Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
International Journal of Social Psychiatry
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Aviram, U.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Aviram, U.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Facilitating Deinstitutionalization: a Comparative Analysis

Uri Aviram

School of Social Work, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Department of Scoial Medicine, The Hebrew University, Hadassah Medical School, Jerusalem, Israel

The purpose of the paper is to highlight issues related to deinstitutionalization and community care of the mentally ill by using a comparative approach. Through a comparison of the trends in the U.S.A. and Israel, an attempt is made to account for factors which pro moted deinstitutionalization. The paper focuses on specific policies and programs which were crucial in reducing the rate of resident population in mental institutions and facilitating the development of community care for the mentally ill in the U.S. It points out the environ mental conditions, social, political, legal and organizational, which may be conducive to legis lative and administrative actions in order to facilitate deinstitutionalization.

It is now evident that during the last two decades the mental health service system has gone through a profound change. This change has occurred mainly in the western world and perhaps is most visible in the U.S. In recent years we have witnessed the gradual decline of the state hospital as the hub of the mental health system. At the same time the number and utilization of community-based services have been steadily increasing. Closely related, or even synonymous, to these trends, are the movement for community care and deinstitutionaliza tion. These movements have gained a great deal of interest among professionals and lay public alike.9 This interest has been manifested in a large number of articles on the various aspects of these movements. Delineating, categorizing and putting these issues in a conceptual and a theoretical perspective has become a task in itself.7

The purpose of this paper is to highlight some of the issues related to deinstitutionaliza tion and community care by using a comparative approach. Through a comparison of the trends in the U.S. and Israel an attempt will be made to account for factors which promoted deinstitutionalization. The paper focuses on trends which affected the reduction of resident population in mental institutions and facilitated the development of community care system for the mentally ill.

International Journal of Social Psychiatry, Vol. 27, No. 1, 23-32 (1981)
DOI: 10.1177/002076408102700103


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Journal of Health Politics, Policy and LawHome page
U. Aviram and R. A. Weyer
Changing Trends in Mental Health Legislation: Anatomy of Reforming a Civil Commitment Law
Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law, December 1, 1996; 21(4): 769 - 804.
[Abstract] [PDF]