(Aug. 14, 2017) The citizens of Stanislaus County who overwhelmingly support the adoption of Laura’s Law received a regrettable lesson in cynical politics last week.
Ignoring decades of peer-reviewed studies, support from nearly every major national organization impacted by severe mental illness and the actual experiences of counties across California, consultants argued those many experts were mistaken and the program is actually of little use. (“No proof that Laura’s Law is helping the severely mentally ill, study say,” Page 1A, July 31)
This finding no doubt comes as a surprise to San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee, who singled out his county’s program in his 2017 state-of-the-city speech saying, “Laura’s Law works.”
Or the San Diego Board of Supervisors, who voted to adopt Laura’s Law after years of attempting a strategy of expanding voluntary-only programs as recommended by these consultants.
Or to Orange County, whose Laura’s Law program reported participants experienced a 70 percent decrease in days of inpatient hospitalization, a 75 percent decrease in number of days incarcerated and a 76 percent decrease in homeless days after admission to the county’s Laura’s Law program.
Or to Resource Development Associates, the independent research group that evaluated Alameda County’s pilot program and recommended in March that it expand the number of slots available based on its results.
The Results Group’s unsupported conclusions show a fundamental lack of understanding of Laura’s Law and its goals.
Read the entire op-ed by John Snook, executive director, Treatment Advocacy Center, in the Modesto Bee. The piece originally appeared on August 9, 2017.
Laura’s Law programs across the country have consistently shown large net decreases in costs specifically because they are able to ensure consistent participation in treatment.