Abstract
Mandating involuntary treatment for the severely mentally ill in California remains-extremely controversial. Major tension arises from the
polarizing debate between the advocates and decision makers who support the civil liberties of persons with mental illness and those who support greater efforts to treat patients involuntarily for their own protection and wellbeing. Although we have well documented psychiatric studies showing that some severely mentally ill lack insight into their mental condition, the forty year old law that ignores the problem remains in force. Accordingly, we need to know more about factors that influence this quagmire. Drawing on the Kingdon "multiple streams" model, my thesis examined causal factors that might affect the reasons for the lack of action on involuntary laws. My research employed several methods, including reviewing existing documentation on the case studies such as reports, law reviews, and articles in psychiatric journals. I also conducted personal interviews with those knowledgeable about public policy related to mental
health. At first cut, my findings indicated that if the ideology of the interest groups coincide with the ideology of the decision maker, any attempt at reform is less likely to succeed, resulting in a continuation of the status quo. However, a more in depth analysis indicated that by being attentive to timing and successful organization, policy entrepreneurs can frame policy and involve diverse social partners to facilitate successful outcomes.