http://www.bazelon.org/issues/commitment/moreresources/studies.htm
Before making the sweeping changes that proponents of involuntary outpatient commitment suggest, policymakers and reporters covering this issue should review the research literature on involuntary outpatient commitment. The studies, relatively few in number, clearly show that it confers no benefit beyond access to effective community services—access that is too often nonexistent on a voluntary basis.
Involuntary "outpatient commitment" (IOC)—a statute authorizing courts to require an individual to accept outpatient mental health treatment or hospital release conditioned on treatment compliance—is being offered as a solution to the problem of people with mental illnesses in jails, homeless on the streets or acting out disruptively or violently in society. Proponents argue that only with such laws can certain individuals be persuaded to utilize mental health services. Yet most of the studies on which they rely are seriously flawed, and some are presented in misleading ways. A recent review of these studies by RAND Health and RAND Institute for Civil Justice offers a balanced look.
In reality, where they exist, outpatient commitment laws are seldom used. It may be that those who understand the mental health system and its failings are not willing to penalize the individual with a mental illness for the lack of appropriate community services, or to subject innocent people to arrest and incarceration for the failures of the treatment system. The RAND team reviewed the experience of eight states with laws allowing IOC and found "significant problems" in all.