Alliance Alert: We are encouraged to see that the chairs of the Senate and Assembly Mental Health Committees are already looking closely at the findings of New York’s independent Kendra’s Law evaluation and recognizing the need for meaningful reforms before considering another extension of the law. The report reinforces what our community has long known: people recover because they receive timely access to housing, intensive community supports, peer services, and other voluntary recovery services, not because a court orders them into treatment. The finding that many individuals under court orders said they wanted these services and would have accepted them voluntarily if they had been offered underscores the need to fundamentally change how New York delivers support.
Rather than making Kendra’s Law permanent, the state should implement the researchers’ recommendations by expanding voluntary pathways to services, including Enhanced Voluntary Agreements, ensuring people choosing voluntary services receive the same priority for housing and intensive supports as those under court order, addressing the racial disparities documented throughout the system, and investing in communities that still lack adequate voluntary service infrastructure. New Yorkers should not have to stand before a judge simply to access the services they need to recover. The Alliance and our partners will continue working with lawmakers, the Office of Mental Health, and advocates across the state to ensure New York shifts its focus from expanding forced treatment to building a system centered on voluntary, person-centered, recovery-oriented support.
These important conversations will continue at the Alliance for Rights and Recovery’s 44th Annual Conference, where we will host a major panel on Kendra’s Law, the statewide evaluation, and the future of New York’s mental health system. The panel will feature civil rights experts, members of the research team who conducted the evaluation, advocates, and other leaders discussing what these findings mean for the future of mental health policy and how New York can build a stronger, more equitable, and recovery-oriented system for everyone.
Register for Conference HERE
Get Hotel Rooms HERE
Full Conference Program
Senate and Assembly Mental Health Committee Chairs Discuss Kendra’s Law
By Katelyn Cordero | Politico | August 25, 2026
ALBANY, New York — A lengthy study reviewing a state law that allows involuntary treatment for mentally ill New Yorkers reignited discussion surrounding whether the law — which is slated to expire next year — should be significantly revised.
Kendra’s Law authorizes court-ordered outpatient treatment for certain people with serious mental illnesses who are deemed unlikely to participate voluntarily in treatment needed to prevent serious harm to themselves or others.
The law has been championed by Gov. Kathy Hochul, but Assembly Mental Health Committee Chair Jo Anne Simon and Senate Mental Health Committee Chair Samra Brouk both have been vocal opponents of expanding the use of involuntary commitment. In 2023, they pushed for the state to mandate the study when they voted for a four-year extension. Both lawmakers said they would like to see changes made to the system before voting for another extension and greater investments made in voluntary treatment.
“When it comes to any extension of Kendra’s Law, we need to face the fact that it is clear that it’s not necessarily being used as a last resort,” Brouk said in a recent interview. “When you have individuals who are seeking an assisted outpatient treatment order because they can’t get care voluntarily, that doesn’t make sense. So I think we need to look at how to adjust the way [Kendra’s Law] is being used.”
The law was named after Kendra Webdale, a woman who was pushed into the path of an oncoming subway train in Manhattan by a man suffering from severe mental illness.
The report — published late last month — found that people who voluntarily sought treatment were less likely to be arrested and had fewer hospitalizations for mental health issues. Researchers also found that dozens of participants who went through assisted outpatient treatment, or AOT, under Kendra’s Law said they were desperate for assistance and unaware of alternatives — a contradiction of the state’s portrayal of the law as a solution for people who refuse treatment.
Kendra’s Law is set to sunset at the end of next year’s Legislative session, setting the stage for what is expected to be a contentious fight over potential changes to how it’s used. Brouk and Simon said they are reviewing the report and have already seen areas of concern that may prompt greater scrutiny of the system, particularly surrounding access to voluntary treatment.
Simon noted that she would like to see more data from the state, a point made by researchers in the report. Researchers recommended that the state publicly report detailed data on the court process, track outpatient capacity and create an independent body to investigate complaints.
The two chairs spoke with POLITICO individually to discuss their perspective on the report and what they would like to see happen going forward in the coming Legislative session.
The separate interviews with Brouk and Simon have been combined and edited for clarity and length.
What are some of the biggest takeaways you gathered from this report?
Brouk: First of all, I’d like to step back for a minute, because the only reason we even have this information is that we [the Legislature] made it a condition of expanding Kendra’s Law to begin with. That’s always an important clarification because we have these negotiations in the budget, and oftentimes, we are forced to have these discussions around extending certain pieces of legislation, and in this case, I certainly voiced my concern around removing barriers to involuntary treatment.
This report did give us some insight into how it’s been impacting individuals who are getting this care. For me, one of the biggest takeaways is a positive one. We see that mental health treatment works; people had significant improvement in their conditions when they were under treatment. However, what we also see is that whether it was voluntary treatment or involuntary treatment or court-mandated treatment, there was no discernible difference on outcome. And so, as we move forward, I think this report has made it pretty clear we really need to figure out how to ensure that more voluntary services are getting to the people who need them the most, so that any version of involuntary or coercive treatment is an absolute, absolute last resort.
Simon: What I think is most important is for this report to be read and read again and read again in terms of our thinking and how we can work with the executive to tweak the AOT program so that it does not become a default, because it’s meant for a small group of people, but it clearly could be serving a smaller group of people. There is an awful lot of people who would be just as well served outside of the AOT program.
The report mentions that some people were unaware of the voluntary treatment options available to them, or underwent involuntary treatment because it was a faster route to services. What are your thoughts on those findings?
Brouk: I have heard so many stories from New Yorkers who actually tell us, “I wanted the AOT because it was the only way for me to get care, I was languishing on these lists, and I saw that that was a fast track to getting the care I wanted.”
So let’s just think about that for a second. We’re talking about an individual who is suffering from a mental illness, who is aware of that and seeking care for themselves, and they are put on a waitlist so long that they are choosing to give up some of their own civil rights and freedoms just to get care. It should be incredibly troubling to anyone who cares about civil rights, bodily autonomy or agency in one’s own life, because we are creating a system in which it’s easier to be coerced into something than to access that same thing on your own terms. There are so many harms that come with any type of coercion or forced treatment, and that’s what this report showed us too.
Assemblymember, I understand that you voiced concerns regarding Kendra’s Law since it was passed. Does this report give you pause when considering extending it during the next Legislative session?
Simon: I was never a big fan of Kendra’s Law in the first place because of all of these issues; obviously, the constitutional issues, the due process, the coercive impacts of treatment, and the fact that we know [her attacker] was a guy who had tried for years to get help and kept not getting the help he needed. If he had been better served, might that circumstance not have occurred? It is always better to treat people consistently and effectively than it is to not treat people and run the risk of something like the death of Kendra Webdale, which was a horrific scene.
It doesn’t mean that there doesn’t need to be any program. My sense is that would not be something that the governor would go for. She’s pretty invested in this, and it does provide for some people a very important service.
We know now from this report that many more people can be just as well served outside of the AOT context. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t need to exist. But what are we going to do with regard to strings to that money? What improvements would we seek to make in that program if it were extended? That’s why it makes sense to read this report thoroughly and carefully, and to talk to folks.
Senator, you have been vocal about concerns regarding the racial disparities in this system. The report reinforces some of the concerns that you have voiced publicly. What sort of changes can be made to legislatively address those inequities?
Brouk: Anytime we deal with anything that has to do with mental health — or really anything legislatively — if we are not looking at it through an equity lens, there will likely be racial disparities unless we act against them.
What we see is that counties that have larger populations of Black or Latino individuals, their AOT orders are also higher. We really need to look at how counties are implementing AOTs. The report saw that it’s very varied how each county is implementing the law, and we need some uniformity. We need to be able to say that regardless of where you are, what county, or what zip code, you’re going to be treated similarly.
I also think there need to be, you know, some sort of accountability measures and ongoing data collection. We have to put more stringent data collection, and just like this report, it’s going to show us exactly what’s happening and where it’s happening. We can use that as a prescription for how we address each of these disparities.
What are your thoughts as you prepare to consider an extension next year?
Simon: I’m sure that the advocacy community will be talking. I’m sure the legislators will be talking. And looking to have conversations with the Office of Mental Health from a policy perspective. You know, I don’t know what the answer is at this juncture, but I certainly want to have conversations about this so that we have better direction as to where we would go and where our efforts legislatively would be when it comes to the extension.
Brouk: What I would like to see is all of the attention, the headlines, and money that has gone to involuntary commitment as an answer, take all that energy and put that towards community-based, peer-led, person-centered, voluntary services. That is the crux of the problem. When people think about mental illness, their minds go to the most coercive measures and we are leaving the 99 percent of the time when someone is willing and able to seek this care and it’s not available to them.