A Really Cool Blog

… about science & space, people & politics, various musings & other cool things too.

Category: General Ramblings (Page 1 of 10)

On Science Policy and University Research in the United States

Who are the actors and what are the mechanisms involved in setting United States science policy today?

The claim that “science policy-making is a messy process… more than almost any other type of federal policy-making” is an astute one. The science policy-making process, brought about through the engagement and interaction of numerous congressional committees, federal agencies, and actors within the administration, can involve nearly the entire government. Science policy may be made through executive or legislative branch action, sometimes happens as a result of the budget process – itself involving multiple entities – and may also come about through the actions of individuals working on and implementing decisions at various levels in federal agencies. As such, there is no single way that science policy is made in the United States of America, though multiple mechanisms for it are easily identifiable.

Congress, the United States’ legislative body, is comprised of multiple committees and actors with jurisdictional oversight on particular parts of the United States’ scientific effort. Committees review and proposed legislation and establish guidelines for the President’s budget submission. In the context of science policy, authorizing committees produce bills that can set particular science policies and policy direction, establish the creation of federal agencies and programs that would be involved in science work and policy, and may recommend funding levels for those agencies and programs. Appropriations committees produce legislation that approves the expenditure of funds for federal agencies and programs.  Meanwhile, the Senate as a whole has power to approve or disapprove presidential nominees, including those for positions in charge of setting and executing science policies.

The mechanisms that Congress uses to shape science policy are diverse. Congress may propose bills and approve laws that outline science policies and priorities, directing the government to pursue particular science goals or utilize certain approaches. Past legislative action in the realm of science policy includes the authorization of large projects such as the Space Station and the Human Genome Project, laws such as the Patent and Trademark Law Amendment Act, which provided a framework for commercializing innovations generated by federally funded research, and the USA PATRIOT ACT, which restricts access to certain biological research agents. Through laws “authorizing” federal agencies, Congress may change agency statutes – thereby affecting the science programs and priorities they hold. NASA authorization bills, for example, have directed the agency to achieve particular exploration goals such as its current campaign of human missions to Mars. Alternative, report language, documents which clarify Congressional committee intent beyond bill language, may provide further guidance to agencies so as to influence science policy.

Congress has the power of oversight, through which it sees that legislation it passed is carried out to its intent. This is an indirect method of influencing science policy and the science policy-making process. Hearings involving key individuals in agencies or others in the scientific world can be used to address particular Congressional concerns or ideas. Letters to agencies can be used to pressure them into executing the science policies established through legislation. Funding reports, sent to appropriations committees, can request that studies be conducted examining operations of an agency. These methods are often used to ensure agency officials are responsive to concerns raised – as Congress controls the funding levels of the agencies and may thereby cut funds if “unhappy,” agency officials are often receptive and responsive to the issues raised in hearings, letters, reports, and studies.

Perhaps most significantly, Congress has the power of “the purse” – the ability to set and pass budgets. The budget process plays a critical role in the formation of science policy; the enactment of any program or policy ultimately relies on the availability of funds. Though the President proposes budgets to Congress, it is Congress’ prerogative to approve it or, as is more often the case, reject it and craft its own. In funding bills, Congress may fund broad science priorities, increase or decrease funding for particular science projects, “earmark” particular research projects based in an influential member’s home district, lower the budgets of agencies with which it is not pleased, “kill” science programs by not funding them, among myriad other fiscal actions which ultimately have a major impact on science in the United States.

The executive branch, too, has the power to influence science policy. The President may issue a “presidential directive,” such as an executive order, which can encourage or prohibit federal agencies from taking part in specific activities, such as banning funding for human cloning or stem cell research.  Executive orders can establish advisory councils involved in science policy, as was done for the National Science and Technology Council and the President’s Council of Advisors and Science and Technology. Executive orders may also clarify administration policies, focusing agency attention on particular science issues and topics that the administration would like to address. The President also has the power to nominate individuals to key positions, such as the directorship of the OSTP, NSF, and EPA, the administrator of NASA, and the secretaries of multiple cabinet positions involved in science policy, such as Defense, Energy, Health and Human Services, and Commerce. As these individuals are then largely responsible for developing and executing science policy, this is a powerful method through which the President can influence the process.

Executive branch offices and panels, such as the Office of Science and Technology Policy, may make decisions that sizably impact the scientific community; setting, for example, direction for science policy across agencies through circulars and interagency memos. They also support multiagency policy initiatives such as climate change research. These offices frequently produce panel studies and written reports which can increase public awareness of a particular science issue and which are used to advise the president, Congress, and the agencies on science policy solutions.

The President, with support from the Office of Management and Budget, crafts and proposes budgets to Congress. Federal agencies submit their funding requests to OMB, appealing for particular programs and priorities to be funded at full or higher levels. This budget request is a means by which agencies make its scientific priorities known to the individuals responsible for that agency’s funding in OMB. OMB then advises the President on and supports him in crafting his budget proposal; the President then submits his budget to the Congress. As OMB is influential in the realm of government funding, it can therefore wield significant influence over scientific research; it may set limits on funding for key science projects, for example, or prioritize a particular agency for heightened funding over others in the constrained funding environment.

The federal agencies themselves have multiple mechanisms for influencing science policy. As they are given a great deal of flexibility in their operations, they may shape science policy through their own internal policies and operational approaches. Accounting practices, for example, may ultimately impact scientific portfolios; the same is true with agency-internal priority-setting guidelines. To that end, the individuals in charge of agencies can have significant impact on science policy by shaping the way their agency is run.

Critically, agencies award research funds to various institutions and organizations; these funds are a significant part of the United States’ overall research endeavor. Mission-oriented agencies which focus on particular topic areas, such as the Department of Energy or NASA, provide funds to institutions such as universities through competitively-selected, peer-reviewed grants and awards. The National Science Foundation, though not an agency, also supports a broad range of research through grants and contracts. The process of soliciting, evaluating, and awarding grants is a major method of executing science policy and, by virtue of its competitive nature, can shape it to focus on particular forms and topic areas of research.

Finally, agencies may issue regulations and rules which guide and constrain research activities, which can significantly impact the country’s scientific activity. For example, the USDA’s regulations in part define how animals may be used in research. Regulations are in large part agency interpretations and clarifications of passed law, and as such can shape the way science policy is defined and implemented.

These are just a selection of the actors and mechanisms working to shape science-policy making in the United States. The media, focusing attention on particular science issues and building public support or opposition to science projects or problems, plays a major role in influencing policy. So too do trade associations and industry groups which rely upon particular forms of research, development, and government funding.

What is the nature of the United States’ university research system and what makes it unique?

The United States’ university research system, with its strong linkages to the federal government, multitude of available sources for funding of its research, and close interactions between students, faculty, and research, has long been singularly unique compared to the systems of other developed countries. The manner by which the United States’ university research system is set up makes it a major element of the country’s overall research endeavor, especially when compared to universities in other countries. As such, other countries have begun to reform their university research funding system in recent years, modelling them after the United States’.

American universities have, since the late 19th century, been pushed to accept greater responsibility for the national economy, national security, and the welfare for the country’s citizens; as such, they have become far more closely involved in the scientific research underlying progress in those realms than analogous institutions in other countries. Laws, such as the Morrill Act and the Smith-Lever Act, established direct linkages between universities (such as the agriculture and mechanical arts (A&M) schools) and the government in pursuit of particular fields of research supporting industry. These linkages have only strengthened in recent history, particularly following World War 2 when a heightened national emphasis was placed on research and development.

American universities, particularly research universities, often have specialized instruments, advanced equipment, and labs that can be provided to their faculty, graduate students, and research scientists. This research infrastructure is often supported through external grants or federal funds and allows for cutting-edge scientific discovery and development.

A fundamentally unique element of the American university system, one that has been a key element of its success, is the intimate connection between faculty, students, and research. Unlike the university systems in other countries, where faculty members (professors) and researchers are separate people, faculty members in the United States both teach and drive scientific research. Because of this arraignment, their students, commonly graduate students, participate in and perform much of the day-to-day research work; this contrasts too with other universities in countries, where graduate students often do not participate in hands-on, day-to-day research.

Working in conjunction with their professors, students must pursue original research for their degree, allowing for innovative new approaches to scientific problems as they can focus on specific topics and are particularly motivated to pursue their project’s specified goals. This, in turn, increases the rate of publications stemming from a university’s research projects as well as the size and number of grants awarded to the university to conduct research. It also provides American graduate students with hands-on research knowledge and expertise, which they can then carry on to industry or academia. All in all, this allows for a more robust and rigorous research endeavor.

Postdoctoral researchers and research scientists play key roles in the university system and university research. Postdocs typically seek internships or fellowships at institutions where they participate in day-to-day work of research; having already had a breadth of experience in research to achieve their PhD, they make use their experience to advance a new research topic or apply a new technique. They are thereby responsible for much of the productivity in the American science realms. Research scientists, supported generally by external research grants rather than university funds, conduct advance research at universities without the burden of teaching or administrative duties, allowing them to focus more often and heavily on their research work. As both postdoctoral researchers and research scientists rely on project funding for support and continued research, they must constantly seek new research topics for funding proposals. While this entails that they have only marginal job security at best, it does have the positive result that new research topics are constantly being thought about, proposed, and eventually investigated. It allows for the competitive “marketplace of ideas” underlying federal funding for university research.

Since World War 2, significant federal funding for research has been provided to American universities, uniquely fueling the country’s science and engineering sectors and serving as a key component of its advanced education and innovation initiatives. Universities compete for federal funding through grants and awards, which is provided to select institutions based on the comparative merit of their proposed research idea. Through this funding, the government shares in both the direct costs, such as paying for salaries, equipment, and supplies, and indirect costs of performing the research. This greatly abets the university system in procuring the tools and infrastructure needed for and fiscally sustaining high-quality and innovative research.

Another rather unique aspect of the United States’ university research system is the manner in which it deals with intellectual property. As universities are engaged in advanced research and development, the products of their work have huge application in the private marketplace and in benefit of society. Many universities have offices of technology transfer or offices of intellectual property which manage the process of transferring university-developed technologies to the private sector; some institutions, such as the University of Michigan, even make such technology transfer a core part of their mission. By selling, licensing, or patenting technologies or research, universities may recover the investments of its project or support future research while making that property available to society. The impact of this technology transfer is enormous – since 1980, more than 5,000 start-up companies have been formed on the basis of research conducted at and technologies developed by universities.

A key law, the Patent and Trademark Law Amendments Act of 1980, helped institute the common-day practices of university IP and tech transfer. Prior to its passage, the products of federally funded research were owned by the federal government; there was no uniform policy on IP transfer, so industries tended to avoid going through the process to acquire university-produced research. Since the law, universities own the intellectual property they produce, even that funded by federal funding. This has provided a major impetus for universities to enhance and expand their technology transfer efforts and has led to a more widespread commercialization of products that come out of advanced research.

The basic structure of the U.S. system for university research and for providing support for that research, as described above, is unique. The strong reliance on peer review and the multitude of sources for funding specific research activities has enabled unparalleled success in university-conducted research. The success of the U.S. system of university research funding has made it a model for other countries as they work on their own systems.

A primary reason for this modeling is that the United States’ funding system supports a broad diversity of highest-quality research through the way grants, awards, and funding is selected. University faculty members with a novel idea can “shop” that idea to numerous agencies for possible funding. One topic may be of interest to multiple agencies, one of which could eventually provide funding even if the others don’t. Few other countries have this diversity of funding sources – a researcher may not be able to get their project funded if the single agency responsible for scientific funding isn’t interested. This can have a significant impact on the amount of and diversity of topics in research taking place in other countries.

The United States funds its university research on a competitive basis. Only the best proposals or the schools with the best facilities, researchers, and equipment for a particular type of research are likely to win an award. This competitive funding means that, generally, the highest-quality and highest-impact research is what will be funded. This contrasts starkly with numerous other countries, where funding is provided to universities on an egalitarian basis. As such, other countries’ funding is not always selectively targeting the best proposals or the best researchers for the job, which can lower the standards, performance, and quality of the research that ends up being conducted.

Policy Memo Re: “United States Innovation Administration”

Policy Memorandum Re: “Department of Commerce Innovation Administration”
Prepared by: Cody Knipfer

In preparation for the Congressman’s upcoming hearings on the topic, you have requested specific background information on the subject of a proposed “Innovation Administration,” to be created within the Department of Commerce. This brief policy memo provides context and details on the particular questions the Congressman has requested of his staff.

Pros and Cons of Centralization

Proponents of centralization of national innovation policy through a top-level administrative agency hold that it would allow for innovation policies that outlive short-term funding trends and survive through frequent election cycles, ensuring strategic continuation of policy separate from political pressures. There is significant merit to these arguments. By virtue of partisan differences in view about the proper role of government in innovation, federal innovation policies and strategies are subject to party control of the White House and Congress. Frequent turnover of that control thereby disrupts standing innovation approaches and policy implementation and is thus prohibitive of long-term innovation strategies. As agencies are subject to federal funding, which in turn is influenced by party control, the sectors of innovation under their particular purview may come to be neglected or deprioritized because of fiscal constraints. A centralized innovation administration overseeing broad innovation strategy would not be inhibited by agencies’ lack of resources and thus allow necessary strategic prioritization and implementation of policy for the most important sectors.

The decentralized manner by which innovation is supported and strategized through disparate federal agencies poses problems. In lack of a coordinating administration, agencies and other government actors tend to act without much awareness of what other institutions have done or the issues they have faced. As such there are, spread across the agencies, both overlaps and gaps in regulation and strategy implementation which lead to inefficiencies and, at worse, create barriers to successful innovation for private-sector and university stakeholders. This lack of coordination can allow agencies to approach innovation through actions in conflict with other agencies or take action outside their area of core expertise. Moreover, a lack of cross-government innovation programs and analysis is particularly challenging for innovations that represent a wide range of applications and technological convergence which spread across the responsibilities of multiple agencies.

There are, however, drawbacks in both implementation and practice to the proposed centralization approach. In practice, the placement of innovation offices across federal agencies has allowed for a level of experimentation and different practices unavailable in a centralized approach; the diversity of possible agency funding sources researchers can apply to has historically been a major benefit to the United States’ research and development activity. Agencies responsible for innovation strategy are also responsible for the regulation of that innovation; separating those functions would put burdens on the competency of the regulatory process. In implementation, the political fights and costs of dislocating responsibility for innovation from agencies would likely be significant and represent a dangerous political battle for an administration to wage. It is also difficult to envision Congress abandoning the agency approach to innovation, as Congress has familiarity with the agencies, the approach has decades of precedent, and the agencies have built up significant institutional knowledge.

Why DoC and Not Another Agency?

Should an “Innovation Administration” be created, the Department of Congress, as the agency with delegated responsibility to foster industry and commerce, would be its natural home. The agency’s interest in innovation stems from its mission to create jobs and establish a stronger balance of trade. While other agencies have missions centered around particular subsets of science and research – the Department of Energy, for example, focusing on nuclear power; NASA focusing on space – the Department of Commerce is focused on the economy at large. It is therefore best poised to coordinate innovation strategies and approaches that impact the whole of the economy and cross-cut sciences. The Department of Commerce would also most easily take on the proposed administration. The agency already houses the two administrations most directly responsible for promotion innovation today, the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The competencies of these agencies, dissimilar in capability and scope than those hosted by other agencies, could be applied more aggressive toward successfully encouraging innovation and as such be key elements of an ‘Innovation Administration.’

Creating a New Agency with Cabinet Level Authority?

Another suggested approach would be standing up a new agency with Cabinet level authority to oversee and coordination innovation strategy and implementation. An entity independent of existing federal agencies would have substantially more influence than an administration nestled inside an agency, especially if the head of the agency sits in a position to directly influence the President. The agency head would have the capacity to coordinate and influence other Cabinet level positions, which oversee agencies also responsible for innovation strategy. This proposed agency could dedicate the whole of its resources and personnel to the task; this would contrast with other agencies, in which only portions of resources and energy are allocated to analyzing, promoting, and supporting innovation.

Yet, as is the case with the impediments toward further centralization of responsibility for innovation in the United States’ current structure, this proposed agency would face a number of barriers. As it is Congress’ prerogative to establish the agency, the idea would rely upon Congressional support. Again, Congress may not be inclined to continue centralizing innovation strategy within the government structure considering its familiarity with the current system. The agency would also require funding, provided by Congress, which would necessarily take away from the constrained federal budget. Rather than establishing a new agency, a new office within the administration, created through executive order, could be established which would fulfill the functions of this proposed Cabinet seat without the bureaucratic and fiscal complexities that establishing a new agency would entail.

Suggested Further Resources

If the Congressman wishes to further inform himself on the topic, the following readings are recommended:

Stuart Benjamin & Arti Rai, “Structuring White House Innovation Policy: Creating a White House Office of Innovation Policy,” http://www.itif.org/files/WhiteHouse_Innovation.pdf, June 2009.

Brian Kahin & Christopher Hill, “Innovation Policy around the World: United State: The Need for Continuity,” http://issues.org/26-3/kahin/, Spring 2010.


Exploring the Forest Haven Asylum: A Hopeless Home for Abandoned People

Hidden only a few acres behind the trees that line the side of Route 197 in Laurel, Maryland, is the Forest Haven Asylum, an abandoned facility as obscure and forgotten as the tenants who once occupied it. Today, crumbling in decay and disrepair after years of neglect, the facility’s compound has an eerie stillness about it, as though something straight out of a horror movie. Though, perhaps that is appropriate, considering the asylum’s troubling legacy.

DSC_0829It was a slow post-Christmas weekend for my girlfriend and I. Looking for a break to conventional routine, we settled upon the decision to explore an abandoned place in Maryland. Forest Haven came as a default; most of the abandoned locations near central Maryland – Henryton Hospital, the ‘Hell House,’ Ellicott City’s silk mill – have been torn down in recent years. Too many teenagers falling through floorboards and too many illegal parties were enough to convince authorities to demolish these run-down parts of our historical heritage.

The Forest Haven Asylum complex, however, remains standing. For sure, the place doesn’t look like it did when it opened in 1925 as the “District Training School for the Mentally Retarded,” but its 20-some buildings are mostly still there. As we quickly came to find, though, the compound sits well-guarded; not only are the ruins located on government property, the same property that houses Fort Meade, they share an access road to a present-day juvenile detention center.

Driving up to the unexpected guard post that kept watch on the road, we brainstormed a justification for our visit. Our true intentions, to spend a day exploring ruins while capturing some interesting pictures with her new DSLR camera, were doubtfully good cause for being there. Yet after briefly speaking to the guard we were waved through. Perhaps our excuse sounded reasonable enough: “we’re journalists, documenting the more forgotten and troubling parts of our region’s past.” In our defense, that last part was definitely true.


A present-day aerial view of the Forest Haven facility. Image source: Bing

When the Forest Haven Asylum first opened nearly 90 years ago, it was widely hailed as a forward-thinking institution, one designed around the progressive change in mental health treatment that was sweeping Europe and North America at the time.

Situated about 20 miles away from Washington D.C. on a 200-acre forested property, the asylum’s setting satisfied the period belief that the mentally ill – who often overwhelmed their families and languished at home – would do well if they  lived and received treatment away from the stresses of urban life. Their daily routines consisted of milking cattle, tending to gardens, and other ‘relaxing’ tasks designed to rehabilitate. Of course, also aligned with period beliefs were the facility’s treatment rooms for operant conditioning, post-dosage observation, and electroshock therapy.

DSC_0816While the first reviews of Forest Haven were positive, their conclusions were drawn more heavily from the facility’s concept and physical amenities than the institution’s actual execution. It was not long after opening that administrators found the place quickly becoming overcrowded and understaffed. Constrained by under-funding for decades, the staff found itself unable to offer proper treatment or find beneficial opportunities for all of their residents. Many regressed while under the asylum’s care. To make matters worse, when the District began suffering from a mid-century financial crisis, the asylum’s education and recreation programs were ended.

Forest Haven’s campus is large, but the buildings are clustered close together. The streets feel narrow from the overgrowth of grass and trees. Dormitories and support facilities, including a Chapel, surround the central office building. We started our tour in the flanks of the campus, working our way through what seemed to be an administrative office into the dormitories.

DSC_0835As you enter these buildings, it’s immediately noticeable just how decrepit the asylum has become. The buildings of Forest Haven are quite literally falling in on themselves: ceiling tiles litter the floors, drywall and insulation cover almost every interior surface, and mounds of dirt pile up in the staircases. Dark hallways give way to pockets of light shining down from holes in the roof above, while second and third floors, their foundations having given way, are broken by steep drops to the level below.

We wondered why the buildings still stood when other local sites had been torn down because of similar conditions. Walking across some creaky floorboards felt like an accident waiting to happen. Is there worth in keeping these buildings up when they pose such a liability risk? Even off-limits, the grounds are well traveled. At any rate, the buildings remain.

DSC_0808Although the institution sits on government property, it has not been taken good care of. Despite the guard posts, the place is a well-known hangout for vandals and the homeless who sneak onto the grounds. Graffiti, while not rampant, marks the walls of most buildings, with the occasional tag recurring in spots all over. The interiors are musky and the air is thick with the smell of dust and smoke; to our surprise, we found a fire still smoldering in a pile of papers sitting in the middle of a hallway of one of the buildings.

The basements, meanwhile, are veritable swamps, with inches of accumulated rainwater sustaining an ecosystem of mold and small plants. Signs for fallout shelters adorn the walls, testaments to the institution’s height of operations during the tenser years of the Cold War. The silence and stillness about the place is real, broken only by the clatter of our shoes against the cement floors, loose doors creaking in their hinges, and the occasional gust of wind blowing through openings.

DSC_0805Under such circumstances, it is hard to imagine these buildings were ever inhabited, much less overcrowded. Yet it need not be imagined; the evidence of people past can be seen almost everywhere: in the medical documents and written reports pouring out of filing cabinets and littering the floors, in the gurneys and wheelchairs sitting in corners, in the various patient possessions that were left behind.

More than anything else, it was in the documents that we found the most insight into the people who called Forest Haven their home. While the buildings still remain as evidence of the place, the stories told in the papers strewn about the floor stand as testament to the people who knew it.

DSC_0793Though the asylum was originally instituted for individuals with severe mental handicaps, by the 1960s even people with treatable or mild learning disabilities were categorized as “retards” and sent to live at Forest Haven. So too were individuals deemed “undesirable” by their families or conventional hospitals, such as the deaf, dyslexic, epileptic, and illiterate. The facility’s resources, already stretched beyond their limits, were directed toward capacity instead of rehabilitation. Programs aimed at returning residents to normal life became untenable.

Coupled with the myriad other problems that befell Forest Haven, this would inevitably lead to cases of chronic abuse that would plague its patients in the decades leading up to its closure. Suits against the District for the mistreatment patients suffered in Forest Glenn were first brought to the D.C. Superior Court in 1972. They brought to light chronic mental, physical, and sexual abuse at the facility.

DSC_0824Throughout the 1970s, the families of abused residents continued to build cases against Forest Haven by tracking patient mistreatment and turning their findings over to the Justice Department. Visiting families spoke of residents being bound to urine-soaked mattresses in locked wards. One particularly egregious story was that of a woman named Bertha Brown, who suffered from a disease which caused her to eat anything in sight. Tied to a toilet and left unattended, she tried to eat her feces and choked to death.

Yet the real impetus toward reform came in 1976, with the death of 17 year old Joy Evans. Joy died from aspiration pneumonia, an infection of the lungs caused by food or saliva. Unattended, Joy choked on her own food, as patients were often fed lying or strapped down to their beds. Joy’s parents filed a Federal class-action lawsuit against Forest Haven, detailing the facility’s abuses:

The lack of comprehensive rehabilitation programs to meet individual needs of residents; the unsafe, unsanitary, and unpleasant condition of the Forest Haven facilities; inadequate staffing, lack of training, and abuse of residents by staff; inadequate medical, dental, and mental health care and nutrition; inadequate record-keeping; lack of after-care and rehabilitation programs and vocational training for former residents; and inadequate funding.

DSC_0832On June 14th, 1978, signing what became known as the Pratt Decree, Judge Pratt of the United States District Court ordered the institution to close. By the late 1970s, as patents were gradually moved out of the facility, the population of Forest Haven had fallen to around 1,300.

Still, crimes against the mentally ill would continue.

DSC_0804In the facility’s administrative building, patient records sit out right near the open entrance. Reading them was a quick introduction to the medical diagnoses and evaluations that characterized every resident of the institution. At the time, we were unaware of the history of the place. From these papers, a voice was given to Forest Haven’s past.

Drug addiction, lack of education, and inability to find work came up often as items listed for the residents’ issues. Some had been listless in life before Forest Haven, unemployed and homeless. Others had faced trouble at home, usually coupled with trouble with the law. Yet in these papers were peoples’ stories, told through their brief medical histories and personal descriptions. These were people who, deemed as going nowhere, were sent to Forest Haven, where they found themselves with nowhere to go.

DSC_0807Not everything we stumbled upon was official paperwork. In both the administrative building and the dormitories, we came upon personal journals, notebooks, reading supplies and literature, and handwritten notes. Many of them appeared written by the residents themselves.

One note, written in neat cursive and covered in soot, stood out to me in particular. It was a list of goals, short-term and long-term: finish my GED, go to school. Stay drug free, give back to the community. The words seemed to speak for all of the voices we couldn’t hear, a humanizing and personal touch in a setting otherwise defined by decaying installations. I couldn’t help but wonder whether they succeeded. Or is their story, all their stories, lost, buried in a pile of loose writings in a crumbling corner of an abandoned hallway?

DSC_0812Themes of liberation and freedom ring out of the murals plastered on the dormitory walls. Images of Frederick Douglass, Harriet Tubman, and Martin Luther King Jr. tatter with the failing paint. There didn’t seem much hope left in it anymore.

Because of the court order to close Forest Haven, no improvements or repairs would be made to the buildings for over a decade. Continuous use stressed the structures beyond their capabilities. The facility was crumbling, even as people continued to live inside it.

DSC_0809With patients being transferred out of the facility and into group homes, staffing and funding at Forest Haven saw even deeper cuts than before. The asylum sat as most of its Medicare and government subsidies evaporated. Qualified volunteers and staff members were few and far between.

Ten deaths occurred at the asylum between 1989 and 1990, a remarkable rate considering the institution had only 252 residents at the time. The rate of bowel obstructions, aspiration pneumonia, rashes, and muscle atrophy accelerated to obscene levels in the final months of Forest Haven. By 1991, only ninety one patients remained in the facility, yet they fared far worse than those who came before them.

DSC_0819It wasn’t only documents that littered the interiors of Forest Haven’s facilities. We were surprised just how many items – books, computers, clipboards, machines, equipment – were left behind. Rooms still sit almost entirely furnished.

It was enough to make us start wondering what happened at Forest Haven, and why it was left as it was. While today these virtual artifacts are deteriorating from age and the elements, they must’ve amounted to a considerable sum of worth at the time the facility closed. Walking among the scenes they set in these forgotten buildings was lonely, apocalyptic. One of us observed that the place felt like something out of Fallout 4. It was an apt assessment.

DSC_0837In the dormitories, we came across what may have been the library. Piles of books are poured across the floor. Their bindings are slowly unwinding, sitting in inches of water and muck. I found myself moved by the tragic scene, one which a line of graffiti scribbled along the wall satirized properly. “Drop out of school. Read books.”

We continued our tour through the facility. The idyllic buildings had grown imposing on me; the longer we stayed, the stronger I felt that the place belonged in a horror movie. As the day progressed, the sun’s light sent shadows flying across different surfaces; light areas grew dim, doorways ended in rooms of darkness. The movement of trees’ limbs shaking in the corner of our eyes sent us casting jumpy glances, believing someone was there. As we entered the administrative building, we thought we heard a sneeze. Perhaps we weren’t alone.

DSC_0833A dentist’s office sits ready in the administrative building, complete with chairs and equipment. It was cramped, liked many of the hallway’s other offices, perhaps as a dentist’s office should be. We found further medical facilities down the hall; a medical ward of sorts.

I tried to imagine the sounds of bustle in the place, of doctors going through their files, sick patients coughing down the halls, medical supplies banging around in their containers. I tried, but the gentle whistle of the light wind squeezing through the collapsing ceiling drowned out the phantom bustle I sought to conjure. And then: another sneeze. Was it my mind playing tricks, twisting a dropping tile or a collapsing desk into what they were not, or did we have company? Footsteps. I glanced over at my girlfriend, who seemed far less perturbed, grabbed her arm, and quickly made down the building’s winding staircase and out the open frame that was once a loading dock. Leaving, we heard, from back in the building, slight murmurs. Who it was, we never found out.

Forest Haven’s final weeks were, to say the least, hectic. As residents were readied to move, the staff packed their belongings into small footlockers and tucked away their suitcases in empty corners of the facility. The last fifteen residents were moved out in late September 1991, 13 years after the order was given to close the institution. Finally, on October 14th, the Forest Haven asylum officially closed. It had served the District for 66 years.

DSC_0813Yet an official declaration of closure is merely a bureaucratic tool, some mid-level government worker placing a signature upon a promptly filed-away piece of paper. Though Forest Haven had closed in its capacity as an asylum, new uses were found for its premises. One of the buildings toward the far end of the grounds became a holding block of sorts for troubled female youths. As it turned out, a lack of communication between the agencies responsible for the site had left some officials unaware that the building was crumbling and packed with asbestos.

The remainder of the buildings sat. And sat. A March 2004 audit of the facility, nearly 12 years after its official closure, found gross mismanagement on the part of the District. None of the unused buildings had ever been secured. Many still had power and running water; documents were shuffled into different buildings instead of being destroyed. Even the medical equipment and computers, while stored, remained functional. Finally, in December 2011, 20 years after Forest Haven was shut down – 30 years after the order to close its doors was given – the District allocated the funds to properly handle and secure what remained at the property.

DSC_0792Much, but not all, of the equipment in Forest Haven – enough to fill a museum – was removed following the 2011 destruction order. Yet, as we experienced firsthand during our visit 5 years later, enough remains to tell the story of the place; documents litter the floor, chairs and gurneys sit unused, filing cabinets are spilled across rooms. The photographs in this post are testament enough to what remains. One need not search long or hard to get a sense of the Forest Haven’s purpose or its legacy’s meaning.

We left Forest Haven through its main access road as the sun began to set, walking past buildings casting dark shadows upon our path. We coming across a service vehicle – or, more aptly put, the service vehicle came upon us, its driver quickly booking it down the road to cut us off. He met us with a stern look and a series of interrogatives. We repeated our story to him and, though he seemed perturbed, he let us walk by and back to our car. Did he know about the troubling history of the facility he guarded? Was he paid enough to care?

DSC_0810Driving home from Forest Haven, I was enthused about the opportunity to write this blog post. How often does one explore a still-furnished yet long-abandoned facility? I had hoped this post would be a fun little travel log, a story of our wanderings if nothing else. I had already begun writing this post when I decided, on a whim, to search a little into the asylum’s backstory. Maybe – I reasoned – it would provide some good context for the reader. I’d devote a paragraph, maybe two, to that history and then be done with it. No need to bore my audience with insignificant tokens of the past.

In the end, our exploration of the facility turned out to be what was insignificant, a simple justification to devote discussion to the place’s history. And that history, far from being a token of the past, was, is, and will remain a troubling scar upon and a damning indictment of  our mental health system and of our dealing with our historical heritage.

According to various sources, some 3,200 patients spent time at the institution while its doors were open. Considering the 387 deaths that occurred at Forest Haven, it had a residential death rate of twelve percent. Statistically, one in ten people who showed up at Forest Haven – often the disabled, the troubled, the rejects of society – wouldn’t expect to leave alive.

The Forest Haven Asylum: a hopeless home for abandoned people.

Further Reading:

http://sometimes-interesting.com/2014/04/12/abandoned-home-for-the-abandoned-forest-haven-asylum/ – (all credit goes to this truly fantastic write-up, from which I drew most of my information)





Page 1 of 10

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén