It seems impossible now to conceive of Brazil's Psychiatric Reform without contextualizing in recent history the creation of the Brazilian Unified National Health System (SUS) in the 1988 Constitution and the advent of the progressive governments in the early 2000s. Despite the permanent financial crisis and budget constraints that have dragged on ever since the creation of the SUS and its regulation, it is undeniable that re-democratization and the Psychiatric Reform process allowed the creation of mental healthcare networks throughout the country and with major expansion of community-based services. This process, based on humanitarian values and guaranteed rights, was marked constantly by a strong ideological dispute with a certain sector of Brazilian psychiatry. And although civil society's participation was widely touted and actually implemented in some large Brazilian cities, in general such participation was actually weak. Although the Reform's nouvelle familiar emphasizes patients' and workers' movements as founding and important movements, they were not successful in spreading across Brazil, so that the Reform was impelled as a public health policy and not as a demand by civil society. By this, we do not mean to deny that there was a link between these areas, but to contribute to understanding the current directions and possible defenses for the Reform. After nearly 30 years of the Reform, Brazil's research production now allows us to highlight some consolidated results in the scientific literature, featuring the following. There was actually a major shift in expenditures in mental health, with community-based services receiving more budget funds than hospitals since 2006. The virtual majority of community mental health services are Centers for Psychosocial Care (CAPS) in the modalities I, II, or III (with overnight beds). Beds were closed in psychiatric hospitals, now known to be ineffective according to the international literature (this process is still unfinished, and there are various places in Brazil that still have psychiatric hospitals, with dubiously effective practices and suspicions of mistreating patients). The expansion of community-based services has come to a virtual standstill since 2011, and data are lacking since 2015, in an unfortunate loss of transparency and accountability by the Ministry of Health. Despite the important expansion of coverage with community services, there was a persistent lack of scale for some relevant resources to implement recovery in society, such as the Program "De Volta para Casa" (Return Home), community contact centers, income generation centers, etc. Meanwhile, the community-based services have shown (like all the services in the SUS) a serious institutional weakness and budget constraints due to insufficient funding. Some studies have identi