Fulbright Visiting Scholar from South Korea studies U.S. innovations in mental health treatment

A South Korean scholar is spending a year at Arizona State University learning how services and systems in the United States and Arizona support people with mental health challenges.

In recent years South Korea has been moving away from its historic reliance on institutionalization. Even so, experiences here offer many insights for continued change in the Asian nation, said Jinyeong Bae, a Fulbright Visiting Scholar at Arizona State University’s School of Social Work.

Bae is one of a small group of scholars who were the first to devote significant research attention to her country’s shift toward deinstitutionalization, said social work Associate Professor Hyunsung Oh, who is hosting Bae at ASU through September 2025.

Bae said Oh introduced her to Arizona’s mental health crisis response systems, which “sparked my interest in studying there, as I saw it as an ideal location to pursue my research. Arizona’s focus on innovative crisis systems made it particularly appealing.”

Bae said working with Oh has been a privilege, as he “has worked closely with Korea in sharing insights into Arizona’s mental health landscape and its various programs. Dr. Oh’s dedication to fostering collaboration between the two countries influenced me greatly.”

Oh said Bae is “one of the pioneering Indigenous scholars in South Korea who has collaborated with peer supporters who have lived experiences in the heavily in-patient-focused mental health system, which I refer to as the ‘asylum-based system’ for better relatability to an American audience.”

Oh said Bae will work to address the consequences of the transformation following the 2016 change in South Korea’s approach to mental health treatment.

“Historically, America has been cited as either a textbook success or failure of deinstitutionalization, depending on whether the speaker supports or opposes changes that challenge involuntary hospitalization practices in South Korea,” he said.

“Experiences in Arizona indicate that any policy decision related to civil commitment and the structure of community mental health services has both advantages and drawbacks,” Oh said. “Dr. Bae will be among the few mental health experts who have embedded themselves in multi-layered environments essential to the quality of community mental health services, both in Arizona and South Korea.”

Read on to learn more from Bae about her research into the Arizona mental health system and its comparisons to South Korea’s.

Note: Answers have been edited for length and clarity.

Question: What led you to become a Fulbright Scholar and what attracted you to ASU?

Answer: I completed both my undergraduate and graduate studies at the Catholic University of Korea, where I was fortunate to deepen my knowledge of social welfare, particularly in … mental health. This education helped me grow into someone keenly aware of the challenges within Korea’s mental health system and motivated me to explore various alternatives to address these issues. Naturally, this led me to examine mental health systems in other countries, and I became particularly interested in the diverse mental health programs in the United States.

While I do not believe that all U.S. social welfare policies are universally applicable or without fault, the country’s rich historical experience with mental health policies has been a significant source of inspiration in my research. I realized that becoming a Fulbright Scholar would offer an unparalleled opportunity to immerse myself in American culture, engage with scholars from diverse backgrounds and conduct comparative research. …

ASU itself stood out because of its excellent and diverse faculty, whose expertise spans multiple disciplines. Since mental health intersects with medical, social, psychological and philosophical domains, I found ASU’s interdisciplinary environment to be particularly appealing.

Q: Could you share insights into the specific aspects of the asylum-based mental health system in South Korea that you are focusing on and how these compare to Arizona's mental health system?

A: I believe that stigma and discrimination against people with mental health conditions exist in both South Korea and the United States. However, in Korea, this stigma is deeply entrenched — not only among the public but also at the policy level. In particular, the biomedical model, which views mental health issues as a condition that must be addressed exclusively through medical interventions, has a pervasive influence. …

As a result, mental health care in Korea is predominantly delivered through institutionalization, with individuals often confined to psychiatric hospitals. Community-based resources to support them are severely lacking. This over-reliance on asylum-based care reflects a system that prioritizes containment over recovery or integration.

In contrast, Arizona has taken a more progressive approach to mental health care, underpinned by a landmark legal precedent set by the 1989 Arizona Supreme Court decision in Arnold v. Sarn. This case law affirmed that individuals with mental health conditions have the right to live in the community and mandated that the state government take responsibility for providing the necessary community-based services. This shift reflected a recognition that the mental health issues cannot be effectively addressed through institutional care alone and that leveraging community resources is both more humane and cost-effective.

As a result of this legal framework, Arizona allocates significant policy budgets and services to community-based mental health care. For me, it was remarkable and even inspiring as a Korean researcher to see how a court decision could drive such substantial changes, reshaping the mental health delivery system. This approach contrasts with the prevailing view in South Korea, where it is still widely believed that isolating individuals with disabilities or mental health conditions in institutions is the safest and most cost-effective solution. Unfortunately, this mindset often leads to the neglect of individual rights and the marginalization of people who need support. …

Q: In what ways is the Fulbright scholarship helping you progress in your research on mental health systems in South Korea?

A: In 2024, a delegation of my research colleagues from Korea visited Arizona. Professor Michael Shafer of ASU’s School of Social Work organized an outstanding itinerary that allowed us to explore various crisis support services in the Tucson area. Through this program, my colleagues and I gained invaluable insights into professional practices and knowledge within diverse crisis support systems in Arizona.

Additionally, I had the opportunity to visit Selah Carefarm in Sedona operated by ASU social work Professor Joanne Cacciatore. This visit was deeply inspiring, offering a glimpse into alternative ways of addressing grief and providing compassionate care. These experiences have greatly influenced my understanding of innovative approaches. I believe that the support of the Fulbright program and ASU has been instrumental in granting me access to such diverse practices and services.

Throughout the rest of my research period, I plan to deepen my study of Arizona's crisis support system for individuals with mental health conditions by meeting with various stakeholders and examining their approaches. These opportunities not only enhance my research but also provide invaluable lessons that I hope to apply to the Korean context.

Q: What are some of the unique challenges and strengths you found in South Korea’s crisis response system that differ significantly from those in Arizona?

A: I believe the differences can be broadly summarized into two key aspects: the diversity of crisis response systems and the financial delivery system.

In Korea, the primary responders to individuals in crisis are the police and personnel from mental health welfare centers. Because there are no services to address various levels of crisis severity, people are typically either hospitalized or left at home until their crisis worsens. This lack of options creates a significant gap in crisis response.

In contrast, Arizona offers a wide range of crisis services tailored to the level of an individual’s crisis. These include the 988 crisis line, crisis response centers, peer-crisis residential services, etc. One of the most critical components is Arizona’s triage system, which allows for immediate assessment and classification of individuals in crisis, ensuring they are directed to the proper level of care. Additionally, Arizona has set up strong partnerships between law enforcement and crisis service providers, which enhances the overall response system. In Korea, future priorities should include training police personnel to respond effectively to mental health crises, building a triage system and diversifying crisis services to accommodate varying levels of need.

Regarding the financial delivery system: In Korea, health insurance only reimburses mental health care provided by traditional medical professions such as medical doctors and nurses, which exclude social work services with few exceptions. This means that services provided by professionals outside hospitals — such as those offered in community settings — are funded through the social welfare budget, which is significantly smaller than the health insurance budget. As a result, community services are inevitably limited.

In Arizona, community crisis services are supported through Medicaid, which funds a wide range of professionals with diverse expertise. This difference is particularly evident in the recognition and integration of peer supporters into crisis response services. … This recognition of diverse expertise within the financial delivery system is a significant strength of the Arizona model and represents a critical challenge for Korea to address in the future. …