Deinstitutionalization, while implemented in Western countries with good intentions, has resulted in homeless people who do not have access to psychiatric drugs or refuse to take them, has established a separate class of people who are mostly despised by the general citizenry. This ostracization* is done mostly out of fear but also by bigotry and one of the subsets of bigotry ... racism. As is often the case, deinstitutionalization while implemented with good intentions, has as a consequence, resulted in a growing problem in society in the form of homeless citizens. Community services that developed include supportive housing with full or partial supervision and specialised teams (such as assertive community treatment and early intervention teams). Costs have been reported as generally equivalent to inpatient hospitalisation, even lower in some cases (depending on how well or poorly funded the community alternatives are). Although deinstitutionalisation has been positive for the majority of patients, it also has shortcomings. Criticism of deinstitutionalisation generally takes two forms. Some, defend the use of psychiatric institutions and conclude that deinstitutionalisation was a move in the wrong direction. Others, argue that it was an unsuccessful move in the right direction, suggesting that modern day society faces the problem of "reinstitutionalisation". While coming from opposite viewpoints, both sets of critics argue that the policy left many patients homeless or in prison. Deinstitutionalisation was generally positive for patients, but some were left homeless or without care. *ostracization to exclude, by general consent, from society, friendship, conversation, privileges, etc.