Print

problem of fostering laziness through aid to the poor. And finally, many people believed that the poor would receive better care in an institution, rather than in the home of a family that had bid for them in an auction. Poorhouses achieved none of the goals set out for them. It turned out to be more expensive to support a needy person in the poorhouse than in a private home and liquor was not difficult to obtain, because the poorhouse doctors often prescribed alcoholic drinks for illnesses. Few cities built separate workhouses and poorhouses, and often the able-bodied used the poorhouse only during the winter, when they could not find work elsewhere. In winter, while women residents were kept busy with cooking and sewing, there was little work for a man on the poor farm. While some poorhouses were well-run, humane institutions, many poor people were sub- ject to overcrowding and unhealthy conditions in almshouses. According to Michael Katz, a history professor at the University of Pennsylvania, because poorhouse resi- dents vastly outnumbered staff, they often ran the institutions themselves as they saw fit. ‘‘With inmates serving as attendants, officials had little control over life on the wards, and large poorhouses turned into rowdy, noisy places in which discipline was almost impossible’’ (1996, 29). Nevertheless, despite the failure of poorhouses to achieve their goals, these insti- tutions persisted into the twentieth century. However, many reformers attempted to It was unusual for a police station to offer lodging to women, but some did, like this one in New York City, ca. 1890. Photo by Jacob Riis. (Library of Congress) 6 | Poverty and Local Governments