The History of Pennhurst State School
In the spring of 1903, the Pennsylvania Legislature passed Act No. 424, authorizing the creation of what would become known as the Eastern Pennsylvania State Institution for the Feeble-Minded and Epileptic.[1] Constructed on a site in Spring City known as "Crab Hill," the institution opened its doors on November 23, 1908, when "Patient Number 1" was admitted—a moment that marked the beginning of nearly eight decades of controversy, suffering, and ultimately, a catalyst for profound change in disability rights.[2]
Conceived during the height of the eugenics movement, Pennhurst was initially hailed as a "model institution." The facility was designed in the cottage style—a progressive architectural approach for the era—with individual buildings dotting the 1,400-acre campus, connected by underground tunnels and tree-lined pathways.[3] The institution was meant to be self-sufficient, operating its own power plant, farms, dairy, bakery, and various industrial workshops.
The Reality Behind the Facade
From its inception, Pennhurst faced chronic overcrowding. Within four years of operation, the institution was already accepting immigrants, orphans, and even criminals—individuals who had nowhere else to go. By 1912, the facility housed far more residents than originally intended. At its peak in 1955, more than 3,500 residents were confined at Pennhurst, supervised by a staff of fewer than 600 employees.[5]
Residents were classified upon admission into mental categories of "imbecile" or "insane," and physical categories of "epileptic" or "healthy." This dehumanizing system reflected the eugenics-driven beliefs of the era, which viewed persons with disabilities as "unfit for citizenship" and a "menace to the peace."[6] A 1913 Commission report recommended a program of permanent custodial care and urged preventing the "intermixing of genes" with the general population.
Daily Life and Labor
Daily life at Pennhurst varied dramatically depending on one's classification and physical abilities. Those capable of work were assigned to various tasks: mattress-making, shoemaking and repair, grading, farming, laundry, domestic duties, sewing, baking, butchering, painting, and working in the institution's store.[7] In 1953 alone, residents performed an estimated five million pounds of laundry—unpaid labor that continued until 1973 when such practices were outlawed in Pennsylvania.
For those deemed less capable or those requiring custodial care, days offered little activity or stimulation. Many residents were confined to dayrooms—large, bare spaces where dozens of individuals would rock, pace, or sit in isolation. The lack of adequate programming, combined with severe understaffing, created an environment where behavioral issues and self-injury became common, often resulting in punishing seclusion in locked rooms for days on end.[8]
The Eugenics Era
Pennhurst's founding and early operation cannot be separated from the eugenics movement that swept America in the early 20th century. The institution was explicitly designed to segregate individuals deemed "defective" from the broader population. Pennsylvania, like many states, embraced eugenic principles that classified people with disabilities as biologically inferior and a threat to racial purity.
The 1913 report by the State Commission to Investigate the Weak-Minded and Epileptic characterizes this thinking. It recommended that Pennsylvania develop a comprehensive program of permanent custodial care to prevent people with intellectual disabilities from reproducing.[10] While Pennsylvania never enacted forced sterilization laws as aggressively as some states (notably California), the philosophy of segregation and social control dominated institutional policy.
Family Separation
Distance and poverty kept many families from visiting their institutionalized relatives. Professional advice of the era often discouraged family contact, suggesting that parents should surrender their children to the institution and move on with their lives. As historical research has documented, families were often unaware of "the type of home to which they and the courts had committed their loved ones."[11]
Many residents spent their entire lives at Pennhurst, from childhood admission until death. The institution maintained its own cemetery where hundreds of residents were buried, often with only a number to mark their graves—a final indignity that stripped them of their identity even in death.
Growing Crisis and Public Awareness
By the 1960s, Pennhurst's failures were becoming impossible to hide. The facility was severely overcrowded, chronically understaffed, and lacked basic resources to provide adequate care. Buildings deteriorated, medical care was minimal, and abuse—both systematic and individual—was widespread.
The turning point came in 1968 when Philadelphia television reporter Bill Baldini received a tip about conditions inside the institution. What he documented would shock the nation and catalyze a movement for change. His five-part exposé, "Suffer the Little Children," aired on WCAU-TV and revealed the horrific reality of institutional life.[12]
The public response was immediate. Pennsylvania allocated $21 million in emergency funding, though much of this was eventually redirected toward community-based programs rather than renovating Pennhurst—a prescient decision that foreshadowed the deinstitutionalization movement to come.
The Path to Closure
Following the 1968 exposé, advocacy for closing Pennhurst and similar institutions intensified. In 1974, attorney David Ferleger filed the landmark case Halderman v. Pennhurst on behalf of resident Terri Lee Halderman and all Pennhurst residents.[13] The resulting legal battle would span over a decade and establish crucial precedents in disability rights law.
On December 9, 1987, Pennhurst State School and Hospital permanently closed its doors. The 1,156 people who remained as residents were transitioned to Community Living Arrangements—group homes designed to provide support while allowing residents to live as part of their communities rather than segregated in institutions.[14]