Abolition and harm reduction in the struggle for "Care, Not Cages".

Care that is organized around the principles of harm reduction and the movement for police and prison abolition has the potential to uproot and transform structural causes of harm and violence, in the interconnected crises of drug-related harm, policing, and punishment. The United States' crisis of overdose and drug-related harm and its system of policing and punishment are historically and empirically linked phenomena. The abandonment of people whose use of drugs leads to their premature death, in the form of an overdose, is directly and indirectly connected to wider systems of criminalization and incarceration that also produce premature suffering and death. Organizations advocating for harm reduction for people who use drugs (PWUD) and organizations seeking the abolition of police and prisons have developed in parallel albeit with different genealogies. We examine the historical origins, principles, and practical applications of the two movements to identify points of overlap and lessons to be learned for the public health goals of addressing and preventing premature suffering and death in the United States. A case study of Los Angeles (LA) County, where elected officials have promised a new paradigm of care, not punishment, frames our analysis. We show how the principles and strategies of harm reduction and abolition are both necessary to practically realizing a paradigm of care, not punishment, and achieving system transformation.

Organized Care as Antidote to Organized Violence: An Engaged Clinical Ethnography of the Los Angeles County Jail System.

The field of medical action extends beyond the clinical encounter. Rather, clinical encounters are organized by wider regimes of governance and expertise, and broader geographies of care, abandonment and violence. Clinical encounters in penal institutions condense and render visible the fundamental situatedness of all clinical care. This article considers the complexity of clinical action in carceral institutions and their wider geographies through an examination of the crisis of mental health care in jails, an issue of significant public concern in the United States and much of the world. We present findings from our engaged, collaborative clinical ethnography, which was informed by and seeking to inform already existing collective struggles. Revisiting the concept of "pragmatic solidarity" (Farmer in Partner to the poor: a Paul Farmer reader, University of California Press, Berkeley, 2010) in an era of "carceral humanitarianism" (Gilmore in Futures of Black Radicalism, Verso, New York, 2017, see also Kilgore in Repackaging mass incarceration, Counterpunch, June 6-8, http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/06/06/repackaging-mass-incarceration/ , 2014), we draw on theorists who consider prisons to be institutions of "organized violence" (Gilmore and Gilmore in: Heatherton and Camp (eds) Policing the planet: why the policing crisis led to Black lives matter, Verso, New York, 2016). We argue that clinicians may have an important role in joining struggles for "organized care" that can counter institutions of organized violence.

Recovery in Context: Thirty Years of Mental Health Policy in California.

Over the past quarter century, Recovery has become the hegemonic model guiding mental health policy. Advocates presented Recovery as a radical departure from the past, with the promise of dramatically improved outcomes for those with serious mental illness. This article looks at the implementation of Recovery-based policies in California from the 1990s to the present and interrogates the ways these policies emerged out of and reinforced many of the problems they were intended to solve. Against the backdrop of welfare reform, managed care, and a growing belief in market forces and individual responsibility, California policymakers pivoted from rigorously studied pilot programs that were intended to provide intensive, long-term treatment to Recovery-oriented programs that, while initially intensive, promised to "flow" increasingly independent and self-sufficient patients to less-intensive services. Moreover, these new programs promised to produce cost savings by reducing homelessness, hospitalization, and incarceration. Reported outcomes from these programs have been overwhelmingly positive but are based on flawed evaluations that lean more heavily on belief than on evidence. While proclaiming a comprehensive, patient-centered approach, Recovery's embrace of independence over long-term care and social supports has justified a system of care that systematically fails the sickest patients by abandoning them to the streets and jails.