Poorhouses were public institutions used from the seventeenth through the mid twentieth centuries to provide relief for people unable to support themselves, including the elderly, the sick, people with disabilities, widows, and others. In North America—particularly in the United States and Canada—they were usually operated by local governments and often took the form of "poor farms", where residents who were able to work were expected to contribute labor. One Vermont Law from 1797 detailed that towns were squarely responsible for social welfare, not the state or federal government. Similar laws existed across the nation at the time.
Poorhouses developed from earlier systems of poor relief influenced by the English Poor Laws and by social attitudes that distinguished between the "deserving" and "undeserving" poor. Known by various names—including almshouses, poor farms, houses of industry, and county homes—these institutions varied widely in organization and purpose. Unlike the British workhouse system, however, North American poorhouses were typically locally administered and served primarily as residential institutions for a wide range of dependent populations.
During the nineteenth century poorhouses became the principal institutions of public welfare in much of North America. Over time their role changed as reformers created specialized institutions for groups such as children, the mentally ill, and disabled people. The importance of poorhouses declined during the twentieth century as expanding welfare programs, pensions, and social assistance systems gradually replaced local institutional relief. These shift in welfare Federalism closely coincided with LBJ's War on Poverty.
Terminology
Poorhouses were known by several names, including almshouses, poor farms, town farms, houses of industry, county homes, and city homes. These terms generally referred to similar public institutions that provided housing and basic support for people unable to support themselves. Although terminology varied by region and period, their purpose remained the same: to provide publicly funded relief for the indigent. The term "poor farm" usually referred to a rural poorhouse where residents performed agricultural or other labor to help support the facility. In the late nineteenth century many counties began referring to their institutions as county homes or city homes, reflecting changing attitudes toward public welfare and the growing association of poorhouses with care for the elderly.
In the United States, many poorhouses were located on farms in rural areas. These institutions—often called poor farms—differed from the large urban workhouses associated with Victorian England and some American cities. Workhouses in Britain were typically designed primarily as labor institutions intended to discourage reliance on public relief, whereas American poorhouses served as residential institutions that housed a broad range of people in need of support. By the mid-nineteenth century, nearly every county in the United States operated a poorhouse or similar institution. Residents included the elderly, people with physical or mental disabilities, the chronically ill, children, widows, immigrants, and others who were unable to support themselves.
By the early twentieth century, efforts were made to reduce the negative associations attached to the term “poor.” Many poor farms and poorhouses were therefore renamed county homes or infirmaries, reflecting a growing emphasis on providing housing and care for the elderly, destitute, and infirm.
United States Colonial poor relief
Poor relief in colonial America developed largely from English precedents, particularly the English Poor Laws, which established the principle that local communities were responsible for supporting the indigent. The first colonial poor laws were enacted in Plymouth Colony in 1642, followed by Virginia in 1646, Connecticut in 1673, and Massachusetts in 1676. In most colonies the administration of relief was carried out by local officials known as overseers of the poor. Public assistance was typically denied to individuals who had family members capable of supporting them. Residency requirements used to determine eligibility for public assistance, first appeared in Plymouth Colony. Under these rules, each town was responsible for supporting its own poor residents. Early laws limited relief for newcomers, however, and individuals who had lived in a community for less than three months were generally not eligible for aid. After that period, those considered strangers could be required to leave the town.
Several methods of poor relief were used during the colonial period. Many communities relied on outdoor relief, which provided small amounts of food, fuel, clothing, or money while allowing recipients to remain in their homes. In other cases, towns auctioned the care of poor individuals to the lowest bidder, contracted with local families to house them, or required able-bodied paupers to work for local farmers. Outdoor relief was generally intended to assist people during periods of temporary hardship, particularly the elderly, the sick, and families facing short-term economic difficulties. Institutional relief existed but was limited. Large towns occasionally established almshouses or workhouses, such as Boston’s early workhouse (1738) and New York City’s almshouse, founded in 1736. These early institutions housed the poor alongside the sick, the mentally ill, and sometimes criminals.
By the late eighteenth century two different systems for administering poor relief had developed. In New England, towns were generally responsible for helping the poor, whereas in Pennsylvania and several other states the administration of relief was assigned to county governments. The Pennsylvania approach proved influential in the early republic because it permitted counties to establish poorhouses with approval from the state legislature. These institutions were not mandatory; counties petitioned the legislature for authorization to construct them. During the early nineteenth century poorhouses became increasingly common. Even as poorhouses developed, most assistance to the poor continued to take place outside institutions, and in many communities more people received outdoor relief than lived in poorhouses. One form of relief was exemption from taxation. The elderly and sick often received this assistance, which allowed them to remain in their homes. A number of cities also established soup houses in the first half of the nineteenth century.
Attitudes toward the poor
Public attitudes toward poverty in the nineteenth century were shaped by ideas about work, character, and personal responsibility. Common beliefs in the early 1800s held that poverty reflected a lack of character and was an individual moral failing—the result of laziness, vice, or alcoholism rather than misfortune, as had often been assumed in the colonial era. Many Americans believed that the country offered abundant opportunities for success, and they often viewed poverty as the result of personal shortcomings such as idleness, drunkenness, or immoral behavior.
Many taxpayers believed that public relief encouraged idleness and dependency, and reformers frequently distinguished between the “deserving” and “undeserving” poor. Urbanization and immigration also influenced these perceptions. In many cities officials blamed rising poverty on factors such as alcohol abuse, moral weakness, or the growing immigrant population. Some early poorhouses reflected these attitudes; a few were little more than rudimentary shelters intended simply to keep residents alive. In Richmond, Virginia, for example, the language used by city officials in the 1850s revealed increasingly harsh attitudes toward the poor and a growing reluctance to spend public funds on relief.
The rise of poorhouses
During the early nineteenth century, concerns grew among public officials that poverty and the cost of poor relief were increasing. Investigations into local relief systems produced influential reform reports, most notably the Quincy Report in Massachusetts (1821) and the Yates Report in New York (1824). The Quincy Commission, headed by Boston mayor Josiah Quincy, was appointed to examine the administration of outdoor relief in Massachusetts. Its report argued that relief systems should distinguish between different types of paupers and identified two broad groups: those incapable of work—such as the aged, the infirm, children, and the mentally disabled—and those considered able-bodied. The commission recommended expanding the use of institutional relief through almshouses and poorhouses rather than relying primarily on outdoor assistance.
The Yates Report (1824), authored by New York Secretary of State John Yates, was a detailed survey of poverty and public relief in the state. The report strongly criticized outdoor relief and advocated the creation of county poorhouses where the indigent could be supported under supervision. Yates similarly distinguished between two categories of the destitute: the permanent poor, who required long-term public support, and the temporary poor, who needed assistance only during periods of hardship.
Both reports helped shape early nineteenth-century reform thinking. Reformers argued that outdoor relief encouraged dependency and that institutional care would allow officials to supervise the poor while reducing public expenditures. They also believed poorhouses could eliminate older practices such as auctioning paupers to the lowest bidder or transferring poor individuals between towns. The influence of these reports contributed to a widespread movement to establish almshouses and county poorhouses, particularly in the northeastern United States. During the early and mid-nineteenth century, institutional relief expanded rapidly as urban growth and industrialization made poverty more visible. Immigration also contributed to rising numbers of people requiring assistance.
Municipalities responsible for supporting the poor typically relied on a combination of outdoor relief and institutional care depending on the needs of the community. The construction of poorhouses was often motivated less by humanitarian concerns than by efforts to reduce the cost of poor relief. In a largely rural country, many towns and counties built these institutions on farms, where agricultural production could help offset expenses. Conditions varied widely from county to county and state to state. Some states developed extensive systems of county institutions; in Ohio, for example, nearly every county operated a poor farm. In other parts of the country such institutions were far less common, and relief was often provided through other means.
Conditions and daily life Resident populations
Many poorhouse residents entered these institutions because illness, disability, or old age left them unable to support themselves. Historians have noted that illness was a major cause of destitution among families receiving relief, and a large proportion of almshouse inmates were sick or physically debilitated. Elderly people were particularly vulnerable; without children to care for them or savings for support, many found themselves completely destitute.