Involuntary outpatient commitment remains a controversial approach to the problem of individuals with serious mental illnesses who, for a variety of reasons, fail to adhere to treatment until they require involuntary hospitalization or commit a crime and get arrested. Two Open Forums and a commentary in this issue seek some resolution to the debate. Jeffrey W. Swanson, Ph.D., and Marvin S. Swartz, M.D., assert that “the search for a definitive and generalizable randomized trial of outpatient commitment may be a quixotic quest.” They review the accumulating evidence for the effectiveness of this approach and argue that it is “time to rethink what should count as persuasive evidence that outpatient commitment works when appropriately targeted and funded” (page 808). Joseph P. Morrissey, Ph.D., and colleagues outline a strategy for “thoughtful, efficient research” meant to answer remaining questions about outpatient commitment and its alternatives, such as conditional hospital release and guardianship (page 812). In a commentary, Howard H. Goldman, M.D., Ph.D., describes “ ‘a third way’ solution to the controversy surrounding outpatient commitment—one that makes better use of existing tools without adding new coercive measures” (page 816).