Evergreen: The First U.S. Veterans’Blind Rehabilitation Center

Gregory L. Goodrich1 and Tom Zampieri2

AbstractEvergreen was a World War I (WWI) adult, inpatient vocational rehabilitation facility forwar-blind soldiers, sailors, and marines in the United States. Although Evergreen sharedsimilarities with European war-blind rehabilitation organizations, it was novel in its philo-sophy and approach. It was also unlike any civilian blind rehabilitation program of its day.Although there are no comprehensive records known to us of how many troops becameblind or sustained vision loss during WWI, studying published reports of the veteransserved by Evergreen provides some insight into this population. As the United States’ onlyblind rehabilitation facility for adults, Evergreen achieved several firsts, including having anational scope, being racially integrated (at least to some degree), and innovating a resi-dential family training program. A role model of its day, it is now largely a footnote in thehistory of blind rehabilitation. We argue that the story of Evergreen contains lessons thatshould be remembered.

KeywordsArmed conflicts, blindness, history, veterans, vocational rehabilitation

World War I (WWI) began on July 28, 1914,

and pitted Germany and its allied nations

against the French and British and their allies.

The war ended on November 11, 1918. The

destruction of much of Europe was nearly

total and some 18 million people died with

an additional 41 million injured (World War

One Centennial Commission, 2017). The

United States entered the war later than its

allies, formally declaring war on April 2,

1917. During the 20 months that the United

States was involved, some 4.7 million

people served, 200,000 were injured, and

116,516 were killed (World War One

Centennial Commission, 2017). There are no

comprehensive records known to us of how

many troops became blind or sustained vision

loss during WWI. Evergreen came into exis-

tence to provide rehabilitation for U.S. war-

blind troops returning from Europe.

1 American Foundation for the Blind, Arlington,VA 22202, USA2 Blinded Veterans Association, Alexandria, VA22314, USA

Corresponding author:Gregory L. Goodrich, PhD, 1540 Ocean Avenue,Unit 14, Seabright, NJ 07760, USA.Email: gregory.goodrich@me.com

Journal of VisualImpairment & Blindness

1-14ª American Foundation

for the Blind 2019Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissionsDOI: 10.1177/0145482X19845706

journals.sagepub.com/home/jvb

England, France, Belgium, and other Eur-

opean countries addressed their war-blind by

opening rehabilitation facilities, some gov-

ernment run and some private (Farrell,

1956). St. Dunstan’s in England, a private

charity headed by Sir Arthur Pearson, served

some 3,000 blind troops. In France, the gov-

ernment turned to the historic Hospice des

Quinze-Vingts (founded by Louis IX in

1260) and military hospitals to treat their

estimated 6,000 blind troops (Farrell,

1956). These European blind rehabilitation

facilities were well established by the time

the United States entered into the war and

provided useful models the United States

could draw upon to design its facility

(Salvante, 2015; Weed, 1923), which became

known as Evergreen.

According to Bonfiglioi, Tomba, Vigano,

Zati, and Benedetti (2015), WWI marked a

historic change in medicine with the idea that

medical care did not end with just the healing

of the wound, but that it extended to the reha-

bilitation needed to restore function and

independence to the degree possible for the

individual. Arguably, modern concepts of

occupational and physical therapy, as well

as prosthetics, saw their beginnings in the

treatment of WWI casualties. And, as Koes-

tler (2004) noted, WWI had a profound effect

on American society’s view of blindness and

visual impairment.

Formation

As blind troops began to return to the United

States from Europe, the first steps in the U.S.

development of a blind rehabilitation program

were undertaken by the office of the Surgeon

General of the Army, and a Committee on

Ophthalmology under the Council of National

Defense in October 1917 was convened. The

committee created a three-step plan: (1) eye

injuries would be treated in military hospitals,

(2) those who had permanent vision loss were

admitted to a vocational rehabilitation pro-

gram, and (3) once the rehabilitation was com-

pleted, the veteran who was blind would

transition back to civilian life (Farrell, 1956).

As with many plans, listing the steps was far

easier than implementing them.

To implement the last two steps of the

committee’s three-step plan, Army General

Hospital #7 was founded on a privately

owned 99-acre estate called Evergreen (see

Figure 1), which was leased to the Army for

US$1.00 per year by Mrs. T. Harrison Garrett

(Farrell, 1956; Weed, 1923; Woods, 1943).

The hospital was a first in a number of

respects: it was the only federal hospital

devoted exclusively to blind rehabilitation,

and its primary purpose was not to provide

medical care but to provide vocational reha-

bilitation to blind soldiers, sailors, marines,

and veterans. In fact, the hospital was more

school than hospital (Weed, 1923), and the

war-blind admitted were deemed “students”

not “patients.” Despite the fact the hospital

was an Army facility, it was responsible for

rehabilitation of soldiers, sailors, and mar-

ines. In addition to the main building, the

estate had other facilities including an indoor

swimming pool and bowling alley (see

Figure 2). The American Red Cross, which

leased a 2-acre property adjacent to Ever-

green, played an initial role by providing

social and recreational activities (Red Cross

Institute for the Blind, 1918; Weed, 1923).

There were two other agencies that played

important roles at Army General Hospital #7.

One was the Bureau of War Risk Insurance

(established by Congress in 1914) that

provided disability payments to disabled vet-

erans. The other was the Federal Board for

Vocational Education (FBVE), which was

established by Congress under the Smith–

Hughes Act of February 23, 1917 (Carleton,

2002; Office of Medical History, 2017).

FBVE provided vocational rehabilitation

across the United States to individuals with

2 Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness XX(X)

various disabilities including blindness. Its

authority, in addition to creating vocation

rehabilitation programs and partnering with

existing programs, included the ability to

pay agencies for rehabilitation and to pay

individuals stipends while they were in

rehabilitation.

To help direct the operation of the hospi-

tal, an advisory committee was created with

membership including James Bordley and

M. C. Migel among others (Red Cross Insti-

tute for the Blind, 1920b). Dr. Bordley, a

Baltimore ophthalmologist, had taken an

early interest in war-blind troops and visited

rehabilitation facilities in Europe. Given his

profession and interests, Dr. Bordley, an

Army lieutenant colonel, was placed in

charge of the hospital (Woods, 1943). M.

C. Migel, an inductee into the Blindness Hall

of Fame: Leaders and Legends of the

Blindness Field, was a successful business

man, headed the Commission on Uniform

Type for the Blind, helped found both the

American Foundation for the Blind and the

World Conference on Work for the Blind

(now the World Blind Union), to list only a

few of his accomplishments (Tuttle & Tuttle,

2010).

Army General Hospital #7 formally

opened in April 1918, although new con-

struction on the site was not completed until

November 1918 (Miyagawa, 1999), which

required that the first arrivals to be housed

and taught in whatever existing buildings

were serviceable. Initially, the rehabilitation

program at Evergreen languished. In April

1919, however, Sir Arthur Pearson visited

the hospital and described the methods used

at St. Dunstan’s. The fact that St. Dunstan’s

successful program was run not by a

Figure 1. Estate house at Evergreen. The estate consisted of a large mansion with other buildingsincluding an indoor swimming pool and bowling alley. Courtesy of Perkins School for the BlindArchives.

Goodrich and Zampieri 3

government agency but by a more flexible

private agency was an important factor in

demilitarizing the hospital and turning

administration over to the Red Cross,

although Evergreen remained under the aus-

pices of the Army (Outlook for the Blind,

1918; Weed, 1923).

Among the problems that had cropped up

were the following:

� low morale among the troops who are

blind, in part because they were still on

active duty and their pay was signifi-

cantly lower than it would have been

if they had been discharged with a

service-connected disability (Miyagawa,

1999; “The past year,” 1920);

� the Army’s effort lacked strong leader-

ship unlike St. Dunstan’s (Farrell, 1956);

� living conditions were styled after mil-

itary barracks, and the military regimen

was not well suited to rehabilitation

(“The past year,” 1920);

� the rehabilitation programs that were

offered were rudimentary and left

troops with significant amounts of

unproductive free time (“The past

year,” 1920); and

� as Alan C. Woods (1943), an ophthal-

mologist who served at Evergreen,

noted, “the education and rehabilitation

of the blind is scarcely the function of a

Department whose fundamental duty is

to wage war” (p. 1021).

To resolve these problems, the administra-

tive and rehabilitation responsibilities were

transferred from the Army to the Red Cross

and FBVE. The hospital was renamed the

Red Cross Institute for the Blind. More

commonly, the institute was known as

“Evergreen,” after the name of the Garrett

Figure 2. The bowling alley at Evergreen. Two students are shown bowling. Courtesy of PerkinsSchool for the Blind Archives.

4 Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness XX(X)

estate. The Red Cross was responsible for

the administration of Evergreen and the reha-

bilitation program. FBVE paid the Red Cross

for running the facility at the rate of

US$100.00 per month per student and an

additional US$6.50 per month per student for

supplies and equipment (FBVE, 1917).

When administrative control changed, the

soldiers who were blind at the hospital were

discharged and began collecting disability

payments from the War Risk Insurance

Board. The change in administration and

rehabilitation model quickly paid off: morale

improved and once-idle hours filled with

educational and vocational training (Half-

penny, 1920).

Since Evergreen remained an Army

facility, Dr. Bordley was assigned by the

Army as its director, in large part to ensure

satisfactory liaison between the Army, the

Red Cross, and FBVE. Dr. Bordley (1919)

strongly believed that vocational rehabili-

tation would allow blind troops to avoid

the unemployment that was typical of indi-

viduals with visual impairments in the

United States.

Demographics of the veterans whoare blind

The veterans at Evergreen were mostly

enlisted men who came from a variety of

backgrounds. About 65% had little formal

education and, prior to the war, were

employed as farmers or laborers. Over half

had lost vision because of wounds or the

effects of gas, and almost 20% had vision

loss attributable to disease such as spinal

meningitis or measles. Venereal disease or

toxic poisoning accounted for about 13% of

cases, and congenital defects such as retinitis

pigmentosa, myopia, or keratitis that were

aggravated by service in the war accounted

for about 8%. In about 4% of cases, the cause

of vision loss was unknown (FBVE, 1917).

These statistics should be treated with cau-

tion, since the exact numbers likely changed

over time as more individuals blinded in the

war were identified. In addition, only about

half of the total number of war blind were

seen at Evergreen (Ostermeier, 2010), and

the nature of vision injuries for the remaining

50% is unknown. About half of the students

served between the opening of Evergreen

and 1921 were totally blind, and the remain-

ing 50% had low vision. The degree of vision

loss was rated as the percentage loss from

typical vision, but this measure was not

viewed as an adequate determination for

eligibility for vocational training. “First, no

definite percentage of vision could be taken

as an index as to whether a man should be

referred” and referrals of “any man who had

difficulty in ‘carrying on’” were referred for

training at Evergreen (FBVE, 1921, p. 425).

Further confounding the issue was a lack of

confidence in the reliability of the military’s

ratings of vision when discharging troops

(U.S. Congress, 1920).

The total number of students served at

Evergreen is a matter of some debate. Woods

(1943), who served as an ophthalmologist at

Evergreen, estimated in 1943 that about 400

were treated there. This number is similar to

the 350 estimated by Farrell (1956) in his

book The Story of Blindness. The total num-

ber of WWI war–blind is even more difficult

to state with any precision, in large part,

because some report only those blinded in

combat, while others also report those

blinded by accident, disease, or aggravation

of existing eye disorders while in military

service. Another impediment to assessing the

number of WWI war–blind is that many fam-

ilies refused to allow their sons to receive

blind rehabilitation in the belief that the fam-

ily could best care for them (Bordley, 1919),

and the number of these cases was not

recorded. Not all identified war-blind were

referred to Evergreen, since FBVE also had

Goodrich and Zampieri 5

a policy of referring war-blind to community-

based agencies for blind people where avail-

able (FBVE, 1921). As Ostermeier (2010)

noted, only about half of those with eye

wounds or impaired eyesight as the result

of the war were treated at Evergreen. Collec-

tively, these reports suggest that some 800–

1,000 individuals became visually impaired

(i.e., they were blinded or became legally

blind) because of their service in WWI.

These numbers are largely speculative, given

the record keeping of the day and the fact that

we are examining events that occurred some

100 years ago.

Evergreen, under the Red Cross, may have

been a racially integrated facility, making it

relatively unique within the U.S. military

(and general society) of the day. The primary

evidence for integration is a photo in the

Perkins School for the Blind collections of

an African American student at Evergreen.

However, whether this individual repre-

sented a unique case or not is an open ques-

tion since race and segregation were not

specifically discussed in any Red Cross Insti-

tute for the Blind publication (or those relat-

ing to it) that we researched. Evergreen,

when it transferred from Red Cross to the

Veterans Bureau, appears to have been seg-

regated. Veterans Bureau testimony to Con-

gress states that African American veterans

blinded in WWI were not provided training

at Evergreen, but that they were referred to

other agencies including the Maryland

Workshop for the Blind in Baltimore and the

School for Colored Deaf and Blind in Austin,

TX (Director United States Veterans Bureau,

1922, 1923).

Injuries causing blindness in war time

often cause other significant injuries. Ampu-

tations, lingering effects of gas attacks, and

other injuries were not uncommon. The

Evergreen Review (archived within the New

Outlook for the Blind at http://www.perkin

s.org/history/archives/collections/outlook-

for-the-blind) was a monthly publication of

the Red Cross Institute for the Blind pub-

lished for only 1 year (1920). It contained

program descriptions and interesting facts

about Evergreen, including information

about distinguished visitors and stories about

students. One particularly interesting case

serves as an illustration. Carl Bronner was a

sailor who, while on a recreational outing

ashore in Italy, picked up what he thought

was a naval metal polish can. It was, in fact,

an improvised hand grenade that exploded in

his hand. The accident resulted in the death

of Mr. Bronner’s companion, and Mr. Bron-

ner became totally blind and lost both of his

hands at the wrists. Despite these handicaps,

Mr. Bronner, while at Evergreen, was able to

complete his high school education, learn to

write braille, and use a specially adapted

typewriter to compose correspondence,

including independently folding papers and

inserting them into envelopes. The typewri-

ter was operated by a combination of wrist

controls and foot pedals (see Figure 3;

Bronner, 1921; “The story of Carl Bronner,”

1920). Unfortunately, to our knowledge,

there is no extant record of how the typewri-

ter was constructed, although it is shown in

Figure 3 in use by Mr. Bronner.

Philosophy and rehabilitationpractices

The philosophy of the institute heavily

emphasized vocational training with the goal

that as many men as possible would become

independent (Red Cross Institute for the

Blind, 1920c), but social and recreational

activities were not neglected. On the contrary,

social interactions and recreational activities

were viewed as being integral to the rehabili-

tation process. In fact, social and recreational

activities were listed as formal departments

within the rehabilitation curriculum (Red

Cross Institute for the Blind, 1920c, 1920g).

6 Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness XX(X)

The Evergreen estate already had a swimming

pool and bowling alley, and these were pop-

ular recreational activities (see Figure 2).

Three principles guided the selection of

vocational courses offered at Evergreen.

First, consideration should be given to any

vocation that offered potential possibilities

to the blinded soldier. Second, these voca-

tions should provide an opportunity that

required only a small capital outlay to start

the business for the blind soldier who wanted

to start his own business. Third, the vocation

should provide the largest employment and

remunerative possibilities for those who

sought paid employment rather than starting

their own business (Red Cross Institute for

the Blind, 1920c). A partial list of vocational

courses is provided in Table 1.

The Evergreen estate provided plentiful

space for vocational training, including a

poultry farm. Buildings and equipment were

provided by the Army and Red Cross to sup-

port training including wood working, poul-

try farming, and machine shops, among other

training areas. A store was also built for stu-

dents to gain practice in setting up and run-

ning small businesses. To help orient new

students and visitors to the grounds, a braille

and tactile map (see Figure 4) was made by

John Benson, one of the students who previ-

ously worked as a stonecutting draftsman

(Red Cross Institute for the Blind, 1920a).

One of the most innovative aspects of the

Evergreen rehabilitation program was the

encouragement of wives and family mem-

bers to participate in the therapy their loved

ones received (Red Cross Institute for the

Blind, 1920a). This encouragement extended

to providing larger quarters for families and

including them in meals and social activities.

Since students who had only limited edu-

cation required prevocational subjects such

Figure 3. Carl Bronner using his adapted typewriter. Photo courtesy of American National Red Crossphotograph collection (Library of Congress; DLC) 2009632518.

Goodrich and Zampieri 7

as spelling, mathematics, reading, and other

educational topics, courses were developed

as part of the training options. In addition,

courses in braille and typewriting were pro-

vided both for personal reading and corre-

spondence and to facilitate vocational

training (see Figure 5). Since training alone

would not guarantee employment, FBVE had

offices across the country that contacted

potential employers to arrange for students

to be employed once their training at Ever-

green was completed (“Survey of Work,”

1920).

The ultimate goal of vocational training is

competitive employment, whether the stu-

dent was to open an independent store in the

community or work in a commercial setting.

To ensure that students would be compet-

itive, scientific time and motion studies were

made of sighted experts in selected vocations

(Lohrke, 1993; “Time-study motion picture,”

1919). Experts in a task were filmed at work,

and the films were analyzed to determine the

sequence of steps involved and how long

each step took. These studies allowed

instructors to precisely lay out the steps

involved in a given task, so that they could

more easily be learned by students. It also

provided a way to measure the student’s

Table 1. Education departments and partial listof courses offered at Evergreen.

Educationaldepartment Partial list of courses

Academic BrailleBusiness correspondenceCommercial arithmeticSpellingTypewritingAmerican historyCivicsEnglish literature

Massage andanatomy

MassageAnatomy

Commercial MerchandizingStore practiceEvery-day business and business

administrationInsurance salesSalesmanshipCommercial law and business

practicesIndustrial

departmentWoodworkingWeavingNovelty workTire vulcanizing (tire repair)Vulcanizing managementGarage managementMachine shop practiceCigar makingCigar making management

Poultrydepartment

Poultry husbandryPoultry house construction

and equipmentPoultry feeding, breeding,

diseasesPoultry classificationEgg productionIncubator operation

Musicdepartment

Elementary (voice, piano, string,wind, and percussioninstruments)

Advanced course for musicas a vocation

(continued)

Table 1. (continued)

Educationaldepartment Partial list of courses

Avocationalcourses

BookbindingBasketryBee keepingChair caning, rug weaving,

hammock makingDepartment of

physicaland socialeducation

BowlingSwimmingGymnasiumDance and entertainment

activities

8 Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness XX(X)

productivity in relation to expectations in

competitive employment. The vocational

activities explored went well beyond ele-

mentary tasks and included typical jobs

in metalworking and woodworking (see

Figure 6). The instructors at Evergreen were

drawn from civilian blind rehabilitation

organizations, and commercial specialists in

various fields were hired as necessary

(Woods, 1943).

Evergreen was widely viewed as a unique

and innovative program in the blindness

field. The 25th biennial convention of the

American Association of Workers for the

Blind that was held near Evergreen in Over-

lea, MD, devoted a half day to visit, so that

the attendees could have lunch with the staff

members and students and take a tour of the

facility (Red Cross Institute for the Blind,

1920d). The prominence of Evergreen was

also enhanced by visits from distinguished

individuals including Elisabeth, Queen of

Belgium (Red Cross Institute for the Blind,

1920h); General John Pershing, who gave an

address to the students and faculty (Red

Cross Institute for the Blind, 1920e); and Kel-

ler (1919), who also addressed the students

and later wrote an article on her visit (Red

Cross Institute for the Blind, 1920f). All vis-

itors lauded the heroism of the students for

both serving their country and the way they

were learning to adjust to their vision loss.

They also praised the innovative rehabilitation

program that was developed at Evergreen.

Missing elements of rehabilitation

It may seem odd that nowhere in the educa-

tional or vocational curricula were low vision

or orientation and mobility mentioned. In

fact, neither existed at Evergreen nor any-

where else at the time. The field of low vision

did not begin to develop until 1924, when the

Figure 4. Braille and tactile map of Evergreen. Courtesy of Perkins School for the Blind Archives.

Goodrich and Zampieri 9

American Foundation for the Blind began

providing telescopes and referring patients

to eye care providers, and it was not until

1953 that formalized low vision clinics came

into existence (Goodrich, Arditi, Rubin,

Keeffe, & Legge, 2008). Similarly, O&M

would not become a discipline until its devel-

opment in 1944 at Valley Forge Army

Hospital (Koestler, 2004). Students at Ever-

green did learn to travel independently, and

canes were available, but travel skills were

not specifically mentioned in the curriculum.

Keller (1919) recalled that during her visit to

Evergreen, a student invited her for tea, and

she described “the ‘tap-tap’ of his cane being

music to [her] feet” as he guided her from the

barracks to the Red Cross House (p. 36). At

Evergreen, independent travel seems to have

been learned as a by-product of everyday life

and recreational activities. No records from

Evergreen mention how, or if, mobility canes

were formally distributed. Staff members

and experienced students would lead new

students to orient them to the grounds, and

gradually students learned to get around on

their own.

The closing of Evergreen

By 1924, the number of blind veterans being

referred to Evergreen began to decrease. The

Veterans Bureau was created in 1921, in

large part to consolidate the functions of the

Bureau of Pensions, FBVE, and the military

medical department (Farrell, 1956). The

three agencies were difficult for soldiers and

sailors to navigate, and the integration of the

three into one department offered a single

agency with which they needed to interact

(Farrell, 1956).

Figure 5. Braille and typing instruction. Two students, one reading braille and one using a typewriterare shown seated at a table with their instructor. Courtesy of Perkins School for the Blind Archives.

10 Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness XX(X)

In 1922, responsibility for Evergreen was

transferred to the Veterans Bureau, which

continued the program until Evergreen was

formally closed on June 1, 1925 (Farrell,

1956; Ostermeier, 2010). The closure had

been anticipated for several years as the

number of combat injured troops decreased,

and the quality of staff members working at

the facility declined as the ones with the most

experience sought more permanent positions

elsewhere. As a result, the quality of rehabi-

litation at Evergreen declined (Woods,

1943). The Veterans Bureau was not man-

dated to continue the Evergreen facility, and

its responsibility to blind veterans became

limited to the payment of disability pensions.

The closing of Evergreen was also spurred by

a belief that the military would not need such

a facility in the future. That belief was

dashed only 19 years later when war-blind

troops serving in Europe and the Pacific

forced the military to open blind rehabilita-

tion facilities at Valley Forge, PA, and Let-

terman General Hospital in San Francisco,

CA (Farrell, 1956). The extent to which the

program at Evergreen influenced the opening

of the Veterans Administration (VA) Blind

Rehabilitation Center at the Edmond Hines,

Jr. Hospital in 1948 appears to be limited,

since the Evergreen blind rehabilitation pro-

gram oriented on vocational training, while

the Hines program focused on training for

personal independence that included O&M.

The success of any rehabilitation program

should be measurable; however, at the time

Evergreen was closed, there does not seem to

have been any comprehensive compilation of

data. The individual student reports pub-

lished in Evergreen Review paint a positive

image, as do the reports of FBVE (1917,

Figure 6. Student working on a lathe in the metal shop with his instructor observing. Courtesy ofPerkins School for the Blind Archives (Goodrich 18-0003 article).

Goodrich and Zampieri 11

1921). A less positive image was provided by

C. Warren Bledsoe, who interviewed 336

WWI blinded veterans residing in veterans’

homes (Miyagawa, 1999). Most of these vet-

erans were described as leading sedentary,

solitary lives, and only three used indepen-

dent mobility. Bledsoe did not report

whether these blind veterans had been stu-

dents at Evergreen or not; thus, it is unknown

whether or not their experiences reflected the

results of the Evergreen rehabilitation pro-

gram. In short, it appears that there is no

more than anecdotal eviendence upon which

to evaluate the success of Evergreen. This

lack of outcome evidence, however, should

not detract from the many accomplishments

made by the Evergreen board and staff

members, although it should be viewed as

a “case study” on the importance of sys-

tematic data gathering by rehabilitation and

other agencies.

Evergreen was a remarkable achieve-

ment. It was created in a very short time

following the entry into WWI of the

United States, and it became an efficient,

well-run blind rehabilitation facility (Woods,

1943) that was praised by many within and

outside the blindness community. Ever-

green under the Red Cross appears to have

been a racially integrated facility that

would make it unique within the U.S. mil-

itary (and general society) of the day.

Although the evidence for this integration

is sparse, and Veterans Bureau documents

suggest that in later years, at least, it was

racially segregated.

Evergreen also developed a science-based

vocational curriculum, a remarkable

achievement for the only blind rehabilitation

facility for adults in the United States. Its

primary focus was vocational rehabilitation;

however, the program recognized the impor-

tance of recreational and social activities

and the importance of family. Whenever

possible, families were accommodated and

provided living quarters so they could partic-

ipate in training alongside their war-blind

veteran. Baltimore offered a rich environ-

ment for social outings, and these were

enjoyed, as well. A basic tenant of the pro-

gram was that although all students had a loss

of vision, each student was recognized as an

individual, and each student’s rehabilitation

program was individually tailored.

Acknowledgment

The authors gratefully acknowledge the support

of the Perkins School for the Blind in obtaining

photographs that informed this manuscript and

the American Printing House for the Blind for

their consent to utilize the resources of the

M. C. Migel Library.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of

interest with respect to the research, authorship,

and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for

the research, authorship, and/or publication of

this article.

References

Bonfiglioi, S. S., Tomba, P., Vigano, A., Zati, A.,

& Benedetti, M. G. (2015). The First World

War drives rehabilitation toward the modern

concepts of disability and participation. Eur-

opean Journal of Physical Rehabilitation and

Medicine, 51, 331–336.

Bordley, J. (1919). Reeducation of the blind sol-

diers. International Record of Medicine and

General Practice Clinics, 109, 703–704.

Bronner, C. (1921). Carl Bronner. Outlook for the

Blind, XV(3), 123–124.

Carleton, D. (2002). The Smith-Hughes act

(February 23, 1917). In D. Carleton (Ed.),

Landmark congressional laws on education

(p. 227). Westport, CT: Greenwood Publish-

ing Group.

12 Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness XX(X)

“Director United States Veterans Bureau.”

(1922). Annual report of the United States

Veterans’ Bureau. Retrieved from https://

babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id¼hvd.32044100

867647;view¼1up;seq¼9

“Director United States Veterans Bureau.”

(1923). Annual report of the United States

Veterans’ Bureau. Retrieved from https://

babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id¼mdp.390150

14437498;view¼1up;seq¼208

Farrell, G. (1956). The story of blindness (2nd ed.).

Cambridge, England: Harvard University

Press.

Federal Board for Vocational Education. (1917).

Methods employed in rehabilitation of the war

blind. Washington, DC: Author.

Federal Board for Vocational Education. (1921).

Fifth annual report to congress. Washington,

DC: Author.

Goodrich, G. L., Arditi, A., Rubin, R., Keeffe, J.,

& Legge, G. E. (2008). The low vision time-

line: An interactive history. Visual Impairment

Research, 10, 67–75.

Halfpenny, A. K. (1920). Evergreen. Evergreen

Review, 1, 27–28.

Keller, H. (1919). O! Brave new world that has

such people in’t. Red Cross Magazine, XIV,

31–38, 73–74.

Koestler, F. A. (2004). The unseen minority: A

social history of blindness in the United States.

New York, NY: AFB Press.

Lohrke, F. T. (1993). Motion study for the

blind: A review of the Gilbreths’s work

with the visually handicapped. Interna-

tional Journal of Public Administration,

16, 667–782.

Miyagawa, S. (1999). Journey to excellence:

Development of the military and VA blind

rehabilitation programs in the 20th century.

Lakeville, MN: Galde Press.

Office of Medical History. (2017). Nonmilitary

governmental departments concerned with

continuing the rehabilitation of disabled sol-

diers. Author. Retrieved from http://history.

amedd.army.mil/booksdocs/wwi/VolXIII/Sec

tionVIrev.htm

Ostermeier, M. (2010). History of guide dog

use by veterans. Military Medicine, 175,

587–593.

Outlook for the Blind. (1918). Sir Arthur Pear-

son’s visit to America. Outlook for the Blind,

Winter, 93–94.

“The past year at the Red Cross Institute for

the Blind.” (1920). Evergreen Review, 1,

52–56.

Red Cross Institute for the Blind. (1918). Red

Cross Institute for the Blind. Baltimore, MD:

Author.

Red Cross Institute for the Blind. (1920a). Braille

map of Evergreen. Evergreen Review, 1, 2.

Red Cross Institute for the Blind. (1920b). Com-

mittee of direction. Evergreen Review, 1, 19.

Red Cross Institute for the Blind. (1920c).

Courses of instruction. Evergreen Review, 1,

84–88.

Red Cross Institute for the Blind. (1920d). Ever-

green review. Evergreen Review, 1, 3.

Red Cross Institute for the Blind. (1920e). Gen-

eral Pershing’s talk at the Red Cross. Ever-

green Review, 1, 44.

Red Cross Institute for the Blind. (1920f). Helen

Keller’s address at Evergreen. Evergreen

Review, 1, 36–37.

Red Cross Institute for the Blind. (1920g). Snap-

shots at Evergreen field day sports. Evergreen

Review, 1, 75–77.

Red Cross Institute for the Blind. (1920h).

Visit of the Queen of Belgium. Evergreen

Review, 1, 1.

Salvante, M. (2015). Thanks to the Great War

the blind gets the recognition of his ability to

act: The rehabilitation of blinded servicemen

in Florence. First World War Studies, 6,

21–35.

The story of Carl Bronner. (1920). The Voca-

tional Summary, III(3), 38–39.

“Survey of Work.” (1920). Survey of work for the

blind. The Vocational Summary, III, 3–4.

Goodrich and Zampieri 13

“Time-study motion picture.” (1919). Blind

Americans at Evergreen. The Modern Hospi-

tal, XII, 206–207.

Tuttle, D., & Tuttle, N. (2010). Moses Charles

(M.C.) Migel. Retrieved from http://www.

aph.org/hall/inductees/migel/

U.S. Congress. (1920). Charges against the fed-

eral board for vocational education. Washing-

ton, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Weed, F. (1923). General Hospital No. 7, Balti-

more, MD. In C. Lynch, F.W. Weed, & L.

McAfee (Eds.), The medical department of the

United States Army in the World War (Vol. V,

pp. 511–513). Washington, DC: U.S. Army

Surgeon General’s Office.

Woods, A. C. (1943). The story of the Red Cross

Institute for the Blind (1918-1925) in relation

to the present problem of the war blinded.

American Journal of Ophthalmology, 26,

1011–1023.

World War One Centennial Commission.

(2017). We honor. Retrieved from

http://www.worldwar1centennial.org/index.

php

14 Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness XX(X)