User login
Critics have feared that California’s “Laura’s Law,” designed to prevent violence by making it easier for officials to force outpatient care upon people with mental illness who have resisted treatment, would violate the civil rights of Golden State residents.
But early statistics gathered by a Northern California psychiatrist suggest that few people have been forced involuntarily into outpatient care in large counties that have adopted the tougher approach in recent years. Instead, Californians targeted by the law appear to be choosing – under pressure – the alternative of accepting outpatient treatment.
California enacted Laura’s Law in 2003 after the death of a 19-year-old woman named Laura Wilcox at a mental health clinic in Northern California. Ms. Wilcox, who worked at the clinic, and two others were shot to death by a patient whose family had failed to persuade officials to force him to get treatment.
As California’s version of assisted outpatient treatment, or AOT, Laura’s Law, allows courts to order people into outpatient treatment in cases that meet certain criteria. Among other things, the person must have a mental illness, be considered “unlikely to survive safely in the community without supervision,” and have a “history of lack of compliance with treatment.” The law “also obligates any county that implements and accepts the law to provide excellent and comprehensive community-based services, not only for court-ordered patients but anybody who wants care,” Dr. Nelson said in an interview after his presentation.
As a state law, the measure must be adopted on a county-by-county basis. Tiny and remote Nevada County, where the shootings occurred, adopted the policy first when it was forced to do so by a lawsuit, Dr. Nelson said. But other counties were slow to sign on.
“Unlike Kendra’s Law, which passed earlier in New York, and both mandated and funded assisted outpatient treatment for all counties, Laura’s Law was completely unfunded. It was left to the discretion of each county to decide for itself whether or not to implement,” said Dr. Nelson, of Marin County, just north of San Francisco, who has served on the councils of the Northern California Psychiatric Society and California Psychiatric Association.
But things changed in 2013, when the state allowed money from a special tax on wealthy residents to be used for AOT programs, Dr. Nelson said. Counties began implementing Laura’s Law in 2014, and the number has now reached 17, representing about two-thirds of the state’s population, he said.
Dr. Nelson gathered statistics from several of California’s 58 counties. He found that over a period of 5 months of implementation, 59 people were referred to the AOT program, and 12 voluntarily accepted outpatient therapy in San Francisco County, which encompasses the city of San Francisco only and has 864,000 residents.
Over a period of 5 months in San Diego County, which has 3.3 million residents, there were 376 referrals, including those to a program that uses home visits to urge people to accept outpatient care. Twenty people accepted voluntary outpatient treatment. No court-ordered treatment was required for anyone in either San Diego or San Francisco counties.
Over a period of 12 months in Orange County, with 3.2 million residents, there were 389 referrals, and 126 people voluntarily accepted AOT. Only three were ordered into treatment by courts. Over 6 months in Placer County, with just 375,000 residents, eight patients voluntarily accepted AOT, and one was ordered into treatment by a court but refused it.
(The Orange County Register reports that refusal to abide by court-ordered outpatient treatment results in no civil or criminal penalties.)
Los Angeles County, by far the most populous in the state with 10.1 million residents, reported 805 AOT referrals, 30 involuntary commitments to outpatient care, and 239 voluntary agreements to outpatient care. The numbers are from 2016 to 2017, but Dr. Nelson did not have details about the exact period covered.
Dr. Nelson also looked at 7 years of statistics from Nevada County, which was forced into adopting an AOT program by a lawsuit. The county, which has fewer than 100,000 residents, reported 67 referrals to the AOT program and 30 cases of court-ordered treatment.
A report estimates that over the first 30 months of the program, Nevada County saved $1.80 for every $1 spent on its AOT program by preventing acute psychiatric hospitalizations and imprisonment.
The low numbers of forced commitments to outpatient care across the state make sense, Dr. Nelson said, since the law wasn’t intended to “force a bunch of folks with typically high recidivism with mental illness into involuntary treatment.”
Instead, he said, the law has promoted a so-called black robe effect – essentially, a form of intimidation by judge.
Dr. Nelson said he has tracked the debate over forced outpatient care for years and has mixed feelings about the law.
There’s value to coaxing people with mental illness into care when they are unable to recognize their illness, he said. “But there are way too many gaps and holes for people to fall into,” he said. “They have the potential to be mistreated, poorly treated, poorly diagnosed.”
While Laura’s Law requires counties to offer comprehensive outpatient mental health care, “it’s really difficult to know whether the programs are meeting all of the conditions of the law,” Dr. Nelson said.
Still, he said, Laura’s Law is forcing counties to discuss how to care for people with mental illness who are targeted by the legislation, he said. “They are beginning to have a lively conversation about how we are going to reach out to these people and help them, even to just avoid the implementation of Laura’s Law.”
Dr. Nelson has no relevant disclosures.
Critics have feared that California’s “Laura’s Law,” designed to prevent violence by making it easier for officials to force outpatient care upon people with mental illness who have resisted treatment, would violate the civil rights of Golden State residents.
But early statistics gathered by a Northern California psychiatrist suggest that few people have been forced involuntarily into outpatient care in large counties that have adopted the tougher approach in recent years. Instead, Californians targeted by the law appear to be choosing – under pressure – the alternative of accepting outpatient treatment.
California enacted Laura’s Law in 2003 after the death of a 19-year-old woman named Laura Wilcox at a mental health clinic in Northern California. Ms. Wilcox, who worked at the clinic, and two others were shot to death by a patient whose family had failed to persuade officials to force him to get treatment.
As California’s version of assisted outpatient treatment, or AOT, Laura’s Law, allows courts to order people into outpatient treatment in cases that meet certain criteria. Among other things, the person must have a mental illness, be considered “unlikely to survive safely in the community without supervision,” and have a “history of lack of compliance with treatment.” The law “also obligates any county that implements and accepts the law to provide excellent and comprehensive community-based services, not only for court-ordered patients but anybody who wants care,” Dr. Nelson said in an interview after his presentation.
As a state law, the measure must be adopted on a county-by-county basis. Tiny and remote Nevada County, where the shootings occurred, adopted the policy first when it was forced to do so by a lawsuit, Dr. Nelson said. But other counties were slow to sign on.
“Unlike Kendra’s Law, which passed earlier in New York, and both mandated and funded assisted outpatient treatment for all counties, Laura’s Law was completely unfunded. It was left to the discretion of each county to decide for itself whether or not to implement,” said Dr. Nelson, of Marin County, just north of San Francisco, who has served on the councils of the Northern California Psychiatric Society and California Psychiatric Association.
But things changed in 2013, when the state allowed money from a special tax on wealthy residents to be used for AOT programs, Dr. Nelson said. Counties began implementing Laura’s Law in 2014, and the number has now reached 17, representing about two-thirds of the state’s population, he said.
Dr. Nelson gathered statistics from several of California’s 58 counties. He found that over a period of 5 months of implementation, 59 people were referred to the AOT program, and 12 voluntarily accepted outpatient therapy in San Francisco County, which encompasses the city of San Francisco only and has 864,000 residents.
Over a period of 5 months in San Diego County, which has 3.3 million residents, there were 376 referrals, including those to a program that uses home visits to urge people to accept outpatient care. Twenty people accepted voluntary outpatient treatment. No court-ordered treatment was required for anyone in either San Diego or San Francisco counties.
Over a period of 12 months in Orange County, with 3.2 million residents, there were 389 referrals, and 126 people voluntarily accepted AOT. Only three were ordered into treatment by courts. Over 6 months in Placer County, with just 375,000 residents, eight patients voluntarily accepted AOT, and one was ordered into treatment by a court but refused it.
(The Orange County Register reports that refusal to abide by court-ordered outpatient treatment results in no civil or criminal penalties.)
Los Angeles County, by far the most populous in the state with 10.1 million residents, reported 805 AOT referrals, 30 involuntary commitments to outpatient care, and 239 voluntary agreements to outpatient care. The numbers are from 2016 to 2017, but Dr. Nelson did not have details about the exact period covered.
Dr. Nelson also looked at 7 years of statistics from Nevada County, which was forced into adopting an AOT program by a lawsuit. The county, which has fewer than 100,000 residents, reported 67 referrals to the AOT program and 30 cases of court-ordered treatment.
A report estimates that over the first 30 months of the program, Nevada County saved $1.80 for every $1 spent on its AOT program by preventing acute psychiatric hospitalizations and imprisonment.
The low numbers of forced commitments to outpatient care across the state make sense, Dr. Nelson said, since the law wasn’t intended to “force a bunch of folks with typically high recidivism with mental illness into involuntary treatment.”
Instead, he said, the law has promoted a so-called black robe effect – essentially, a form of intimidation by judge.
Dr. Nelson said he has tracked the debate over forced outpatient care for years and has mixed feelings about the law.
There’s value to coaxing people with mental illness into care when they are unable to recognize their illness, he said. “But there are way too many gaps and holes for people to fall into,” he said. “They have the potential to be mistreated, poorly treated, poorly diagnosed.”
While Laura’s Law requires counties to offer comprehensive outpatient mental health care, “it’s really difficult to know whether the programs are meeting all of the conditions of the law,” Dr. Nelson said.
Still, he said, Laura’s Law is forcing counties to discuss how to care for people with mental illness who are targeted by the legislation, he said. “They are beginning to have a lively conversation about how we are going to reach out to these people and help them, even to just avoid the implementation of Laura’s Law.”
Dr. Nelson has no relevant disclosures.
Critics have feared that California’s “Laura’s Law,” designed to prevent violence by making it easier for officials to force outpatient care upon people with mental illness who have resisted treatment, would violate the civil rights of Golden State residents.
But early statistics gathered by a Northern California psychiatrist suggest that few people have been forced involuntarily into outpatient care in large counties that have adopted the tougher approach in recent years. Instead, Californians targeted by the law appear to be choosing – under pressure – the alternative of accepting outpatient treatment.
California enacted Laura’s Law in 2003 after the death of a 19-year-old woman named Laura Wilcox at a mental health clinic in Northern California. Ms. Wilcox, who worked at the clinic, and two others were shot to death by a patient whose family had failed to persuade officials to force him to get treatment.
As California’s version of assisted outpatient treatment, or AOT, Laura’s Law, allows courts to order people into outpatient treatment in cases that meet certain criteria. Among other things, the person must have a mental illness, be considered “unlikely to survive safely in the community without supervision,” and have a “history of lack of compliance with treatment.” The law “also obligates any county that implements and accepts the law to provide excellent and comprehensive community-based services, not only for court-ordered patients but anybody who wants care,” Dr. Nelson said in an interview after his presentation.
As a state law, the measure must be adopted on a county-by-county basis. Tiny and remote Nevada County, where the shootings occurred, adopted the policy first when it was forced to do so by a lawsuit, Dr. Nelson said. But other counties were slow to sign on.
“Unlike Kendra’s Law, which passed earlier in New York, and both mandated and funded assisted outpatient treatment for all counties, Laura’s Law was completely unfunded. It was left to the discretion of each county to decide for itself whether or not to implement,” said Dr. Nelson, of Marin County, just north of San Francisco, who has served on the councils of the Northern California Psychiatric Society and California Psychiatric Association.
But things changed in 2013, when the state allowed money from a special tax on wealthy residents to be used for AOT programs, Dr. Nelson said. Counties began implementing Laura’s Law in 2014, and the number has now reached 17, representing about two-thirds of the state’s population, he said.
Dr. Nelson gathered statistics from several of California’s 58 counties. He found that over a period of 5 months of implementation, 59 people were referred to the AOT program, and 12 voluntarily accepted outpatient therapy in San Francisco County, which encompasses the city of San Francisco only and has 864,000 residents.
Over a period of 5 months in San Diego County, which has 3.3 million residents, there were 376 referrals, including those to a program that uses home visits to urge people to accept outpatient care. Twenty people accepted voluntary outpatient treatment. No court-ordered treatment was required for anyone in either San Diego or San Francisco counties.
Over a period of 12 months in Orange County, with 3.2 million residents, there were 389 referrals, and 126 people voluntarily accepted AOT. Only three were ordered into treatment by courts. Over 6 months in Placer County, with just 375,000 residents, eight patients voluntarily accepted AOT, and one was ordered into treatment by a court but refused it.
(The Orange County Register reports that refusal to abide by court-ordered outpatient treatment results in no civil or criminal penalties.)
Los Angeles County, by far the most populous in the state with 10.1 million residents, reported 805 AOT referrals, 30 involuntary commitments to outpatient care, and 239 voluntary agreements to outpatient care. The numbers are from 2016 to 2017, but Dr. Nelson did not have details about the exact period covered.
Dr. Nelson also looked at 7 years of statistics from Nevada County, which was forced into adopting an AOT program by a lawsuit. The county, which has fewer than 100,000 residents, reported 67 referrals to the AOT program and 30 cases of court-ordered treatment.
A report estimates that over the first 30 months of the program, Nevada County saved $1.80 for every $1 spent on its AOT program by preventing acute psychiatric hospitalizations and imprisonment.
The low numbers of forced commitments to outpatient care across the state make sense, Dr. Nelson said, since the law wasn’t intended to “force a bunch of folks with typically high recidivism with mental illness into involuntary treatment.”
Instead, he said, the law has promoted a so-called black robe effect – essentially, a form of intimidation by judge.
Dr. Nelson said he has tracked the debate over forced outpatient care for years and has mixed feelings about the law.
There’s value to coaxing people with mental illness into care when they are unable to recognize their illness, he said. “But there are way too many gaps and holes for people to fall into,” he said. “They have the potential to be mistreated, poorly treated, poorly diagnosed.”
While Laura’s Law requires counties to offer comprehensive outpatient mental health care, “it’s really difficult to know whether the programs are meeting all of the conditions of the law,” Dr. Nelson said.
Still, he said, Laura’s Law is forcing counties to discuss how to care for people with mental illness who are targeted by the legislation, he said. “They are beginning to have a lively conversation about how we are going to reach out to these people and help them, even to just avoid the implementation of Laura’s Law.”
Dr. Nelson has no relevant disclosures.
EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM APA