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
@FedFRASER