{"title":"在CARE法庭上落后的数字继续引发加州的争论","authors":"Gary Enos","doi":"10.1002/mhw.34590","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Nearly two years after the first group of California counties began implementing a legislatively approved measure to refer individuals with serious mental illness to mandated treatment, deep division remains over the appropriateness of the state's direction. Individuals' and groups' judgment concerning the CARE (Community Assistance, Recovery and Empowerment) Court initiative largely rests on their views in general about the efficacy of coerced mental health care.</p>","PeriodicalId":100916,"journal":{"name":"Mental Health Weekly","volume":"35 36","pages":"1-7"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Lagging numbers in CARE Court continue to stoke California debate\",\"authors\":\"Gary Enos\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/mhw.34590\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Nearly two years after the first group of California counties began implementing a legislatively approved measure to refer individuals with serious mental illness to mandated treatment, deep division remains over the appropriateness of the state's direction. Individuals' and groups' judgment concerning the CARE (Community Assistance, Recovery and Empowerment) Court initiative largely rests on their views in general about the efficacy of coerced mental health care.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":100916,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Mental Health Weekly\",\"volume\":\"35 36\",\"pages\":\"1-7\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Mental Health Weekly\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/mhw.34590\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Mental Health Weekly","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/mhw.34590","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Lagging numbers in CARE Court continue to stoke California debate
Nearly two years after the first group of California counties began implementing a legislatively approved measure to refer individuals with serious mental illness to mandated treatment, deep division remains over the appropriateness of the state's direction. Individuals' and groups' judgment concerning the CARE (Community Assistance, Recovery and Empowerment) Court initiative largely rests on their views in general about the efficacy of coerced mental health care.