In the wake of the recent shooting in Newtown, Conn. there seems to be alot of renewed interest in the subject of deinstitutionalization (of the mentally ill). (This is silly in a way because the shooter was probably Autistic, not Schizophrenic. But that is the subject of a different debate.)
In the 1960s and early 70s, the US deinstitutionalized huge numbers of former mental inmates. This was apparently due to new drug therapies, and perhaps the more liberal political climate of the day didn’t hurt either. By most accounts, this experiment was a disaster, and many people, even those who originally supported it, are rethinking the matter.
My question is: How has deinstitutionalization worked in the UK and Australia? I read a paper from the UK, oh, about 10 years ago or so. And they were talking about deinstitutionalization in the UK. Like us, they had some doubts. But understand it was just beginning at this time. Australia I know from a former Surgeon General under Pres. Clinton. (I forget the SG’s name, but he was African American, if that helps.) The SG said, again, deinstitutionalization was just beginning in Australia. And he at least was very optimistic about it.
The subject is interesting because some of more less-informed people of this country try to make a correlation between deinstitutionalization in the US and violence. But they don’t really have that kind of violence in the UK or Australia do they? Correct me if I’m wrong.
I don’t have any firsthand data to contribute, but thought it worth mentioning that in the UK, the official term is ‘Care In The Community’ (just that this is a useful search phrase).
There have been plenty of cases of Schizophrenic people killing people in the UK since care in the community became policy. It’s really 30 years now of this policy and I don’t have cites to hand but I would guess it might average one or two killings a year over that time from someone who might previously have been institutionalized. I am really thinking of the type of attach which might get tabloid attention.
It tends to be stabbings and that kind of attack though due to guns being so hard to get hold of in the UK.
I would imagine it’s not actually changed. From a media perspective it’s been linked to the care in the community concept a few times over the years. Such stories normally centre around someone being released from an institution only to go on and commit a crime shortly after.
I would think even in the days of institutionalisation such things happened but the media had no it happened after therefore it must have been caused by angle for the story.
“n the 1960s and early 70s, the US deinstitutionalized huge numbers of former mental inmates. This was apparently due to new drug therapies, and perhaps the more liberal political climate of the day didn’t hurt either. By most accounts, this experiment was a disaster, and many people, even those who originally supported it, are rethinking the matter.”
Is there a cite for the above? My recollection was this happened during the 80’s as these hospitals were underfunded at the federal level. Maybe both are true.
I have a knowledge of institutionalization in the Uk,my father worked in one of the big mental hospitals in Hertfordshire in a town virtually surrounded by big Victorian Mental hospitals. The Victorians though that ill people needed a quiet place out of the city and they had farms attached for food, which the patients worked on. They had cricket and football clubs attached. Really they were villages of their own. By he 80’s they were somewhat run down and suffering underinvestment and shockingly poor management. They also had the misfortune of being set on prime commuter belt land. I think all of them are now housing estates. The patients were out “in the community” in short put in paid low status collective houses and often forgotten or left to their own devices. All the staff knew the reason for institutionalization, it was seem as cheaper, and the government made a pretty penny out of the real-estate. in reality “Care in the community” is more expensive if done properly.
Well, outside of the fact that is just common knowledge, there are cites like the following:
So I guess it was in the 50s. Interesting too the next wave involved mentally retarded people. You know there is a stigma associated with the mentally retarded and violence. But somehow they at least overcame it.
In the UK at least, I think it has worked relatively well due to the heavy level of free care that is available in the community (free medical care, mental illness groups and checks from social workers etc.), especially as those suspected of being a danger to themselves or others can still be ‘sectioned’, or temporarily hospitalised, involuntarily if needs be, without any requirement for a crime to be committed first. The threat of being sectioned also acts as a pretty strong encouragement to some people on the border of being considered dangerous to stay on medication.
There is some problem with people disappearing, and going off meds; but most of the problems I’ve heard of come from periods before a proper diagnosis, or from those who are truly determined to avoid all officialdom, which are pretty tricky issues to deal with regardless of policy.
My cite is several members of my extended family, unfortunately.
I’ll take a guess this was St. Albans, which had Harperbury, Hill End and Shenley asylums all near by. Only Harperbury still exists, with a much reduced footprint and a new name.
Closure of the great 19th c. asylums began in the 1960s once the mental health laws were relaxed; also this type of treatment (or warehousing) of mental patients became unfashionable. Enoch Powell, then the Minister of Health said in a famous speech:
And you would be correct.My dad worked in Hill end,and i had along standing Sunday washing up job there too. You forgot Cell Barns, but that was pretty close to Hill End .
