We provide an overview of transnational non-state actors and their agency that shape today’s out-of-home childcare around the world, specifically institutional residential childcare. Based on existing studies and desktop research, we reveal a broad range of complexly inter-related for-profit and non-profit actors promoting diverse, often conflicting policies and practices – with ambiguous implications for children in care. We focus on secular and faith-based international non-governmental organisations, transnational companies, private regulators, and individuals. Many of them promote family- and community-based care, yet many others support orphanages and other forms of institutional care. The growing number of transnational actors in residential childcare, the emergence of private regulatory frameworks, the advance of market-based, for-profit players, and the involvement of well-resourced religious communities make the future of child institutionalisation uncertain. We discuss how this transnational agency compares with other policy fields and propose directions for future investigations of how transnationalism impacts children in care.

Greece joined the European Community in 1981 and, three years later, the Commission of the European Communities provided financial and technical assistance under EEC Regulation 815/84 for the modernisation of the traditional psychiatric care system, with the emphasis on decentralisation of mental health services and the development of community-based services, as well as on deinstutionalization of long-stay patients and improvement of conditions in public mental hospitals. Over the last 11 years, the implementation of the EEC Reg. 815/84 programme contributed to a significant shift towards extramural care and rehabilitation. The role of the large mental hospitals has gradually been diminished and a large number of long-stay patients have been deinstitutionalised. It is commonly accepted that the EEC-funded psychiatric reform programme, despite inadequacies and constraints, had an impact on the changing mental health scene in Greece.

This editorial introduces three papers in BJPsych International on community mental healthcare in the diverse cultures of Greece, Cambodia and Malawi.

The deinstitutionalisation process in Finland’s psychiatric healthcare did not start until the late 1980s. Our aim is to evaluate how the use of psychiatric inpatient treatment was associated with deinstitutionalisation given the changes in the modality of treatment ideology (years 1987–1991) as well as being due to economic pressures (years 1991–1995). Special emphasis is given on the inpatient treatment of schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders.

Data was retrieved using the national hospital discharge register of all treatment periods in psychiatric hospitals and treatment periods due to psychiatric disorders in other hospitals. Three years (1987, 1991, and 1995) were compared. Four healthcare districts in northern Finland were studied. Resource use was measured by number of treatment periods and inpatient days in relation to population. Psychiatric inpatient treatment was reduced in 1987–1991, when resources in community care increased. During the period of economic pressures (1991–1995), when community care resources no longer increased, inpatient treatment started to rise again. Over the whole period, psychiatric treatment in primary care institutions increased.

Reduction of psychiatric beds results in increasing inpatient treatment in non-specialist institutions, especially when community care fails to serve the patients. In the future it is important to evaluate whether the quality of care remains in the standard of specialised services when treatment shifts away from the specialist level.

How things are perceived from a distance may help better understand their nature. Perceptions at home are likely to shape perceptions abroad. The mutual cross-references between local and distant perspectives on the Italian Mental Health Law 180 may help understand the process which preceded and resulted in the reform. This editorial argues that Law 180 came about at a unique – enabling – time in history. It argues that the run-up to and passing of Law 180 constituted a great accomplishment by professionals, the wider public and politicians/administrators. This editorial goes on to argue that the profession managed to cope with (many) adverse effects of the reform. The attention that Law 180 has received internationally should be devoted to other national (or regional) mental health reform processes as this may help us to understand how mental health care systems evolve and what defines ‘windows of (operative) opportunity’ or ‘moments for (public) action’.

Current policy and practice directed towards people with learning disabilities originates in the deinstitutionalisation processes, civil rights concerns and integrationist philosophies of the 1970s and 1980s. However, historians know little about the specific contexts within which these were mobilised. Although it is rarely acknowledged in the secondary literature, MIND was prominent in campaigning for rights-based services for learning disabled people during this time. This article sets MIND’s campaign within the wider historical context of the organisation’s origins as a main institution of the inter-war mental hygiene movement. The article begins by outlining the mental hygiene movement’s original conceptualisation of ‘mental deficiency’ as the antithesis of the self-sustaining and responsible individuals that it considered the basis of citizenship and mental health. It then traces how this equation became unravelled, in part by the altered conditions under the post-war Welfare State, in part by the mental hygiene movement’s own theorising. The final section describes the reconceptualisation of citizenship that eventually emerged with the collapse of the mental hygiene movement and the emergence of MIND. It shows that representations of MIND’s rights-based campaigning (which have, in any case, focused on mental illness) as individualist, and fundamentally opposed to medicine and psychiatry, are inaccurate. In fact, MIND sought a comprehensive community-based service, integrated with the general health and welfare services and oriented around a reconstruction of learning disabled people’s citizenship rights.

Mental health care in the second half of the 20th century in much of the developed world has been dominated by the move out from large asylums. Both in response to this move and to make it possible, a pattern of care has evolved which is most commonly referred to as ‘Community Psychiatry’. This narrative review describes this process, from local experimentation into the current era of evidence-based mental health care. It focuses on three main areas of this development: (i) the reprovision of care for those discharged during deinstitutionalisation; (ii) the evolution and evaluation of its characteristic feature the Community Mental Health Team; and (iii) the increasing sophistication of psychosocial interventions developed to support patients. It finishes with an overview of some current challenges.

Objective - The aim of this article is to explain the current status of deinstitutionalisation and of community care development in the UK. Design — Literature review of articles and reports on deinstitutionalisation. Setting — Articles included in the review related either to the whole of the UK, to England and Wales, or to a specific area such as London. Main outcome measures — The review was carried out pertaining to the question of the extent to which community care can or should take over the functions of the asylum, with particular reference to those at risk of behaving violently. These functions include those that are manifest, or explicit, and those that are latent, or unintended but implicit (Bachrach, 1976). Results — The example of patients at risk of violent behaviour is one that highlights the continuing relevance of both these sets of functions, which are argued to be exerting a powerful influence on the processes of asylum closure and community care development. This influence is seen in delayed asylum closure, transinstitutionalisation (the shift of some patients from asylums to other institutions), and the institutionalisation of aspects of community care. Conclusions — Both the manifest and the latent functions of asylums must be acknowledged by those involved in planning community care; where it is felt desirable that community care does not take over certain functions, the consequences of this must be anticipated so that they can be prevented or dealt with in other ways.