Does Assisted Outpatient Treatment Violate Civil Liberties

Does Assisted Outpatient Treatment violate civil liberties of persons with mental illness?  Courts say no, and courts are the arbiters. Courts have decided that since AOT is limited to such a small group (those with a past history of arrest, violence, needless hospitalizations) that AOT is an appropriate use of police power (to protect citizenry) and parens patraie powers (to help those who can't help themselves). 

Another way to look at it is that AOT generally does not affect persons with mental illness. Having a mental illness is not enough to qualify someone for AOT. At most, 123,000 people would be eligible for AOT and research shows that even when AOT is funded, only roughly one-third of those eligible will ever be put on it (41,000 individuals). There are 58 million people who had  a mental illness diagnosis in past year. Therefore the maximum number of people it will affect, is .07% of individuals with mental illness.  

Clearly, not all people with mental illness are being put "at risk". It does not result in the massive depravation of rights claimed by opponents.

The upside is AOT has been proven to work. AOT reduces homelessness, arrest, violence, incarceration over 70% among those enrolled. It is constitutional, does not violate civil liberties; keeps patients public and police safer, is racially neutral, has support from consumers who actually experienced it, and cuts costs to taxpayers in half. 

AOT is smart policy to help deliver treatment to a very small group of the most symptomatic.