THIS COMMENTARY FIRST PRESENTS AN OVERVIEW OF SCULL'S THESIS THAT DEINSTITUTIONALIZATION AND DECARCERATION ARE MERELY IDEOLOGICAL CAMOUFLAGE FOR SHORT-RUN BUDGETARY SAVINGS SCHEMES. SCULL MAINTAINS THAT SUCH PLANS DO NOT PROVIDE EFFECTIVE TREATMENT FOR THE MENTALLY ILL OR THE CRIMINAL OFFENDERS HOUSED IN THE COMMUNITY. HE ALSO ASSERTS THAT SINCE THESE TREATMENT FACILITIES ARE NEARLY ALWAYS LOCATED IN MARGINAL OR POOR NEIGHBORHOODS, THE ECONOMICALLY DOWNTRODDEN BEAR THE ADDITIONAL BURDEN OF HAVING THESE DEVIANTS IN THEIR COMMUNITIES. FOLLOWING A CHAPTER BY CHAPTER CRITIQUE OF SCULL'S ESSAY, THIS PAPER DESCRIBES TWO MODEL COMMUNITY TREATMENT PROGRAMS, BOTH FROM THE FIELD OF MENTAL HEALTH. THEY ARE THE TRAINING IN COMMUNITY LIVING PROGRAM OF THE MENDOTA, WIS., MENTAL HEALTH INSTITUTE AND THE CRISIS HOME PROGRAM IN DENVER, COLO. THE DETAILED DESCRIPTIONS LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION THAT GREAT BENEFIT ACCRUES TO THE INDIVIDUALS IN THESE PROGRAMS WITH LITTLE ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE COMMUNITY. THE LEGAL AND PHYSICAL ABUSES RESULTING FROM INSTITUTIONALIZATION ARE ALSO POINTED OUT. A CONCLUSION SUGGESTS THAT SCULL'S CRITICISMS ARE VALID FOR POORLY PLANNED AND INADEQUATELY FUNDED COMMUNITY TREATMENT PROGRAMS. IT IS ALSO POINTED OUT THAT DEINSTITUTIONALIZATION IS NOT BEST FOR EVERYONE, JUST AS INSTITUTIONALIZATION IS NOT BEST FOR EVERYONE. FOOTNOTES CONTAIN REFERENCES AND ADDITIONAL ARGUMENTS. (GLR)