What Can Deinstitutionalization Teach Us about Decarceration?

Background and Purpose:

Over-reliance on criminal justice interventions to address social problems has incurred remarkable social and economic costs in the United States, making it one of the most significant social problems of our time. In the most basic sense, decarceration requires shifting individuals who are confined in jails and prisons to community contexts. In a more complicated sense, decarceration requires systemic restructuring and rethinking the place of formerly incarcerated people and correctional institutions in society. In this paper, we seek to invigorate and inform social work’s role in “smart decarceration.” To do so, we draw on a parallel, historical case-- the deinstitutionalization of psychiatric patients from mental hospitals, which proved that radical change is possible in the treatment of mental illness and deviant behavior.

Methods:

We completed a historical analysis of psychiatric deinstitutionalization, drawing on primary data from the U.S.  Census and secondary data from a literature review of the work of scholars and historians who have written on the causes and consequences of the phenomenon. We also visually map the relationship between the annual institutionalization rate and policy events in order to describe the relationship between state actions and psychiatric hospitalization. From our assessment of deinstitutionalization’s causes and consequences we glean six lessons for social workers working toward decarceration.

Results

The parallels between institutionalization and incarceration allows for deinstitutionalization to teach social workers six important lessons in moving forward with decarceration efforts: (1) Political, professional, and societal readiness are precursors for the intentional dismantling of institutions, (2) Government has a fundamental role to play in change efforts, (3) Downsizing public institutions requires assessing and fulfilling some of their functions through other means, (4) Reintegration and prevention requires intervention for reduction of social stigma, (5) Plans for decarceration should center the needs of those most stigmatized, vulnerable, and/or deeply entrenched persons, and (6) Large, seemingly entrenched institutions can be almost entirely eliminated.

Conclusions and Implications:

Our historical evaluation contributes to guiding meaningful action on a social work “grand challenge.” Smart decarceration will require changes in social thought and policy aimed at building a more inclusive society, not just decreasing the incarceration rate. Our analysis also directly addresses the impact of institutions and organized social welfare on communities of color and other marginalized populations, and the role of social workers in politics and advocacy. The relevance is exemplified by the fact that a key lesson we draw from deinstitutionalization is that the needs of those most stigmatized, vulnerable, and/or deeply entrenched in the criminal justice system must be central in the process for decarceration to be successful. We recommend that social workers reclaim their seat at the legislative table in order to champion social welfare policies that facilitate smart decarceration.