Presented to the NJAMHAA Conference 4/13/16 by: Robert N. Davison, MA, LPC Executive Director Mental Health Association of Essex County Kathryn E. Howie, LCSW Supervisor, IOC Trinitas Regional Medical Center Louis Schwarcz, MA President & CEO Mental Health Assoc. Morris County

Kathryn E. Howie, LCSW

 Involuntary Outpatient Commitment  aka Assisted Outpatient Treatment  A plan for recovery from mental illness that is approved by the court, to be carried out in an outpatient setting for a consumer who has a history of responding to treatment (N.J.S.A. 30: (jj))

 INVOLUNTARY ◦ Saying they will participate is insufficient ◦ If there is evidence they are unlikely to do so  OUTPATIENT ◦ Live in the community (need valid address) ◦ Attend treatment (frequency varies) ◦ Take meds

 COMMITMENT ◦ Required to participate ◦ A person has to meet commitment criteria to be eligible for IOC/AOT.  “Dangerousness”  Because of Mental Illness  Imminent OR foreseeable future  To self OR others OR property  With history of responding to treatment

 Degrees of non-compliance  “Material” non-compliance leads to revision of treatment plan, possibly via screening center, with court approval of changes  If “material” non-compliance exacerbates OR doesn’t mitigate dangerousness, patient can be re-screened and may be committed to inpatient if IOC is no longer the least restrictive setting available

 3 routes: ◦ Conversion from Inpatient Commitment ◦ From Screening, in lieu of Inpatient Commitment ◦ Alternate Route: 2 Psychiatrists, no screener  All 3 require assessment by IOC staff and completion of treatment plan, which is part of the court order.

 Those who are not dangerous  Those whose dangerousness is for a reason other than mental illness  Anyone on CEPP (Conditional Extension Pending Placement) status  Those who voluntarily participate in treatment

 Details vary by county. Most use brokerage model. Some counties also provide treatment.  Frequent contact with patient  Frequent contact with treatment providers  Legal support for treatment providers’ efforts  Psychiatrist to provide testimony and consultation  Case Management/Linkage to services that may remove barriers to compliance  And much more…

Robert N. Davison, MA, LPC

 Last year SAMHSA added AOT to the National Registry of Evidenced Based Programs and Practices  Outcomes: 1. Assault or threat of violent behavior 2. Hospitalization 3. Quality of Life 4. Suicide Risk  The Federal Office of Justice Programs at DOJ determined AOT to be “effective” and an evidenced – based practice for reducing crime & violence

 The International Association of Chiefs of Police passed a resolution in support of AOT in October 2014  A recent report by Health Management Associates, a respected independent firm examines the cost savings and other benefits associated with AOT.

 They compared data from New York and Ohio and found varying results- approximately 50% cost savings.  These findings push back the “New Yorkers Unique” narrative. Ohio built the program into their existing system, rather than adding in a broad new program with new service. National Trends and Findings

 New York State AOT Program Evaluation, June 30, 2009 Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC “We find that New York State’s AOT Program improves a range of important outcomes for its recipients, apparently without feared negative consequences to recipients. The increased services available under AOT clearly improve recipient outcomes, however, the AOT order, itself, and its monitoring do appear to offer additional benefits in improving outcomes. It is also important to recognize that the AOT order exerts a critical effect on service providers stimulating their efforts to prioritize care for AOT recipients.” National Trends and Findings

 2004– Codey/Bassano Bill  2005 – Governor’s Task Force on Mental Health  – Six Hearings  2009 – Signed into law  Five Counties implemented Essex County First  2013 – Six Counties implemented  Additional 10 Counties awarded grants  2015 – Rutgers University performing assessment  9/2015All 21 Counties have IOC  1/2017-Rutger’s study should be completed

 Total Consumers Served – Seventy-one (71)  100% had a history of Multi-hospitalizations  100% had a history of violence  71% had a history of arrests  75% had a history of substance abuse  95% had a history of Assertive Case Management or Integrated Case Management Services  30 New Cases Opened * Many referrals were not accepted because either the consumer did not meet the AOT standard or they required additional inpatient care

 22 consumers were discharged  13 “Graduated” (15-18 month average length of service)  2 moved out of county and transferred to other county IOC  2 discharged within 6 months 1 – no longer met the standard 1 - MIA  2 re-hospitalized and currently receiving Long-Term Psychiatric hospitalization  3 moved out of state

 Hospitalizations Pre-AOT – 71 consumers, total of 210 hospitalizations Post AOT – 71 consumers/ 37 hospitalizations  Arrests Pre-AOT – 71 consumers/50 arrests Post AOT – 71 consumers/ 6 arrests  Incarcerations Pre-AOT – 35/71 consumers had been incarcerated (jail time) Post-AOT –5/71 consumers have been incarcerated (short-term)

 Homelessness 15 consumers were homeless at time of referral 4 consumers are currently homeless  Incidents of Violence Pre-AOT - 100% of Admissions had a history of violence Post-AOT – 10 incidents of violence (3 substantial)

AOTS CONSUMER SATISFACTION SURVEY 2015 *Responses: 35 responses of 50

Facilitated by Louis Schwarcz, MA