Advocates of so-called “compassionate institutionalization” for people who are unhoused or ill need to take a lesson from the now-defunct Woodside Detention Center. The experiences of this center were recently profiled in Seven Days, in a revealing tale about “Grace,” a former resident.
The sad lesson is that such institutions are ultra-vulnerable to devolution. Anytime an institution or group of people holds power over others, usually already on the fringe, the situation is prone to big problems.
It doesn’t matter whether those in charge have an ethic to create a “compassionate retreat,” as advised by recent letter writers. The dynamic is one of power and control over another group, most often without representation from that group. And this goes for Woodside, correctional systems, nursing homes, schools, on and on, all with good intentions.
We can do better, but it requires unusual amounts of imagination, creativity and equity, because those who hold the power “know best,” and hold the controls for what is a healthy standard. It’s just that way.
So, to bring equity and equilibrium to such institutions requires serious and consistent transparency practices, policies based on trauma care and, most frightening, power-sharing with people who are in care. (Involving people with lived experience meaningfully would be a vital example.) In fact, these elements are so expensive and challenging to our thinking that they likely will not be adopted.
Yes, very tricky and expensive stuff. Alternatives to “compassionate retreats and institutions” require deep dives and long-term planning. We’re not so good at that here. We strive legislatively and bureaucratically for efficiency and economy. But I’m willing to bet that making these investments of equity and creativity will save big in the long run.
We can do better. This is a small state that can move quickly and with impact when it decides to do so. I know we’re all tired, but Vermont can do the hard work here for its people.
Barbara Morrow
Sutton
