Submitted by Ruze42 t3_10pg8k8 in washingtondc
mrbridgeburner t1_j6kpj7i wrote
It's an impossible situation.
J-Team07 t1_j6l3247 wrote
State run mental Institutions where shut down because modern pharmaceuticals had the potential to allow for community based care and maintenance. No one seemed to factor in that there would be a significant portion of the mentally ill who would not take their medication and that population would be exacerbated by modern drugs that were developed.
Agirlisarya01 t1_j6laajc wrote
No one also seemed to factor in that community based care would require funding and logistical support. That somehow never materialized. They just cut the institutionalized loose with no resources and no support.
resdivinae t1_j6ml3p9 wrote
No, people absolutely factored this in. Hence the MHSA of 1980. Reagan, however, never did anything with it.
J-Team07 t1_j6mngn5 wrote
I bet it costs less to put someone in a mental hospital than jail.
monagw t1_j6n5e0q wrote
The problem was that communities didn't want these mental health facilities. Blaming Reagan for the current homeless crisis is so silly.
resdivinae t1_j6n647r wrote
That was part of the problem, yes. I don't pin the homeless crisis entirely on Reagan, although I think his repealing most of the MHSA in '81 was a contributing factor.
monagw t1_j6n8drm wrote
How is this a contributing factor of any consequence for homelessness in 2023? Democratic presidents, governors and mayors could easily have restored funding to the local mental health centers defunded by the repeal of the MHSA. Why didn't they? Could be that communities resisted these centers?
resdivinae t1_j6ndl0u wrote
Apart for the humane concerns, another major impetus behind deinstitutionalization was the cost of running asylums and facilities. The MHSA was intended to supplement state provisions with federal grants to support and maintain community mental health facilities. When those federal grants fell through, many states just didn't bother with expanding mental health facilities on their own provisions. I'm sure it's the case that some communities resisted these facilities, but that is not always an impediment. DC, for example, recently built and refurbished homeless shelters in every city ward.
[deleted] t1_j6liij9 wrote
[removed]
strangechicken t1_j6kufm7 wrote
Well, the actions to take to stop this level of homelessness are not palpable to the average voter it would seem. Either dont want to spend the tax funds to institutionalize them (jail or hospital) or still want the status quo of giving them used camping equipment to take up parks and sidewalks even more so.
Deanocracy t1_j6l04xd wrote
Institutionalization would be supported on its face I think as a humane alternative.
Its not a fiscal issue. It would be a justice issue.
resdivinae t1_j6mrgoy wrote
Decades ago, deinstitutionalization was the humane alternative. Now we seem to be circling back. I think today institutionalization can be done humanely, but we need the political will and funding to start and sustain it.
Deanocracy t1_j6mzmm0 wrote
Yeah… its wrongly tied to Reagan when in reality it was a large progressive movement and a push to medications as the new wonder drug that would fix it.
“The belief then was widespread that the same scientific researchers who had conjured up antibiotics and vaccines during the outburst of medical discovery in the 50's and 60's had also developed penicillins to cure psychoses and thus revolutionize the treatment of the mentally ill.”
https://www.nytimes.com/1984/10/30/science/how-release-of-mental-patients-began.html
monagw t1_j6n4qob wrote
Thank you for sharing this article.
Blue_5ive t1_j6ox3mm wrote
The issue I have with it is who decides who should be institutionalized? How would safeguards work so that institutions don’t just turn into jail dlc?
under_psychoanalyzer t1_j6l12ce wrote
It's got nothing to do with what "average voter" wants. You can't medically institutionalize anyone in this country anymore without their own or some sort of familial consent. You have to actively threatening to hurt yourself or someone else. But having enough fentanyl to kill 3 horses on your person doesn't count. That's a result of case law precedent. So that leaves only criminal charges, but understandably we don't want to lock up the users into a criminal system for being addicts. Good luck ever creating a bill in any state to undo that by giving the government more power to lock people away in mental institutions.
And that's making the false assumption people who are homeless are all drug addicts and need to be institutionalized. Housing needs to be increased but that's a systemic economic issue that would require a consistent domestic policy for more than a few years at a time, but half the country can't decide on if they want free ice cream or a kick in the nuts.
Macrophage87 t1_j6neorn wrote
It's interesting to note that the homeless population in DC is at it's lowest point in several years, mostly due to a decrease in homeless families. According to the Community Partnership for the Prevention of Homelessness, there are only 690 people living on the street in a given night (with more in emergency shelters). That's roughly the amount of people who could fit into a single apartment building. For all the amount of time, money, and energy devoted to this issue, the problem doesn't appear that insurmountable.
Macrophage87 t1_j6ngpvz wrote
Is it? The number of unsheltered people in DC is apparently 690 people according to the Community Partnership for the Prevention of Homelessness. That's an apartment building's worth of people. Yes some of these people need additional support, such as Domestic Violence, addiction, mental health, job training, etc. but finding places for people to live is a problem with policy, not possibility.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments