Scholarlink

Background <p>Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPOs) are civil court orders that temporarily restrict firearm access for people at risk of harming themselves or others. In some cases, courts mandate respondents to complete a behavioral health evaluation (BHE), which may create an opportunity to connect people with unmet behavioral health needs to behavioral health services. However, little is known about how often these evaluations are ordered, what factors shape these decisions, or how judges explain their reasoning when a BHE is not ordered. This mixed-methods study examined patterns in court-ordered BHEs among granted ERPOs in Washington State from 2017–2023.</p> Methods <p>Quantitative analyses examined how often BHEs were ordered, whether orders varied by respondent or case characteristics, and the frequency of BHE orders over time. We also conducted a qualitative content analysis of judges’ written explanations in cases where an evaluation was considered appropriate but not ordered, using an inductive coding approach to identify common themes.</p> Results <p>Between 2017 and 2023, BHEs were ordered in less than half of granted ERPOs. Rurality was significantly (p &lt; 0.05) associated with differences in BHE orders, but differences in BHE orders among other respondent or case characteristics were also observed. BHE orders varied per year, with more than half (55.8%) of ERPOs ordering a BHE in 2023. Judges most often cited recent or ongoing treatment, recent involuntary psychiatric holds, or parallel criminal proceedings as reasons for not ordering an evaluation. Other explanations included procedural considerations, reliance on family supports, and limited ability to monitor compliance.</p> Conclusion <p>Findings indicated that BHEs are not consistently used in ERPO cases in Washington State, and their use varies by respondent and case characteristics, geography, and service access. Addressing gaps in statutory clarity, strengthening systems for monitoring compliance, supporting coordination across legal systems, and expanding access to affordable, voluntary behavioral health services may help ensure that ERPOs more consistently support both firearm safety and connection to appropriate care.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Patterns of court-ordered behavioral health evaluations among extreme risk protection order respondents in Washington State

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年7月10日

查看全文
  • Rachel Ross,
  • Erika Marts,
  • Nicole Asa,
  • Samantha Banks,
  • Kelsey M. Conrick,
  • Esprene Liddell-Quintyn,
  • Ayah Mustafa,
  • Sandra B. Shanahan,
  • Julia P. Schleimer,
  • Kimberly Wyatt,
  • Ali Rowhani-Rahbar

摘要

Background

Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPOs) are civil court orders that temporarily restrict firearm access for people at risk of harming themselves or others. In some cases, courts mandate respondents to complete a behavioral health evaluation (BHE), which may create an opportunity to connect people with unmet behavioral health needs to behavioral health services. However, little is known about how often these evaluations are ordered, what factors shape these decisions, or how judges explain their reasoning when a BHE is not ordered. This mixed-methods study examined patterns in court-ordered BHEs among granted ERPOs in Washington State from 2017–2023.

Methods

Quantitative analyses examined how often BHEs were ordered, whether orders varied by respondent or case characteristics, and the frequency of BHE orders over time. We also conducted a qualitative content analysis of judges’ written explanations in cases where an evaluation was considered appropriate but not ordered, using an inductive coding approach to identify common themes.

Results

Between 2017 and 2023, BHEs were ordered in less than half of granted ERPOs. Rurality was significantly (p < 0.05) associated with differences in BHE orders, but differences in BHE orders among other respondent or case characteristics were also observed. BHE orders varied per year, with more than half (55.8%) of ERPOs ordering a BHE in 2023. Judges most often cited recent or ongoing treatment, recent involuntary psychiatric holds, or parallel criminal proceedings as reasons for not ordering an evaluation. Other explanations included procedural considerations, reliance on family supports, and limited ability to monitor compliance.

Conclusion

Findings indicated that BHEs are not consistently used in ERPO cases in Washington State, and their use varies by respondent and case characteristics, geography, and service access. Addressing gaps in statutory clarity, strengthening systems for monitoring compliance, supporting coordination across legal systems, and expanding access to affordable, voluntary behavioral health services may help ensure that ERPOs more consistently support both firearm safety and connection to appropriate care.