.png)
ABOLISH VS REFORM
Reformist reforms vs Abolitionist Steps to End Long Term Care Chart
We created a tool to consider, assess and understand the difference between reforms that uphold long-term care institutions and abolitionist steps that reduce the number of long-term care homes and nurture community-based care for people with disabilities.
Click image below to expand.
Abolitionist
Ending the use of long-term care for younger people with disabilities.
Reduce the number of people imprisoned, under surveillance, or under other forms of state control?
Yes. This will provide people with the option of staying home to receive care, instead of being forced into an institution.
Reduce the reliance on institutional forms of care in our everyday lives?
Yes. This allows people to live in community and de-centers institutions as the only option for people with disabilities.Y
Create resources and infrastructures that are steady, preventative, and accessible without diagnosis or psychiatric interaction?
Yes! By decreasing investments in institutions, we can re-invest in community supports that people want and that is sustaining and centered on agency and interdependence.
Shutting down institutions and not replacing them with new ones
Reduce the number of people imprisoned, under surveillance, or under other forms of state control?
Yes. By reducing the number of institutions, we reduce the number of people forced to live in them.
Reduce the reliance on institutional forms of care in our everyday lives?
Yes! This reduces institutional funding and encourages options outside of institutionalization.
Create resources and infrastructures that are steady, preventative, and accessible without diagnosis or psychiatric interaction?
Yes! Defunding and abolishing institutions frees up resources to invest in the types of care structures that are better catered.
Creating voluntary, accessible, community-run services and infrastructures.
Reduce the number of people imprisoned, under surveillance, or under other forms of state control?
Yes. This reduces reliance on existing state structures that create vulnerability and reduce harm, while building capacity for community care.
Reduce the reliance on institutional forms of care in our everyday lives?
Yes. This takes away from the monopoly on care that institutions design and creates independent solutions focused on people's wants and needs.
Create resources and infrastructures that are steady, preventative, and accessible without diagnosis or psychiatric interaction?
Yes. This creates an alternative to institutions where people have agency over the type of care they receive and keep decision-making power over their own lives. This builds relationships in the community that caters to people’s different needs.
Rejecting government spending on new institutions, privatization, and staffing.
Reduce the number of people imprisoned, under surveillance, or under other forms of state control?
Yes. By reducing the number of institutions, we reduce the number of people that can be locked up in institutions.
Reduce the reliance on institutional forms of care in our everyday lives?
Yes! This reduces the capacity of institutions and we can redirect funding to home care and community supports.
Create resources and infrastructures that are steady, preventative, and accessible without diagnosis or psychiatric interaction?
Yes! By rejecting government spending on new long-term care facilities, funding may be directed towards accessible home care and private housing adapted to individual care needs.
Reformist
Building new institutions to address overcrowding or rising numbers of aging people? (for example - such as the increasing the number of people with complex disabilities)
Reduce the number of people imprisoned, under surveillance, or under other forms of state control?
No. Increases number of people under surveillance and other forms of state control.
Reduce the reliance on institutional forms of care in our everyday lives?
No. Increase reliance on inst care in everyday lives by shifting payments and income towards institutional forms of care versus community forms of care.
Create resources and infrastructures that are steady, preventative, and accessible without diagnosis or psychiatric interaction?
No. Maintaining institutions or building new ones is not preventative or steady, still investing in things that are reactive and require diagnosis and interaction with the psychiatric system.
Strengthen capacities to create and sustain community support? (care-giver burden)
No. Reduce capacity to create supportive networks by removing disabled knowledge holders from the community.
Building “closer to home,” “modern,” or “rehabilitative” alternatives to existing institutions? (Such as the butterfly model)
Reduce the number of people imprisoned, under surveillance, or under other forms of state control?
No. increase number of people imprisoned, increases the amount of surveillance and re-affirms the need for long-term care
Reduce the reliance on institutional forms of care in our everyday lives?
No. It enforces reliance on institutional forms of care.
Create resources and infrastructures that are steady, preventative, and accessible without diagnosis or psychiatric interaction?
No. Maintains relationships with medical-industrial complex.
Strengthen capacities to create and sustain community support? (care-giver burden)
No. It further isolates individuals from the community and forces them into more specialized, rehab-focused institutions.
Use of privatized and other for-profit forms of home care as solutions to long-term care.
Reduce the number of people imprisoned, under surveillance, or under other forms of state control?
No. Privatizing long-term care increases the number of people imprisoned, and relies on sustained populations to generate profit.
Reduce the reliance on institutional forms of care in our everyday lives?
No, it ensures that a competitive market will form for long-term care users and for those who are willing to pay extra fees for care.
Create resources and infrastructures that are steady, preventative, and accessible without diagnosis or psychiatric interaction?
Privatized long-term care requires that communities continue to be reactive, to ensure that they are fully dependent on for-profit forms of home care.
Strengthen capacities to create and sustain community support? (care-giver burden)
No. Privatized long-term care homes are run for profit rather than with the goal of creating a community.
Expanding surveillance systems within long-term care in order to ensure compliance. (For example, granny-cams)
Reduce the number of people imprisoned, under surveillance, or under other forms of state control?
No. It increases surveillance systems within long-term care and reduces quality of life while enforcing compliance.
Reduce the reliance on institutional forms of care in our everyday lives?
No, it uses surveillance as a crutch to expand LTC.
Create resources and infrastructures that are steady, preventative, and accessible without diagnosis or psychiatric interaction?
No - it is purely reactionary and uses a form of control to ensure that interactions follow all mandates.
Strengthen capacities to create and sustain community support? (care-giver burden)
No. There is no engagement with the community, no relationship or value given to the resident.
Increasing the number of staff
Reduce the number of people imprisoned, under surveillance, or under other forms of state control?
No. Increases the number of people imprisoned, increases surveillance efforts, and reinforces the need for institutions.
Reduce the reliance on institutional forms of care in our everyday lives?
No. This provides more funding for institutions.
Create resources and infrastructures that are steady, preventative, and accessible without diagnosis or psychiatric interaction?
No. Increases reliance on institutions and segregation of institutionalized people from the community.
Public/private "partnerships"
Reduce the number of people imprisoned, under surveillance, or under other forms of state control?
No. It rationalizes the need for larger and more privatized LTC homes while relieving the public of responsibility.
Reduce the reliance on institutional forms of care in our everyday lives?
No. LTC becomes used as a crutch for dealing with systematic and structural issues present in society.
Create resources and infrastructures that are steady, preventative, and accessible without diagnosis or psychiatric interaction?
No. It does not prevent the abuses and forms of violence that have currently and historically occurred. A good example of this is the failure of private and public long-term care homes to protect people in the institutions during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Building institutions that focus on “providing services” to address the needs of specific “populations” (such as those with dementia )
Reduce the number of people imprisoned, under surveillance, or under other forms of state control?
No. It uses the rationality of a 'specific population' to justify mass surveillance and continued imprisonment.
Reduce the reliance on institutional forms of care in our everyday lives?
No. This increases society's reliance on institutionalized care facilities
Create resources and infrastructures that are steady, preventative, and accessible without diagnosis or psychiatric interaction?
No. This would simply lead to an increase in the prevalence of carceral institutions.
Strengthen capacities to create and sustain community support? (care-giver burden)
No. This weakens society's capacity to establish community support.
Legislative and other efforts to single out certain types of disabilities as "exceptions"
Reduce the number of people imprisoned, under surveillance, or under other forms of state control?
While this may reduce the total number of persons incarcerated by the state, allowing certain disabilities to be designated as 'exceptions' excludes the most vulnerable populations from disability justice.
Reduce the reliance on institutional forms of care in our everyday lives?
No. This will simply reinforce society's reliance on institutional forms of care.
Create resources and infrastructures that are steady, preventative, and accessible without diagnosis or psychiatric interaction?
No. This will give more power to the psychiatric sector by allowing psychiatrists to possess the power of determining who constitutes an 'exception.'
Strengthen capacities to create and sustain community support? (care-giver burden)
No. This undermines efforts to establish comprehensive community support networks as some populations would likely be completely excluded from this option.
Nationalizing long-term care
Reduce the number of people imprisoned, under surveillance, or under other forms of state control?
No. This may increase the number of persons under state control by giving the government the power to determine which populations are allowed to retain independence.
Reduce the reliance on institutional forms of care in our everyday lives?
No. Nationalizing long-term care would significantly increase reliance on institutionalized care by diverting government funds to the creation and expansion of long-term care homes.
Create resources and infrastructures that are steady, preventative, and accessible without diagnosis or psychiatric interaction?
No. This would divert funds to the creation of institutionalized forms of care which rely heavily on the psychiatric sector, thereby undermining the creation of alternative resources and infrastructures.
Strengthen capacities to create and sustain community support? (care-giver burden)
No. By directing government funding to long-term care homes, society's capacities to establish community supports are weakened, as long-term care homes will remain the primary option.