By S. Jolene Hui, MSW, NASW-CA Membership Coordinator
Following the Santa Barbara shootings/killings and subsequent shootings, the ongoing national debate about how to prevent these tragedies was brought to the forefront once again. Is it a gun control issue? Is it a mental health issue? Could new legislation deter these kinds of crimes? What do we need to do as social workers and as members of our communities to address these issues?
As far as existing legislation goes, California law AB1421 was passed in 2002. Known as “Laura’s Law,” the legislation makes it possible for counties to use assistant outpatient Programs (AOP) as a means of treatment for individuals deemed appropriate for mandated mental health treatment. Basically, it means outpatient treatment can be used as an alternative sentence for those who have had brushes with the corrections system or those recently involuntarily hospitalized. In order to be recommended for a program, individuals have to meet certain qualifications – one being that he or she has been hospitalized due to mental illness or has been in treatment while incarceration. The law says, “The person’s mental illness has—at least twice within the last 36 months—been a substantial factor in necessitating hospitalization, or receipt of services in a forensic or other mental health unit of a state correctional facility or local correctional facility…”
This makes sense. However, when it comes to these shooters, how many of them meet the criteria? And these are just two from the list.
The main problem with the law is that although it sounds like a good idea, counties don’t have funding to support these kinds of programs. The law states a multidisciplinary team will take on a very small caseload of these clients. Counties are already struggling for funds for their existing outpatient programs; it would be nearly impossible to find money to run such an intensive program. Since the law’s passage in 2002, only Nevada County has implemented a full program.
Now, more California counties are taking a look at the law but are still reticent to pass it. Is there hesitation because of the lack of funds or does the idea of “mandatory” treatment make people uneasy. Many people think that forced treatment in any capacity is a human rights violation.
If AB1421 is not the answer we are looking for, then what is? In order to determine which legislation would be appropriate, it’s necessary to establish the root of the problem. In this case it seems new legislation is not warranted. Prevention is not always about making new laws. We need to intervene early in childhood to stop this violence instead of making new punitive laws. The fact is, normally developed people do not think it appropriate to murder groups of people to prove a point. Normal people do not suffer from or seek such grandiosity. We need to start paying attention and recognizing the signs in children so that we can intervene right away or seek out and acquire the appropriate help. This is a parental responsibility, a law enforcement responsibility, a mental health clinician responsibility and a community responsibility.
Although I don’t see AB1421 as an appropriate solution to the problem at hand, I do not see any problem at all with having “forced” outpatient mental health treatment. As a society, we already spend our time and money throwing people with mental illness in jail – thus truly eliminating their “rights.” We might as well try to help people avoid incarceration if it’s warranted. If it means mandatory mental health treatment, so be it.
S. Jolene Hui, MSW, is NASW-CA’s membership coordinator and can be reached at jhui@naswca.org.
