Laura's Law is a California state law that allows for court-ordered assisted outpatient treatment. To qualify for the program, the person must have a serious mental illness plus a recent history of psychiatric hospitalizations, jailings or acts, threats or attempts of serious violent behavior towards self or others. A complete functional outline of the legal procedures and safeguards within Laura’s Law has been prepared by NAMI San Mateo.[1]
The law was named after Laura Wilcox, a young woman who was killed by a mental patient who had refused treatment. Modeled on Kendra's Law, a similar statute enacted in New York, the bill was introduced as Assembly Bill 1421 by Assemblywoman Helen Thomson, a Democrat from Davis. The measure passed the California Legislature in 2002 and was signed into law by Governor Gray Davis. The statute can only be utilized in counties that choose to enact outpatient commitment programs based on the measure. As of 2010, Nevada County has fully implemented the law and Los Angeles County has a pilot project. In 2010 the California State Association of Counties chose Nevada County to receive its Challenge Award for implementing Laura’s Law.[2]Subsequently in 2011, a National Association of Counties Achievement Award in Health was awarded to Nevada County for the Assisted Outpatient Treatment Program.
Contents |
Laura Wilcox, a 19-year old sophomore from Haverford College, was working at Nevada County's public mental health clinic during her winter break from college. On January 10, 2001, she and two other people were shot to death by Scott Harlan Thorpe, a 41-year old mental patient who resisted his family's attempt to seek treatment.[3][4] Thorpe was found incompetent to stand trial and was sent to Atascadero State Hospital and was later transferred to California's Napa State Hospital. After the incident Laura’s parents chose to advocate for treatment of individuals with mental illness.
The law is only operative in those counties in which the county board of supervisors, by resolution, authorizes its application and makes a finding that no voluntary mental health program serving adults, and no children's mental health program, was reduced in order to implement the law.[5]
In 2004, Los Angeles County implemented Laura's Law on a limited basis.[6] Since the passage of the MHSA [see below Prop. 63] Nevada County fully implemented Laura's Law in May 2008 and several other counties are discussing it, notably San Francisco County[7][8][9], San Mateo County, San Diego County, Marin County and others.
In those counties that adopt outpatient commitment, an AB 1421 program will ensure individuals are provided the services and medical treatment (including medication) that will enable the person to have a good chance to recover. Nevada County Director Michael Heggarty bests describes it as part of the recovery movement.[10]
In November 2004, California voters passed Proposition 63. When the California Department of Mental Health (DMH) released its draft plan requirements for county mental health administrators on February 15, 2005, they contained a provision that would allow MHSA funds to be used for "involuntary services" if certain criteria were met. Nevada County's Laura's law program and Los Angeles County's AOT pilot project are utilizing MHSA funding for services.
As stated above the patient must have a serious mental illness plus a recent history of psychiatric hospitalizations, jailings or acts, threats or attempts of serious violent behavior towards self or others. The recipient must also have been offered an opportunity to voluntarily participate in a treatment plan by the local mental health department, yet fails to the point that, without a Laura’s Law program, he or she will likely relapse or deteriorate to the point of being dangerous to self or others. "Participation in the assisted outpatient program is the least restrictive placement necessary to ensure the person’s recovery and stability." While a specified group of individuals may request an investigation to determine is a person qualifies for a Laura’s Law program, only the County mental health director, or his or her designee, may file a petition with the superior court for a hearing to determine if the person should be court ordered to receive the services specified under the law.
A person may be placed in an assisted outpatient treatment if, after a hearing, a court finds that the following criteria[11] have been met. The patient must:
If the court finds that the individual meets the statutory criteria, the recipient will be provided intensive community treatment services and supervision by multidisciplinary teams of highly trained mental health professionals with staff-to-client ratios of not more than 1 to 10, and additional services, as specified, for persons with the most persistent and severe mental illness. The law specifies various rights of the person who is the subject of a Laura’s Law petition as well as due process hearing rights. The bill also provides for voluntary settlement agreements as an alternative to the hearing process. [12]
Passage of the bill was supported by organizations such as the California Treatment Advocacy Coalition (an affiliate of the Treatment Advocacy Center), the California Psychiatric Association, the Police Chiefs Association, Mental Illness Policy Org. and the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI). In an editorial endorsement of the law, the Los Angeles Times touted then-Governor Gray Davis's support, while limiting its comments on opponents to mentioning that "a subgroup of the Church of Scientology, which opposes virtually all psychiatric treatments, sponsored a rally at the Capitol against Laura's law."[13] The San Francisco Chronicle[14][15][16][17][18][19] and The San Francisco Examiner[20] have published positive articles on the topic. The Los Angeles Times won a Pulitzer Prize, in part for its coverage of Laura’s Law.[21]
MindFreedom International and the California Network of Mental Health Clients (CNMHC), along with allies in the psychiatric survivors movement, also fought the measure and its earlier versions, accusing such legislation as a regressive and reprehensible scheme to enforce coerced drug treatment regimens against the will of patients. The Church of Scientology also gained attention as an opponent of the new law.[22][23]
Many of the studies on the efficacy of assisted outpatient treatment (AOT) are done on Kendra's Law (on which Laura's Law is based). Two notable studies were released in 2005[24] and in 2009[25]. A briefing of these and other studies was prepared by The Treatment Advocacy Center.[26]
The 2005 study found:
Specifically, the OMH study found that for those in the AOT program:
Comparing the experience of AOT recipients over the first six months of AOT to the same period immediately prior to AOT, the OMH study found:
As a component of the OMH study, researchers with the New York State Psychiatric Institute and Columbia University conducted face-to-face interviews with 76 AOT recipients to assess their opinions about the program and its impact on their quality of life. The interviews showed that after receiving treatment, AOT recipients generally endorsed the program, with 62% reporting that being court-ordered into treatment had been overall a good thing:
Additionally, 87 percent said they were confident in their case manager's ability to help them—and 88 percent said that they and their case manager agreed on what is important for them to work on. AOT had a positive effect on the therapeutic alliance.
In 2009[27], an independent study by Duke University into alleged racism found "no evidence that the AOT Program is disproportionately selecting African Americans for court orders, nor is there evidence of a disproportionate effect on other minority populations. Our interviews with key stakeholders across the state corroborate these findings."
A 2010 study on Kendra's Law by Gilbert et al showed that "the odds of arrest for participants currently receiving assisted outpatient treatment (AOT) were nearly 2/3 lower (OR .39, p<.01) than for individuals who had not yet initiated AOT or signed a voluntary service agreement."[28] Another 2010 study from Swartz et al tracked Medicaid claims and state reports for 3,576 AOT consumers from 1999-2007. They found that "the likelihood of psychiatric hospital admission was significantly reduced by ~25% during the initial six-month court order (odds ratio [OR]=.77, 95CI=.72-.82) and by over 1/3 during a subsequent six-month renewal of the order (OR=.59, CI=.54-.65) compared with the period before initiation of the court order. Similar significant reductions in days of hospitalization were evident during initial court orders and subsequent renewals (OR=.80, CI=.78-.82, & OR-.84, CI=.81-.86, respectively)."[29]