Screening Services in Civil Commitment of the Mentally III: An Attempt to Balance Individual Liberties with Needs for Treatment

Abstract

Screening services are a central feature of New Jersey’s new civil commitment law. This law, more commonly referred to as the screening law, exemplifies a nationwide trend in civil commitment legislation, attempting to balance liberty interests and the need to treat the mentally ill. Screening services, designated as the preferred process of entry into involuntary hospitalization, were expected to prevent unnecessary commitment and to provide community mental health services. When deemed necessary, commitment in local general hospitals rather than in state mental hospitals was to occur. This paper reports results of a study of screening centers that were already in operation in New Jersey prior to the implementation of the new law. It assesses the function of screening senices and their potential impact on the commitment process in light of the objectives of the law. Data were obtained from in-depth interviews with key informants from the screening centers as well as from their environment, and from statistical reports on hospitalizations in state hospitals, admissions to screening centers, and admissions to psychiatric inpatient units of general hospitals. Analysis suggests that without more resources for alternative community facilities, screening services cannot achieve their objectives and the new reform may not live up to expectations. Shortage of alternatives to hospitalization and lack of incentives to develop and use them appeared to be counterproductive to achieving the objectives of the law. The availability of screening service and psychiatric units in general hospitals for involuntary hospitalization, on one hand, and the lack of alternatives in the community, on the other, may actually lead to inappropriate commitments and an increase in the number of civil commitments. Furthermore, findings indicated that screeners encouraged hospitalization readily even if other, less restrictive environments could have been pursued. Screening centers may become “gate openers” instead of playing their expected role as “gate keepers.”