Court Monitors
Court monitors can provide independent oversight of AOT proceedings, helping to ensure that court orders are implemented fairly and in accordance with the law. They can track patterns of concern, identify rights violations, and report on inconsistencies across jurisdictions. Their presence increases transparency and can act as a safeguard against coercion or misuse of judicial authority.

Independent Patient Advocates
Independent advocates can help individuals under AOT understand their rights, navigate complex legal and clinical systems, and have their preferences represented in decision-making. These advocates ensure that the voices of service users are heard and respected, particularly in settings where power imbalances are pronounced. Their involvement helps uphold dignity, autonomy, and informed choice.

Mandatory Client Involvement in AOT Plan Development
Requiring client involvement in the creation of AOT treatment plans fosters collaboration, improves trust, and increases the likelihood that plans are relevant and acceptable to the individual. Engaging service users as active participants promotes shared decision-making and reduces the perception—and reality—of forced care. This can also lead to better engagement and outcomes.

Caution re Supervised Residential Placements
While supervised residential placements may be offered as part of AOT, they can become highly restrictive environments that limit autonomy, privacy, and community integration—especially if chosen without meaningful client input. Advocates should urge caution in using these placements, ensuring they are truly necessary, time-limited, and the least restrictive option available. Oversight is essential to prevent institutional drift, safeguard rights, and promote voluntary, community-based alternatives whenever possible.

Caution re Mandatory Drug Testing
Mandatory drug testing can be invasive, stigmatizing, and may discourage people from engaging with services out of fear of punishment or surveillance. Such testing should not be routine or punitive, and must be justified by clinical need, guided by ethical standards, and include informed consent where possible. Advocates should press for careful scrutiny of when and how drug testing is used within AOT to ensure it does not undermine trust or therapeutic relationships.

Robust Grievance / Complaint Processes
Accessible and well-publicized complaint mechanisms allow individuals under AOT to raise concerns about treatment conditions, coercion, or rights violations. Such processes must be safe, timely, and include meaningful resolution pathways. A strong grievance system promotes accountability and helps identify systemic issues that require policy or practice changes.

Robust Data Collection
Systematic collection of data on AOT implementation, client outcomes, rights violations, and service user experiences is essential for informed oversight and continuous improvement. Without comprehensive data, it is difficult to assess whether AOT is achieving its intended goals or causing unintended harm. High-quality data is foundational to evidence-based reform.

Public / External Access to Data Collected
Making AOT data available to the public, researchers, and oversight bodies supports transparency and allows for independent analysis of trends, effectiveness, and equity. Public access empowers communities to hold systems accountable and ensures that decisions about AOT are informed by facts, not assumptions or incomplete information.

Third Party Evaluation
Independent evaluation by external experts offers an unbiased assessment of AOT programs, their outcomes, and adherence to ethical and legal standards. Third-party evaluations can identify both strengths and areas for improvement, providing credible evidence to guide policy and practice changes. They are a critical tool for building trust and accountability.