encyclopedia of adoption
| INTRODUCTION | |
| A BRIEF HISTORY OF ADOPTION | Page 4 of 10 << back | next >> |
The Rise and Fall of the Almshouse
In the 19th and early 20th century, not only unwed parents but poor people in general were often regarded with disdain and contempt. "Outdoor relief" was the early precursor to today's Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF) and referred to cash or items such as food that were given to people who remained in their home rather than residing in an institution. Such relief was administered by the town or county in most cases; for example, the towns generally administered outdoor relief in New England, and the system of overseers was first introduced in Boston in 1691. In other areas of the country, the county managed outdoor relief.
In addition to almshouses or outdoor relief there were also two other methods of dealing with the poor: one was literally selling the poor, and the other was selling their labor. According to historian Michael B. Katz, the labor of the individual was literally auctioned off to the highest bidder in a form of slavery of the poor. Understandably, many people considered such practices to be unfair and inhumane. Children were also routinely apprenticed or indentured to families, some of whom were kind, some of whom were not.
There were also numerous problems of settlement (determining which town or city was financially responsible for poor individuals) in the 19th century and early 20th century. Sometimes overseers of the poor actually transported poverty stricken individuals to other towns to avoid a financial liability.
Some social reformers believed outdoor relief was bad for the character of the individual and could ultimately encourage a class of individuals dependent on public welfare. In addition, outdoor relief was perceived as bad for children, the mentally ill and other categories of helpless individuals. Outdoor relief has always cost much less than institutionalization; however, social reformers believed that almshouses and later other institutions, such as orphanages, would be tar better for the individuals as well as for society.
As a result, the rise of the almshouse (poorhouse) began in the mid-18th century. Yet although the almshouse was seen as the ultimate answer for indigent people by social reformers of the day, outdoor relief continued on throughout the almshouse era; for example, at the height of the almshouse era in 1880, there were an estimated 89,909 individuals residing in almshouses in New York, contrasted to 70,667 individuals receiving outdoor relief.
Supporters of almshouses stated that individuals would no longer be auctioned off nor would they receive outdoor relief and be allowed to be indolent. The settlement problem would be solved because the institutions would be county-run. It was also believed the almshouse would be a place where better character would be ingrained and where individuals would not wish to stay too long.
But the almshouse social experiment, initially running an almost parallel course in England, was not the ideal solution envisioned by early social reformers such as Josiah Quincy, author of the Quincy Report in 182 1, or by Douglas Yates, author of the Yates Report of 1824. Many children suffered greatly, and too many died.
Infants were particularly at risk, primarily because they had to be breast-fed before the advent of safe formulas for infants. Wet nurses sometimes were used to breast-feed babies, although this solution was often unsatisfactory, due to unsani-tary conditions and other problems.
According to author Homer Folks, 514 infants; were nursed in a New York City almshouse in 1849, and of these, 280 died. "Boarding out" of infants with foster parents was begun again in 1871. (It had previously been a policy, then was discontinued.) Said Folks, "It was so successful in reducing the death rate that in 1900 and 1901 it was extended to include all foundlings coming directly under the care of New York."
When the child was weaned from the breast, he or she was usually returned to the almshouse, despite any affection and love that may have developed between the foster mother and the child.
Although the goal of those who recommended almshouses was the creation and maintenance of clean and safe facilities, almshouses were far more often crowded and disease-ridden institutions, rampant with such dangerous and then-fatal diseases such as cholera or pneumonia as well as numerous chronic diseases. Nor were they safe: some almshouses housed juvenile delinquents and seriously mentally ill individuals (and the indigent elderly) in the same facility that held the children of paupers.
The children were often not educated, nor were they sent to public schools because of the fear they would spread contagious diseases to the other children. As a result, they could neither read nor write nor were they trained for any trade, perpetuating the horrors of poverty into their adulthood.
Concerned citizens and child advocates became vocally opposed to almshouses in the mid-1800s when a variety of reports were written condemning almshouses. In 1856, a state Senate committee in New York issued a denunciation of the almshouse system. In 1857, commissioners of the poor in Charleston, South Carolina, described dismal conditions at an almshouse, which was "swarming with vermin." In addition, although almshouses had been perceived as a means to encourage idle individuals to work, often people living in almshouses could not find employment, either because of youth or infirmity or because of a lack of available jobs.
As a result, although the almshouses had initially been created because of concerned citizens' strong convictions that they would be far preferable to outdoor relief, the reality did not resemble the dream.
Finally, by the end of the 1800s, many almshouses were no longer operating, and children who could not remain with their parents were instead housed in orphanages or placed with foster families. Institutions were created to care for the mentally ill, aged and juvenile offenders, thus separating the many categories of the poor that had formerly been housed together.
Several states led a movement away from almshouses and toward placing children in orphanages or with families; for example, in 1883, Ohio passed a law banning children over age three in almshouses, unless they were separated from indigent adults. Ohio dropped the age limit allowed in almshouses to one year in 1898.
According to the 1880 census, there were 7,770 children in almshouses throughout the United States. Author Homer Folks estimated the number to have declined to about 5,000 by 1890.
It's important to note that some prominent child welfare experts today are calling for a return to orphanages to care for the increasing numbers of abandoned, neglected or abused infants and children born to drug-addicted mothers. Proponents of modern-day orphanages insist that such facilities are not or would not be Dickensian scourges but instead would be clean and sale homes. Of course, it could also be argued that 19th century orphanage advocates clearly envisioned clean and sale facilities and did not wish for children to suffer from a lack of bonding to parental figures or from a failure to thrive.
In the 19th century and early 20th century, orphaned children or the children of poverty stricken parents were often "put out" or apprenticed, often to childless couples.
If a family died and there were no living relatives or persons named in a will who would care for the child, then the court was required to bind them out to a responsible person.
Children who were indentured did not usually assume the name of the masters nor were they given any legal rights or inheritance rights. In addition, the responsibility of the master usually ended when the child reached adulthood and was given $50, a Bible and two suits of clothes. Children were not legally protected from abuse or overwork at the hands of the master, either.
Indenture was later decried by many as a form of slavery, although this practice persisted for some years even after the abolition of slavery.
The indenture system ultimately fell out of favor by the early 1900s, at about the same time that society decided against housing children and adults together in almshouses. Wrote Homer Folks, "The bound child has often been alluded to as typifying loneliness, neglect, overwork, and a consciousness of being held in low esteem."
| << Back to page 3 | Continued on page 5 >> |
 |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
©2000 by Christine Adamec and William Pierce, Ph.D. Reprinted from The Encyclopedia of Adoption, 2nd Edition (2nd Edition) with permission of Facts On File, Inc.
