>Long-term supervision programs that combine regular check-ins on compliance with minor punishments for non-compliance have yielded substantial reductions in problem drinking behavior
The link is to a program for alcohol offenders (the article implies it's mostly drunk drivers and domestic abusers) in South Dakota. South Dakota, as far as…
>Long-term supervision programs that combine regular check-ins on compliance with minor punishments for non-compliance have yielded substantial reductions in problem drinking behavior
The link is to a program for alcohol offenders (the article implies it's mostly drunk drivers and domestic abusers) in South Dakota. South Dakota, as far as I am aware, does not have a huge homelessness problem. Therefore, I must conclude that this program is being applied largely to people who have fixed addresses and own automobiles. I must also assume that approximately 95% of the people subject to this program are not seriously mentally ill. Thus, the program is being applied in the main to people who can be easily found by authorities, have sufficient wherewithal and executive function to show up for their twice-daily tests, and almost certainly perceive themselves as having something to lose if they don't comply.
How, then, do you figure that this kind of compulsory outpatient treatment would have anywhere near the same rate of success on a population of persons who do not have a fixed address, usually don't own an automobile or much of anything else, and are (I'll just quickly remind you) seriously mentally ill?
>Long-term supervision programs that combine regular check-ins on compliance with minor punishments for non-compliance have yielded substantial reductions in problem drinking behavior
The link is to a program for alcohol offenders (the article implies it's mostly drunk drivers and domestic abusers) in South Dakota. South Dakota, as far as I am aware, does not have a huge homelessness problem. Therefore, I must conclude that this program is being applied largely to people who have fixed addresses and own automobiles. I must also assume that approximately 95% of the people subject to this program are not seriously mentally ill. Thus, the program is being applied in the main to people who can be easily found by authorities, have sufficient wherewithal and executive function to show up for their twice-daily tests, and almost certainly perceive themselves as having something to lose if they don't comply.
How, then, do you figure that this kind of compulsory outpatient treatment would have anywhere near the same rate of success on a population of persons who do not have a fixed address, usually don't own an automobile or much of anything else, and are (I'll just quickly remind you) seriously mentally ill?