Maine broke away from Massachusetts and formally joined the Union in 1820. As a new state, Maine began to write its own system of laws and regulations, and was quickly faced with codifying laws around those living in poverty and with illnesses or disability. In 1821, the Legislature adopted Chapter 122 of the 1821 Maine Laws – on the “Relief of the Poor”. In that law, it reads that:
1821 Relief for Town Poor Law1821 Relief for Town Poor Law
This law led to the rise of “town farms”, also called “Alms houses” or “poor farms” – across Maine, there were perhaps dozens or several hundred. These farms became repositories for all who could not support themselves and had no family to care for them – the poor, the aged, the infirm, and those with disabilities.
It is easy to assume that institutions are the right place for people with significant needs – in an institution, the assumption is that we can keep them “safe”, provide all the care they need in one place, and people with disabilities can live with “people like them”. These assumptions were worked into the policies and laws until the systems and the biases were intertwined and interchangeable.
Despite the evidence that institutions do not provide better care, a more stimulating environment, or less expensive treatment options than the community, our systems still reflect the historical assumptions that built them. When asked if people would like to live in the community they sign a waiver from their right to an institution. The “institutional bias” is imbedded within the current waiver system – how most people with developmental disabilities access services – makes getting good and services in the community harder. For that matter, the “institutional bias” includes an unwritten value statement that people with developmental disability do not have a natural place within the community. But is that true? Doesn’t everyone have a place?
More troubling still, many organizations are beginning to look towards building new institutions, using very similar language to that of the early 1900’s. They point towards the failures of the community system as proof that we need large congregate settings for people with developmental disabilities.
