The effectiveness of involuntary outpatient treatment : empirical evidence and the experience of eight states / M. Susan Ridgely, Randy Borum, John Petrila.

By:

Ridgely, M. Susan [author.]

Contributor(s):

Publisher: Santa Monica, CA : RAND, 2001Description: xxii, 110, 66 pages ; 28 cmContent type:

text

Media type:

computer
unmediated

Carrier type:

online resource
volume

ISBN:

0833029800

Subject(s):

LOC classification:

RA790.55 .R53 2001

Online resources:

Online Access

Available additional physical forms:

Also available on the internet via WWW in PDF format.

Contents:

Introduction -- Study Approach and Methods -- What Does the Empirical Literature Tell Us About the Effectiveness of Involuntary Treatment? -- What Does the Empirical Literature Tell Us About the Effectiveness of Alternatives? -- How Have Other States Implemented Involuntary Outpatient Treatment? -- What Lessons Have Been Learned from the Experience of Other States? -- Involuntary Treatment in California: Who Is Potentially Affected by a Change in the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act? -- Conclusion.

Summary: Many states use civil commitment--a statutorily created and court-ordered form of compulsory treatment--to compel people with mental illness who become gravely disabled or dangerous to themselves or others to undergo treatment. In the last decade, many states have amended or interpreted their existing civil commitment statutes to allow for involuntary outpatient treatment. Such a law has been proposed for California. At the request of the California State Senate, the authors conducted a systematic literature review on involuntary outpatient commitment; examined the experience of eight other states including statutory analysis and in-depth interviews with attorneys, public officials, and psychiatrists; and analyzed California administrative data for all persons served by California's county contract mental health agencies. They found that involuntary outpatient commitment, when combined with intensive mental health services, can be effective in reducing the risk of negative outcomes. But whether a court order in and of itself has any effect is an unanswered question. However, there is clear evidence that intensive community-based voluntary mental health treatment can produce good outcomes. There are no cost effectiveness studies that compare the relative return on investment in developing an involuntary outpatient treatment system or focusing all available resources on developing state-of-the-art treatment systems. Either approach would require a sustained commitment by California policymakers.

Item type:

Average rating: 0.0 (0 votes)

Holdings ( 0 )
Title notes ( 6 )

No physical items for this record

"RAND Health -- RAND Institute for Civil Justice."

"Research conducted under the auspices of RAND's Law and Health Initiative ... a joint initiative of RAND Institute for Civil Justice and RAND Health"--Preface.

Includes bibliographical references (p. 108-109).

Many states use civil commitment--a statutorily created and court-ordered form of compulsory treatment--to compel people with mental illness who become gravely disabled or dangerous to themselves or others to undergo treatment. In the last decade, many states have amended or interpreted their existing civil commitment statutes to allow for involuntary outpatient treatment. Such a law has been proposed for California. At the request of the California State Senate, the authors conducted a systematic literature review on involuntary outpatient commitment; examined the experience of eight other states including statutory analysis and in-depth interviews with attorneys, public officials, and psychiatrists; and analyzed California administrative data for all persons served by California's county contract mental health agencies. They found that involuntary outpatient commitment, when combined with intensive mental health services, can be effective in reducing the risk of negative outcomes. But whether a court order in and of itself has any effect is an unanswered question. However, there is clear evidence that intensive community-based voluntary mental health treatment can produce good outcomes. There are no cost effectiveness studies that compare the relative return on investment in developing an involuntary outpatient treatment system or focusing all available resources on developing state-of-the-art treatment systems. Either approach would require a sustained commitment by California policymakers.

Also available on the internet via WWW in PDF format.