3 ms·
This is a bit cartoony. The US never closed "all" of its secure centers. It also never really effectively tried deinstitutionalization; the funding for communi
by glangdale 7y ago
This is a bit cartoony. The US never closed "all" of its secure centers.
It also never really effectively tried deinstitutionalization; the funding for community care never reached the anticipated levels and ultimately the whole thing turned into a cost-saving measure (close the snake pits, but then conveniently decide not to build the things that were meant to substitute for them).
Claiming that you see crazy homeless people ergo "community care and modern treatment is ineffective" skips over the fact that this treatment is underfunded and hasn't really been tried on most of the US. It should be the first line of defence, and will be way cheaper than locking everyone up again.
There will always be incurables who need to be in institutions, but the current regime is creating way more people who appear this way (often after having been traumatized by prison and homelessness).
- iguy 7y agoOne thing institutions had going for them is that they were large buildings with many employees, and thus had political weight. Spending the same money on community care might be more efficient, but doesn't have this weight. So if you trim the budget 20% this year in some crisis, 20% another year, you never have to officially claim to be giving up. Which if I understand right is basically what happened. I don't claim that proponents of deinstitutionalization had this in mind, I think they were well-intentioned. But it does seem like a factor worth bearing in mind. It's a bit like the trams vs busses debate -- the more flexible system is vulnerable to getting squeezed, the less flexible one is more permanent.