What is it about?
Most state laws allow for involuntary psychiatric treatment (like a hospitalization) when people are not able to live safely in the community. But we know little about how states differ in what counts as not living safely. This paper compares state laws and shows that the conditions and circumstances used to impose treatment - which is both a major restriction of civil liberties and can be life saving - are inconsistent, in ways that raise concerns about accountability and efficacy of these interventions.
Featured Image
Photo by Zac Durant on Unsplash
Why is it important?
Politicians like New York Mayor Eric Adams, California Governor Gavin Newsom, and President Trump have all called for expanding the use of involuntary treatment to manage perceived problems related to homelessness, addiction, and urban disorder. Our paper helps provide missing information about how involuntary treatment is currently working.
Perspectives
Involuntary treatment is back on the political agenda, but we lack a baseline against which we can measure the impact of legislative reforms that are being proposed. This paper is one small piece of trying to create more accountability around these reforms.
Alex Barnard
New York University
Read the Original
This page is a summary of: Grave Disability, Basic Needs, and Welfare and Protection: Statutory Definitions for Involuntary Commitment Across States, Psychiatric Services, December 2025, American Psychiatric Association,
DOI: 10.1176/appi.ps.20240589.
You can read the full text:
Contributors
The following have contributed to this page
