A Poorhouse in California, 1983: Oddity or Prelude?

. by PP0f955°” Steveq 9- 5e9al & Dean Harry Specht, School of Social welfare, UC- cammen is an currents A Poorhouse in California, 1983: Oddity or Prelude? Over the hill to the poor-house I&#39;m trudgin&#39; my weary way- I. a woman of seventy. and only a trifle gray- I. who am smart an‘ chipper, for all the years I&#39;ve told. As many another woman that&#39;s only half as old. What is the use of heapin&#39; on me a paupers shame? Am I lazy or crazy? am I blind or lame? True. I am not so supple. nor yet so awful stout: But charity ain&#39;t no favor. if one can live without. Over the hill to the poor-house- my child&#39;m dear. goodbyl Many a night I&#39;ve watched you when only God was nigh: And God&#39;ll judge between us: but I will al&#39;ays pray That you shall never suffer the half I do today. . . .&#39; In August 1982. the Board of Su- pervisors of Sacramento County. California. amended the county&#39;s general assistance (GA) policy to pro- vide some GA recipients with in-kind benefits consisting of shelter and food instead of cash grants. As of October 1. 1982. these in-kind benefits were being provided by Volunteers of America at the seventy-two-bed Ban- non Street Shelter, which is in the City of Sacramento. At that time, the county contracted with Volunteers of America for thirty beds for GA recipi- ents at a cost of$118.624.8O a year. The rationale for requiring eligible GA recipients to accept in-kind aid at the shelter in lieu of the cash grant was. in the Board of Supervisors‘ words. qbudgetary limitationsq that required the qcost-effective utilization Nona: Both authors are serving as expert witnesses for the plaintiffs in the case de- scribed. Dr. Specht is representing the California Chapter of the National Associa- tion of Social Workers in the case. &#39; From Will Carleton. qOver the Hill to the Poorhouse,q Farm Ballads (New York: Harper & Bros.. 1882). pp. 51. 52. 56. CCC Code: 0037-8046/83 $1.00 © 1983, National Association of Social Workers, Inc. of all available resources.” However. the introduction of in-kind services is not “cost effectiveq on a per capita basis. The annual cost of $3.954 per bed for GA recipients at the shelter is 44 percent higher than the GA cash grant ofSl84 per month given to GA recipients who are not in the shelter ($2.208 per year) if all the beds are occupied: for each bed unoccupied. the per-person cost rises propor- tionately. Dennis B. Hart. director of the Sac- ramento County Department of Social .Welfare. has stated frequently in the media that the county program has been successful in discouraging people from applying for CA. qOur welfare budget was accelerating rapidly. up 59 percent over the last two years.q Hart said in one newspa- per reportﬁ‘ In the first five months of the program. he added. the number of welfare applicants dropped by more than half. Hart estimated that the county was saving about $100,000 per month. If all California counties had poorhouses and saved approximately $100,000 per month (31 .2 million per year). the poor people of the state would be deprived of tens of millions of dollars in GA grants: nationally. the figure would be in the hundreds of millions. Thus. it is evident that a lot is at stake. On March 1. 1983. attorneys from Legal Services of Northern California (Sacramento) and the Western Center on Law and Poverty (Dos Angeles) re- quested that the Superior Court of California issue a temporary re- straining order and preliminary in- junction to prevent the county from denying in-cash GA benefits to five plaintiffs and from continuing to re- ’ Sacramento County Board of Super- visors. Resolution No. 82-967. August 31. 1982. Exhibit Sec. 75. 5‘ Bill Soitter. “Inside Look at a Modern Poorhouse.q San Francisco Chronicle. April 9. 1983. p. 1. See also Sacramento Bee. April 12. 1983. pp. 131-132. and Wall Street Journal. March 30. 1983. pp. 1-2. quire other GA recipients to live at what &#39;the attorneys called qthe poorhouseq—a term that has been adopted popularly for Bannon Street. On March 4, 1983. the Superior Court judge granted cash aid to five individuals for the sole purpose of allowing them to leave the shelter. On March 21. 1983. plaintiffs asked for a second restraining order on behalf of an additional fourteen persons. which was denied on March 24, 1983. N INETEENTH-CENTURY POORHOUSES One must reach back into the Ameri- can past to study American poor- houses. The last systematic study of poorhouses from a contempo- rary view was written by Warner in the 1890s. Warner documents the ways in which the different states were phasing out the almshouses and stated: The almshouse is the fundamental institution in American poor re- lief. . It is ordinarily a depress- ing experience to visit an alms- house. and accordingly we find it an institution that even the benevolent willingly forget. It was early seen that a sure way to train up paupers was to rear children in almshouses.‘ Carelton&#39;s poem cited at the begin- ning of the article shows the deep repug- nance Americans had for this institu- tion? But it was only at the begin- ning of the twentieth century that this country began to recognize that in an increasingly urban industrial society. many dependent persons could not be cared for adequately by their families without assistance from the commu- nity. The poorhouse did not disap- pear all at once from the American scene. however. During the Great De- pression of the 19305. shelters like Bannon Street sprang up throughout the nation and the poorhouse was temporarily revived as a means of ‘ Amos G. Warner. American Charities (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell & Co.. 1894). pp. 139-140 and 142. 5Carleton. “Over the Hill to Poorhouse. q the 319 Berkeley