of county-Georgia (1 State). Police jury of parish (county)-Louisiana (1 State). Committee of five citizens of county-South Carolina (Aiken County only). Residence required for admission.-In the District of Columbia and in all the States a legal or bona fide residence is essential for relief. In all States, however, provision is made for the care of all persons in indigent circumstances within the jurisdiction of a particular city or county whether or not they have a bona fide residence. Requirements for commitment.-Under the State laws the following persons may be committed to almshouses: A person unable to support himself-Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New York, Virginia, West Virginia (10 States). A person unable to support himself by reason of bodily infirmity, idiocy, and lunacy-Nebraska, Nevada, Oregon (3 States). A person unable to support himself, including aged, infirm, lame, blind, or sick persons-Missouri, North Carolina (2 States). All poor, indigent, and incapacitated persons-California, Colorado, District of Columbia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, Washington, Wyoming (23 States and the District of Columbia). All poor, indigentJ.. and incapacitated persons, including beggars-Kentucky, Maryland (2 .:;tates). All poor, indigent, and incapacitated persons, including the idle and vagrantMichigan (1 State). Any person upon order of the board of supervisors-Iowa (1 State). All poor, indigent, and incapacitated persons, including indigent sick-Utah (1 State). All poor, indigent, and incapacitated persons, including the sick, old, and drunkards, likely to become a public charge-Wisconsin (1 State). Contract system.-The following provisions are found in the laws as to contracting for the care of the indigent poor: Almshouse may be let out to contractor at the lowest bid-Arkansas, Iowa, Montana, North Dakota, Tennessee, Washington (6 States). Contract may be let out for support of poor where county has no almshouseIllinois, Kansas, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota (5 States). 53   https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis  54  COST OF AMERICAN ALMSHOUSES  Towns or counties may contract for the support of the poor-Idaho, Maine, Missouri (3 States). Letting out of almshouse to contractor at lowest bid is prohibited-Connecticut, Indiana, Utah (3 States). . Care of poor persons is not to be put up at auction-New York,_North Carolina (2 States). · Removal of mental defectives.-In the following 36 States and the District of Columbia, provision is made for the removal of mental defectives in almshouses to art asylum for defective persons: Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming. · In one State (Mississippi) the law provides that if a person is adjudged an idiot, a fool, or other incurable, but is harmless and indigent, he shall be kept in an almshouse. Support of poor by ~ati~es.-In the following 30 States the law provides that relatives shall be liable to the support of poor persons. committed to almshouses: Alabama, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin. Paupers to be employed.-ln the following 36 States and the District of Columbia it is provided that all paupers able to work shall be employed: Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, District of Columbia, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wyoming. Consolidation of almshouses.-Provision for consolidation of almshouses is made in the laws of the following 18 States: Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, V~rmont, Virginia. West Virginia, Wisconsin.   https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis  SERIES OF BULLETINS PUBLISHED BY THE BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS 7'he publication of the annual and special reports and of the bimonthly bulletin was discontinued in July,, 1912, and since that time a bulletin has been published at irregular intervals. Each number contains matter devoted to one of a aeries of general subjects. These bulletins are numbered consecutively, beginning with No. 101, and up to No. 236 they . also carry coruecutive numbers under each series. Beginning with No. 237 the serial numbering has been discontinued: A list of the series is given belnw. Under each is grouped all the bulletin• which contain material relating to the subject matter of that series. A list of the reports and bulletins of the Bureau issued prior to July 1, 1912, will be furnished on application. The bulletins marked thus • are out of print. Wholesale Prices. *Bui. 114. Wholesale prices, 1890 to 1912. Bui. 149, Wholesale prices, 1890 to 1913. *Bui. 173. Index numbers of wholesale prices in the United States and foreign countries. *Bui. 181. Wholesale prices, 1890 to 1914. *Bui. 200. Wholesale prices, 1890 to 1915. *Bui. 226. Wholesale prices, 1890 to 1916. Bui. 269. Wholesale prices, 1890 to 1919. Bui. 284. Index numbers of wholesale prices in the United States and foreign countries. [Revision of Bulletin No. 173.] Bui. 296. Wholesale prices, 1890 to 1920. Bui. 320. Wholesale prices, 1890 to 1921. Bui. 335. Wholesale prices, 1890 to 1922. Bui. 367. Wholesale prices, 1890 to 1923. lletail Prices and Cost of Living. *Bui. 105. Retail prices, 1890 to 1911: Partl. Retail prices, 1890 to 1911: Part II-General tables. *Bui. 106. Retail prices, 1890 to June, 1912:_Part I. Retail prices, 1890 to June, 1912: Part II-General tables. Bui. 108. Retail prices, 1890 to August, 1912. Bui. 110. Retail prices, 1890 to October, 1912. Bui. 113. Retail prices, 1890 to December, 1912. Bui. 115. Retail prices, 1890 to February, 1913. *Bui. 121. Sugar prices, from refiner to consumer. Bui. 125. Retail prices, 1890 to April, 1913. *Bui. 130. Wheat and flour prices, from farmer to consumer. Bui. 132. Retail prices, 1890 to June, 1913. Bui. 136. Retail prices, 1890 to August, 1913. *Bui. 138. Retail prices, 1890 to October, 1913. *Bui. HO. Retail prices, 1890 to December, 1913. Bui 156. Retail prices, 1907 to December, 1914. Bui. 164. Butter prices, from producer to consumer. Bui. 170. Foreign food prices as affected by the war. *Bui. 184. Retail prices, 1907 to June, 1915. Bui. 197. Retail prices, 1907 to December, 1915. Bui. 228. Retail prices, 1907 to December, 1916. Bui. 270. Retail prices, 1913 to 1019. Bui. 300. Retail prices, 1913 to 1920. Bui. 315. Retail prices, 1913 to 1921, Bui. 334. Retail prices, 1913 to 1922. Bui. 357. Cost of living in the United States. Bui. 366. Retail prices, 1913 to December, 1923. Bui. 369. The use of cost of living figures in wage adjustments. [In press.) Wages and Hours of Labor. Bui. 116, Hours, earnings, and duration of employment of wage-earning women in selected industries in the District or Columbia. *Bui. 118. Ten-hour maximum working-day for women and young persons. Bui. 119. Working hours of women in the pea canneries of Wisconsin. *Bui. 128. Wages and hours or labor in the cotton, woolen, and silk industries, 1890 to 1912. •Bui 129. Wages and hours of labor in the lumber, millwork, and furniture industries, 1890 to 1912. *Bui. 131. Union scale of wages and hours of labor, 1907 to 1912.  • Supply exhausted.   https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis  (I]  Wa!IN and Hours of Labor-Continued. *Bill, 134. Wages and hours of labor In the boot and shoe and hosiery and knit goods Industries, 1890 to 1Ul2,  *Bill. 135, Bill 137. Bill. 143. *Bill. 146. *Bill. 147; *Bill. 150. *Bill. 151. Bui. 153. *Bill. 154. Bill. 160. Bill. 161. Bill. 163. Bill. 168. *Bill. 171. Bui. 177. Bui. 178. *Bui. 187. *Bui. 190. *Bui. 194. Bui. 204. Bui. 214. Bui. 218. Bill. 221. Bui. 225. Bui. 232. Bui. 238. Bui. 239. Bui. 245. Bui. 252. Bui. 259. Bill. 260. Bui. 261. Bui: 262. Bui. 265. •Bui. 274. Bui. 278. Bui. 279. Bui. 286. Bui. 288. Bui. 289. Bui. 294. Bul. 297. Bui. 302. Bill. 305. Bill. 316. Bui. 317. Bill. 324. Bui. 325, Bill. 827. Bill. 328. Bill. 329. Bui. 345. Bui. 348. Bill. 353. Bui. 354. Bui._ 356. Bui. 358. Bill. 360. Bui. 362. Bui., 363. Bui. 365.  Wages and hours of labor in the cigar and clothing Industries, 1911 and 1912. Wages and hours oflabor In the building and repairing of steam railroad cars, 1890 to 1912. Union scale of wages and hours of labor, May 15, 1913. Wages and regularity of employment and standardization of piece rates In the dress and waist Industry of New York City. Wages and regularity of employment in the cloak, suit, and skirt Industry. Wages and hours oflabor In the cotton, woolen, and silk Industries, 1907 to 1913, Wages and hours oflaborin the iron and steel industry ln'the United States, 1907 to 1912. Wages and hours oflabor in the lumber, millwork, and furniture industries, 1907 to 1913. Wages and hours of labor in the boot and shoe and hosiery and underwear lndustrles, 1907 to 1913. Hours, earnings, and conditions of labor of women in Indiana mercantile establishments and garment factories. Wages and hours oflabor in the clothing and cigar industries, 1911 to 1913. Wages and hours oflabor in the building and repairing of steam railroad cars, 1907 to 1913. Wages and hours of labor In the iron and steel industry, 1907 to 1918. Union scale of wages and hours of labor, May 1, 1914. Wage., ,md hours ollabor In the hosiery and underwear industry, 1907 to 1914. Wages and hours ollabor In the boot and shoe Industry, 1907 to 1914. Wages and hours ollabor In the men's clothing Industry, 1911 to 1914. Wage., and hours of labor In the cotton, woolen, and silk industries, 1907 to 1914. Union scale of wage., and hours oflabor, May 1, 1915, Street railway employment in the United States. Union scale of wages and hours oflabor, May 15, 1916. Wages and hours oflabor In the iron and steel industry, 1907 to 1915. Hours, fatigue, and health In British munition factories. Wages and.hours oflabor in the lumber, millwork, and furniture industries, 19111, Wages and hours oflabor in the boot and shoe Industry, 1907 to 1916. Wages and hours oflabor In woolen and worsted goods manufacturing, 1916. Wages and hours oflabor in cotton goods manufacturing and finishing, 1916. Union scale of wages and hours oflabor, May 15, 11117. Wages and hours of labor in the slaughtering and meat-packing industry, 1917. Union scale of wages and hours oflabor, May 15, 1918. Wages and hours oflabor In the boot and shoe industry, 1907to 1918. Wages and hours of labor In woolen and worsted goods manufacturing, 1918. Wages and hours oflabor In cotton goods manufacturing and finishing, 1918. Industrial survey In selected industries in the United States, 1919. Preliminary report, Union scale of wages and hours or labor, May 15, 1919. Wages and hours ollabor in the boot and shoe industry, 1907 to 1920. Hours and earnings In anthracite and bituminous coal mining. Union scale of wages and hours of labor, May 15, 1920. Wages and hours of labor in cotton goods manufacturing, 1920. Wages and hours oflabor in woolen and worsted goods manufacturing, 1920. Wages and hours of labor In the slaughtering and meat-packing industry In 1921,Wages and hours of labor in the petroleum industry. Union scale of wages and hours oflabor, May 15, 1921 Wages and hours of labor In the iron aad steel industry, 1907 to 1920. Hours and earnings In anthracite and bituminous coal mining-anthracite, 1anuary, 1922, bituminous, winter of 1921-22. Wages and hours of labor in lumber manufacturing, 1921. Wages and hours oflabor in the boot and shoe Industry, 1907 to 1922. Union scale of wages and hours oflabor, May 15, 1922. Wages and hours of labor in woolen and worsted goods manufacturing, 1922. Wages and hours oflabor In-hosiery and underwear Industry, 1922. Wages and hours oflabor In the men's clothing Industry, 1922. Wages and hours oflabor in cotton goods manufacturing, 1922. Wages and hours oflabor In the automobile Industry, 1922. Wages and hours of labor in the Iron and steel Industry, 1907 to 1922. Union scale of wages and hours of labor, May 16, 1923. Labor productivity In the common-brick industry, 1922-23. Wages and hours of labor iB the automobile-tire Industry, 1923. Time and labor costs In manufacturing 100 pairs of shoes. Wages and hours of labor In foundries and machine shops, 1923. Wages ud hours of labor In lumber manufacturing, 1923. Wages and hours of labor In the paper and pulp Industry.  • Supply exhausted.   https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis  II1)  Wases and Hours of Labor-Continued.  Bui 371. Bui. 373. Bui. 374. Bui. 376. Bui. 377. Bui. 381.  Wages and hours of labor in cotton goods manufacturing, 1924. Wages and hours of!abor In slaughtering and meat packing, 1923. Wages and hours of labor in the boot awhihoe Industry, 1907 to 1924. Wages and hours of labor in hosiery and underwear industry, 1007 to 1924. Wages and hours oflabor in woolen and worsted goods manufacturing, 1924. Wages and hours oflabor in the iron and steel industry, 1907 to 1924.  Employment and Unemployment. *Bui. 109. Statistics of unemployment and the work of employment offices. Bui. 116. Hours, earnings, and duration of employment of wage-earning women in selected Industries in the District of Columbia. Bul.172. Unemployment In New York City, N. Y. *Bui. 182. Unemployment among women in department and other retail stores of Boston, Mass. *Bui. 183. Regularity of employment in the women's ready-to-wear garment industries. Bui. 192. Proceedings of the American Association of Public Employment Offices. *Bul. 195. Unemployment in the United States. Bul. 196. Proceedings of the Employment Managers' Conference held at Minneapolis, Minn., January, 1916. •Bu!. 202. Proceedings of the conference of Employment Managers' Association of Boston, Mass., held May 10, 1916. Bul. 206. The British system of labor exchanges. Bul. 220. Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Meeting of the American Association of Public Employ• ment Offices, Buffalo, N. Y., July 20 and 21, 1916. Bui. 223. Employment of women and Juveniles in Great Britain during the war. *Bui. 227. Proceedings of the Employment Managers' Conference, Philadelphia, Pa., April 2 and 3, 1917 .• Bui. 235. Employment system of the Lake Carriers' Association. Bul. 241. Public employment offices in the United States. Bui. 247. Proceedings of Employment Managers' Conference, Rochester, N. Y., May 9-11, 1918, Bul. 310. Industrial unemployment: A statistical study of Its extent and causes. Bui. 311. Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Meeting of the International Association of Public Em• ployment Services, held at Buffalo, N. Y ., September 7-9, 1921. Bul. 337. Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Meeting of the International Association of Public Employment Services, held at Washington, D. C., September 11-13, 1922. Bui. 355. Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Meeting of the International Association of Public Employment Services, held at Toronto, Canada, September 4'-7, 1923. Women In Indnstry. Bui. 116. Hours, earnings, and duration of employment of wage-earning women in selected industries in the Dlstrlet of Columbia. *Bui. 117. Prohibition of night work of young persons. •Bui. 118. Ten-hour maximum working-day for women and young persons. Bui. 119. Working hours of women in the pea canneries of Wisconsin. *Bui. 122. Employment of women in power laundries in Milwaukee. Bui. 160. Hours, earnings, and conditions of labor of women in Indiana mercanfile establishments and garment factories. *Bui. 167. Minimum-wage legislation in the United States and foreign countries. *Bui. 175. Summary of the report on condition of woman and child wage earners in the United Siates *Bul. 176. Effect of minimum-wage determinations in Oregon. *Bul. 180. The boot and shoe industry in Massachusetts as a vocation for women. •Bui. 182. Unemployment among women in department and other retail stores of Boston, Mass. Bui. 193. Dressmaking as a trade for women In Massachusetts. Bui. 215. Industrial experience of trade-school girls in Massachusetts. *Bui. 217. Effect of workmen's compensation laws in diminishing the necessity of industrial employment of women and children. Bui. 223. Employment of women and juveniles in Great Britain during the war. Bui. 253. Women in the lead industries. Workmen's Insurance and Compensation (inclnding laws relating thereto). *Bui. 101. Care or tuberculous wage earners in Germany. *Bui. 102. British National Insurance Act, 1911. Bui. 103. Sickness and accident insurance law of Switzerland. Bui. 107. Law relating to insurance of salaried employees in Germany. *Bui. 126. Workmen's compensation laws of the United States and foreign countries. *Bui. 155. Compemation for accidents to employees of the United States. *Bui. 185. Compensation legislation of 1914 am! 1915. *Bui. 203. Workmen's compensation laws of the United States and foreign countries.  • Supply exhausted.   https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis  (III)  Workmen's tnsurance 'and Compensatlon-dontinued. Bui. 210. Proceedings of the Third Annual Meeting of the International Association ot Industrial Accident Boards and Commissions, held at Coiumbus, Ohio, April 25-28, 1916. Bui. 212. Proceedings of the conference on social insurance called by the International Association of Industrial Accident Boards and Commissions, Washington, D. C., December 5-9, 1916. Bui. 217. Effect of workmen's compensation laws in diminishing the necessity of industrial employment of women and children. ',Bui. 240. Comparison of workmen's compensation laws of the United States. Bui. 243. Workmen's compensation legislation in the United States and foreign countries. Bui. 248. Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Meeting of the International Association of Industrial Accident Boards and Commissions, held at Boston, Mass., August 21-25, 1917. Bui. 264. Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Meeting of the International AllSOciation of Industrial Accident Boards and' Commissions. held at Madison, Wis., September 24-27, 1918. Bui. 272. Workmen's compensation legislation of the United States and Canada, 1919. "Bui. 273. Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Meeting of the International Association of Industrial Accident Boards and Commissions, held at Toronto, Canada, September 23-26, 1919. Bui. 275. Comparison of workmen's compensation laws of the United States and Canada. Bui. 281. Proceedings oft~ Seventh Annual Meeting.of the International Association of Industrial Accident Boards and Commissions, held at San Francisco, Calif., September 20-24, 1920. Bui. 301. Comparison of workmen's compensation insurance and administration. Bui. 304. Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Meeting of the International Association of Industrial Accident Boards and Commissions, held at Chicago, Ill., September 19-23, 1921. Bui. 312.. National Health Insurance in Great Britain, 1911 to 1920. · Bui. 332. Workmen's compensation leglslation of the United States and Canada, 1920 to 1922. Bui. 333. Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Meeting of the International Association of Industrial Accident Boards and Commissions, held at Baltimore, Md., O~toher 19-23, 1922. Bui. 359. Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Meeting of th~ International Association of Industrial Accident Boards and Commissions, held at St. Paul, Minn., September 24-26, 1923. :13ul. 379. Comparison of workmen's compensation laws in the United States as of January 1, 1925. Bui. 385. Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Meeting of the International Association of Industrial Accident Boards and Commissions, held at Halifax, Nova Scotia, August 26-28, 1924. Industrial Accidents and Hygiene. Bul. 104. Lead poisoning in potteries, tile works, and porcelain enameled sanitary ware factories. Bui. 120. Hygiene of the painters' trade. " .. "Bui. 127. Dangers to workers from dust and fumes, and methods of protection. ' "Bui. 141. Lead poisoning in the smelting and refining of lead. "Bui. 157. Industrial accident statistics. "Bui. 165. Lead poisoning in the manufacture of storage batteries. "Bui. 179. Industrial poisons used in the rubber industry. Bui. 188. Report of British departmental committee on the danger in the use of lead in the paint• ing of buildings. •Bui. 201, Report of committee on statistics and compensation insurance cost of the International Association of Industrial Accident Boards and Commissions. [Limited edition.) Bui. 205. Anthrax as an occupational disease. • Bui. 207. Causes of death by occupation. Bui. 209. Hygiene of the printing trades. "Bui. 216. Accidents and accident prevention in machine building. Bui. 219. Industrial poisons used or produced in the manufacture of explosives. Bui. 221. Hours, fatigue, and health in British munition factories. Bui. 230. Industrial efficiency and fatigue in British munition factories. "Bui. 231. Mortality from respiratory diseases in dusty trades. •Bui. 234. Safety movement in the iron and steel industry, 1907 to 1917. Bui. 236. Effect of the air hammer on the hands of stonecutters. Bui. 251. Preventable deaths in the cotton manufacturing industry. Bui. 253. Women in the lead industries. Bui. 256. Accidents and accident prevention in machine building. Revision of Bui. 216. Bui. 267. Anthrax as an occupational disease. [Revised.] Bui. 276. Standardization of industrial accident statistics. Bui. 280. Industrial poisoning in making coal-tar dyes and dye intermediates. Bui. 291. Carbon monoxide poisoning. Bui. 293. The ·problem of dust phthisis in the granite-stone industry. Bui. 298. Causes and prevention of accidents in the iron and steel industry, 1910 to 1919. Bui. 306. Occupation hazards and diagnostic signs: A guide to impairment to be looked for In haz• ardous occupations. Bui. 339. Statistics of Industrial accidents in the United States.  • Supply exhausted   https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis  (IV)  Conciliation and Arbitration (including strikes and .ockonts), *Bul.124. Conciliation and arbitration in the·building trades of Greater New York. •Bui. 133. Report of the industrial council of the British Board of Trade on its inquiry into industrial agreements. *Bui. 139. Michigan coppe.r district strike. Bui. 144. Industrial court of the cloak, suit, and skirt industry of New York City, Bui. 145. Conciliation, arbitration, and sanitation in the dress and waist industry of New York City. Bui. 191. Collective bargaining'in the anthracite coal industry. *Bui. 198. Collective agreements in the men's clothing industry. Bui. 233. Operation of the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act of Canada. Bui. 303. Use of Federal power in settlement of railway labor disputes. Bui. 341. Trade agreement in the silk-ribbon industry of New York City. Labor Laws of the United States (including decisions of courts relating to labor). *Bui. 111. Labor legislation of 1912. *Bui. 112. Decisions of courts and opinions affecting labor, 1912. *Bui. 148. Labor laws of the United States, with decisions of courts relating thereto, *Bui. 152. Decisions of courts and opinions affecting labor, 1913. *Bui. 166. Labor legislation of 1914. *Bui. 169. Decisions of courts affecting labor, 1914. *Bui 186. Labor legislation of 1915. *Bui. 189. Decisions of courts affecting labor, 1915. Bui. 211. Labor laws and their administration in the Pacific States, *Bui. 213. Labor legislation of 1916. Bui. 224. Decisions of courts affecting labor, 1916. Bui. 229. Wage-payment legislation in the United States. *Bui. 244. Labor legislation of 1917. Bui. 246. Decisions of courts affecting labor, 1917. *Bui. 257. Labor legislation of 1918. Bui. 258. Decisions of courts and opinions affecting labor, 1918. *Bui. 277. Labor legislation of 1919. Bui. 285. Minimum-wage legislation In the United States. Bui. 290. Decisions of courts and opinions affecting labor, 1919-1920. Bui. 292. Lal)or legislation of 1920. Bui. 308. Labor legislation of 1Jl21. Bui. 309. Decisions of courts and opinions affecting labor, 1921. Bui. 321. Labor laws that have been declared unconstitutional. Bui. 322. Kansas Court of Industrial Relations. Bui. 330. Labor legislation of 1922. Bui. 343. Laws providing for bureaus of labor statistics, etc. Bui. 344. Decisions of courts and opinions affecting labor, 1922. Bui. 370. Labor laws of the United States, with decisions of courts relating thereto. [In press.] Foreign Labor Laws. •Bui. 142. Administration of labor l11ws and factory inspection in certain European countries. Vocational Education. Bui. 145. Conciliation, arbitration, and sanitation in the dress and waist industry of New York City. *Bui. 147. Wages and regularity of employment in the cloak, suit, and skirt industry. *Bui. 159. Short-unit courses for wage earners, and a factory school experiment. *Bui. 162. Vocational education survey of Richmond, Va. Bui. 199. Vocational education survey of Minneapolis, Minn. Bui. 271. Adult working-class education (Great Britain and the United States). Labor as Affected by the War. Bui. 170. Foreign food prices as affected by the war. Bui. 219. Industrial poisons used or produced in the manufacture of explosives, Bui. 221. Hours, fatigue, and health in British munition factories. Bui. 222. Welfare work in British munition factories. Bui. 223. Employment of women and juveniles in Great Britain during the war. Bui. 230. Industrial efficiency and fatigue in British munition factories. Bui. 237. Industrial unrest in Great Britain. Bui. 249. Industrial health and efficiency. Final report of British Health of Munition Workers Committee. Bui. 255. Joint industrial councils in Great Britain. Bui. 283. History of the Shipbuilding Labor Adjustment Board, 1917 to 1919. Bui; 287. National War Labor Board.  • Snpply exhausted.   https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis  Iv]  Safety Codes.  Bui. 331. Bui. 36. Bui. 338. Bui. 350. Bui. 351. Bui. 364. Bui. 375. Bu!. 378. Bui. 382.  Code of lighting factories, mills, and other work places. Safety code for the protection of industrial workers in foundries. Safety code for the use, care, and protection·of abrasive wheels. Rules governing tl;le approval of lleadlightlng devices for motor vehicles. Safety code for the construction, care, and use of ladders. Safety code for mechanical power-transmission apparatus. Safety code for laundry machinery and operations. Safety code for woodworking maehinery. Code of lighting school buildings.  Miscellaneous Serles. •Bui. 117. Prohibition of night work of young persons. •BuJ. 118. Ten-hour maximum working day for women and young persons. •Bui. 123. Employers' welfare work. •Bui. 158. Government aid to home owning and housing of working people In foreign countries. •Bui. 159. Short-unit courses for wage earners and a factory school experiment. •Bui. 167. Minimum-wage legislation In the United States and foreign countries. Bui. 170. Foreign food prices as affected by the war. •Bui. 174. Subject Index of the publications of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics up to May 1, 1915. Bui. 208. Profit sharing in the United States. Bui. 222. Welfare work in British munition factories. Bui. 242. Food situation in central Europe, 1917. *Bui. 250. Welfare work for employees in industrial establishments In the United States. Bui. 254. International labor legislation and the society of nations. Bul. 283 Hou.sing by employers in the United States. Bul. 266. Proceedings of Seventh Annual Convention of Governmental Labor Officials of the United · States and Canada. Bul. 268. Historical survey of International action affecting labor. Bui. 271. Adult working-class education in Great Britain and the United States. Bui. 282. Mutual relief associations among Government employees In Washington, D. O. Bui. 295. Building operatiens in representative cities in 1920. ,•• Bui. 299. Personnel research agencies: A guide to organized research In employment management, industrial relations, training, and working conditions. Bui. 313. Consumers' cooperative societies In thll United States In 1920. Bui. 314. Cooperative credit societies in America and foreign countries. Bui. 318. Building permits in the principal cities of the United States. Bul. 320. The Bureau of Labor Statistics: Its history, activities, and organization. Bul. 323. Proceedings o! the Ninth Annual Convention of the Asso~on of Governmental Labor Officials of the United States and Canada, held at Harrisburg, Pa., May 22-26, 1922. Bul. 326. Methods of procuring and computing statistical information of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Bul. 340. Chinese migrations, with special reference to labor conditions. Bul. 342. International Seamen's Union of America: A study of its history and problems. Bui. 346. Humanity in government. »uJ. 347. Building permits in the principal cities or the United States In 1922. Bui. 349. Industrial relations in the West Coast lumber industry. Bui. 352. Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Convention of Governmental Labor Officials of the United States and Canada. Bui. 361. Labor relations In the Fairmont (W. Va.} bituminous coal field. Bui. 368. Building permits in the principal cities of the United States in 1923. Bui. 372. Convict labor in 1923. Bui. 380. Post-war labor conditions in Germany. Bui. 383. Works council movement in Germany. Bui. 384. Labor conditions in the shoe industry in Massachusetts, 1920-1924.  • Sppply exha~sted.   https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis  'VI)  SPECIAL PUBLICATIONS ISSUED BY THE BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS Description of oecnpatlons, prepared for the United States Employment Service, 1918-19.  "Boots !IIld shoes, harness and saddlery, and, tanning. •cane-sugar refining and flour millin.fi. Coal and water gas, paint and varnish, paper, printing trades, and rubber goods. •Electrical manufacturing, distribution, and mainten!IIlce. Glass. Hotels !IIld restaurants. •Logging camps and sawmills. Medicinal manufacturing. Metal working, building and general construction, railroad transportation, and shipbuildin11. *Mines and mining.  •office employees. Slaughtering and meat packing. Street railways. "Textiles and clothing. •Water transportation.   https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis  (vu)  0