“Recovering” Consumers and a Broken Mental Health
System in the
Ongoing Challenges for Consumers / Survivors and the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health
Part I (of a two-part series):
Legitimization of the Consumer Movement and Obstacles to It
Athena McLean, Ph.D.
Department of Sociology, Anthropology, and Social Work
home office: 517-333-3703
McLean, A. (2003). Recovering Consumers and a Broken Mental Health System in the
Ongoing Challenges for Consumers/ Survivors and the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health.
Part I: Legitimization of the Consumer Movement and Obstacles to It.
International Journal of Psychosocial Rehabilitation. 8, 47-57
Acknowledgments. Part of the research was conducted under NIMH Contract #92MF03814201D. I wish to thank the many consumers, mental health officers and evaluators who participated in this study.
1. The centers targeted for cuts include the National Empowerment Center (NEC) in Lawrence, MA; the National Mental Health Consumers’ Self-Help Clearinghouse, Philadelphia; the Consumer Organization and Networking technical Assistance Center (CONTAC) in Charleston, W VA; The National Consumer Supporter Technical Assistance Center at NAMI, Arlington, VA; and the National Consumer Support Technical Assistance Center of the National Mental Health Association (NMHA) in Alexandria, VA.
Since its anti-psychiatry
beginnings, the consumer/survivor movement has succeeded in promoting its
self-help recovery perspectives and gaining legal rights for patients. On
The next article (Part II of the series) will review the losses and gains to consumer initiatives resulting from a restructuring of behavioral health services in the
In July 2003, forty years after the federal government of the United States mandated release of thousands of institutionalized patients into the community, the President’s New Freedom Commission on Mental Health (hereafter, Commission) declared the mental health system to be in shambles. The Commission recommended a complete revamping of the national mental health system to create access and integration of services oriented to recovery and consumer and family preferences (1). This is a major coup for the psychiatric consumer and ex-patient movement where the recovery concept was born. During the past three decades consumers and ex-patients (now called consumers/ survivors) “recovering” from the debilitating effects of their illness, institutionalization, and lost self esteem have promoted the value of peer support, (2, 3) and consumer run services built on it. The consumer/survivor movement has gained momentum in recent years, broadening its coalitions and finding vigorous support for its holistic vision of recovery, as evidenced both in the Surgeon General’s 1999 report (4) and the newly released report of the Freedom Commission on Mental Health (1).
Since its anti-psychiatric beginnings, the consumer/ survivor movement has made significant gains both in promoting its recovery vision and in acquiring legal rights against long and unjustified institutionalization. However at the very point when consumer/survivor philosophies based on recovery are gaining public recognition and inspiring the reconfiguration of mental health services nationwide, countervailing forces began threatening to erode their gains. These forces -- an ideologically extreme wing of psychiatrists and family advocates -- have emerged at various times to oppose those who have questioned rigid biomedical perspectives and to promote easier commitment laws and coercive treatments. Given their strong backing by the pharmaceutical industry and direct access to the Bush Administration, they are powerful players against the progressive changes supported by the Freedom Commission. At no other time have contradictory ideologies and agendas been more active in trying to shape the production of mental health services and the treatment of its users.
This is the first of a two-article series that examines how multiple counteracting forces have situated the psychiatric consumer movement today, either propelling it or trying to reverse its achievements in shaping the production of mental health services. The articles pull from a number of different elements in the history of this movement, examining relationships its leaders developed with the mental health community, efforts and effects of oppositional forces at different times in its history, the impact of managed care, and the implications of the Commission report. This first article will briefly discuss the development of the consumer movement and the notions of recovery and community support. It will then trace the development of allegiances between consumers/survivors and professionals who learned of their perspectives, programs, and notions about recovery, promoted the production of innovative mental health plans, and enabled the eventual construction of the Commission’s recommendations. l then examine two phases in the development of 13 consumer run demonstration projects and offer evidence of political interference from some of the same oppositional forces that are at play again today.
BACKGROUND TO CONSUMER/ SURVIVOR MOVEMENT AND THE COMMUNITY SUPPORT PROGRAM (CSP)
and Consumer Empowerment
The consumer/ survivor movement began in the late 1960s as a human rights movement (5 - 7) by anti-psychiatric ex-patients who objected to institutionalization and treatments that deprived them of hope, independence and control over their lives (1). As they began to communicate with each other, many came to question biomedical assessments of the biological irreversible chronic nature of their disorder and need for lifelong reliance on psychotropic medication; others implicated iatrogenic effects of expert treatment and assessments (1). They lobbied against coercive treatment and institutionalization, respect from providers, and self-determination over treatment goals and outcomes. Today, as “survivors,” they continue to reject a biomedical explanation of mental illness, forced treatment and involuntary commitments, and lobby for increased material and social supports as a deterrent to mental illness. By the 1980s survivors were joined by “consumers,” who accepted the medical model of mental illness but advocated for community support. Both groups regard “consumer empowerment”-- based on self-determination and control -- as a corrective (9) to the indignity of forced treatment and involuntary commitment (8) and value mutual support for promoting personal recovery (10, 11). beyond measurable reductions in symptoms. Together they advocate consumer run services as self help alternatives or supplements to traditional mental health services.
Judi Chamberlain, a pioneer of the anti-psychiatry movement had referred to elements of consumer empowerment and recovery in her classic story about the Consumer Movement (1). Recovery referred to proactively taking charge of one’s life and illness, in moving beyond chronicity. It related to changes in the self through empowering efforts to become self-reliant and satisfied in personal relationships and productive activities (12, 13, 14). Chamberlain has worked with researchers (16) whose technologies and workshops for professionals (17) have extended legitimacy to recovery as a guide for a successful rehabilitative model (18).
There are multiple models of recovery, however. Recovery in structured rehabilitation models (16) compares to looser notions of a process needing continual nurturing (19); both offer a learning perspective to cope with an ever present disease. These processual views contrast with recovery as an endpoint of completely terminated symptoms (18), a view backed by research showing complete remission of symptoms in deinstitutionalized patients (20, 21). However, it raises the ire of critics such as Torrey (18, 22) who consider it “dangerous” for raising false hopes.
Initiating the Community Support
The Community Support Program (CSP) was initiated in 1977 as an antidote to the deinstitutionalization of patents into the community without adequate support for them. It aimed to provide national leadership to integrate services at the state level and to help clarify lines of responsibility and funding at various levels of government. The leaders of the CSP sought a comprehensive model of community support based on a rehabilitative approach sensitive to client needs rather than to a strictly medical model of care (23) -- controversial for its time. The consonance of community support with the goal of consumer empowerment caught the a
I. RELATIONSHIPS OF CONSUMERS/ SURVIVORS WITH GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS AND MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONALS
From its earliest days, the Community Support Program (CSP) enlisted consumer input, initially from families, but later from consumers and ex-patients as well. Consumers insisted that the interests of families as “consumers” did not necessarily represent their own (26, p. 35), since ex-patients objected to forced treatment and involuntary commitment while many families favored both. These differences in ideology between families and consumer/ survivors sharpened after families organized the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill (NAMI) (27, pp. 970-971), a powerful advocacy organization, in 1979 (6, p. 828).
Neil Brown and Jacqueline Parrish, chief officers of the CSP at the Center for Mental Health Services (CMHS) (2) were drawn to consumer self help and its compatibility with CSP’s rehabilitative philosophy (24, p. 6). In 1988 they began funding consumer run demonstration services projects developed with state mental health program staff. These collaborations allowed consumers to share their ideas about service needs and their empowerment philosophy. It also led to the development of state-level Offices of Consumer Affairs which helped shape mental health policies and initiatives.
CSP also wrote federal laws mandating state mental health plans to include consumer alternatives (28) and to involve consumers in constructing their state’s making mental health policy (6, p. 827). CSP arranged conferences between consumers and directors of mental health associations and other professionals on recovery. These meetings facilitated communication between potentially adversarial groups and allowed clarification, comparison of views, and possible collaboration.
In 2000 the CMHS established a Consumer/ Survivor
The Mental Health Statistics Improvement Program (MHSIP) of SAMHSA
Through contacts at SAMSHA consumer researchers
worked on developing consumer defined outcome measures, treatment goals, and a
mental health research agenda (29; 30, p. 12). A task force convened in
1993 to develop the MHSIP Consumer-Oriented Mental Health Report Card, similar
to one constructed by NAMI. With support from MHSIP, the Survey and
Analysis branch of CMHS, and the National Association of State Mental Health
Program Directors (below) consumer researchers and mental health professionals
organized the Consumer/ Survivor Research and Policy Workgroup in 1992.
The group has aimed for greater control over mental health research by
reviewing grants and defining the content of proposal requests and review
National Association of State
Mental Health Program Directors (NASMHPD)
Through contacts at the CMHS and mutual writing of CSP grant applications, consumer leaders came to know mental health program directors of their states. By the end of 1989, every director or commissioner signed the NASMHPD Position Paper on Consumer Contributions to Mental Health Service Delivery, which affirmed consumers’ unique contributions to program formation and evaluation and in educating mental health professionals in their perspectives (31).
In 1993 NASMHPD established the National Association of Consumer/Survivor Mental Health Administrators to help state officers of Consumer Affairs deal with the competing demands of consumers/ survivors and bureaucracies. NASMHPD has also held annual conferences that have engaged consumer and non-consumer mental health professionals in dialogue. The organization has elicited consumer input and sponsored consumer-oriented research projects concerned with defining service outcomes (32).
Through increasing opportunities to meet with mental health
policy administrators, program directors and other researchers, consumers
entered a position gained earlier by the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill
(NAMI), in guiding the national mental health agend
Support and Collaboration with the Research Community
Since the early 1980s psychiatry has become increasingly biomedicalized as environmental explanations for serious
mental illness have gained disfavor (28). As a result, many ex-patients
felt even more alienated from psychiatric ideologies and limited
psychopharmacological interventions. At the same time, some mental health
research questioned the assumption of unremi
Alliance with the Mental Health
Law Project/ the Bazelon Center
Perhaps the most continuous and philosophically compatible relation between consumers/ survivors and professionals has been with Protection and Advocacy lawyers at the Mental Health Law Project (renamed in 1993 The Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law) in Washington, D. C. This project was founded in 1972 to promote the rights of persons with psychiatric disabilities and to take on individual and class action suits for historic impact. Its lawyers not only promoted the right to receive treatment, but—in keeping with ex-patients’ demands—the right to refuse it (40). In 1980, many of its lawyers with consumer advocates founded the National Association for Rights Protection and Advocacy. It convenes yearly at meetings many consumer/survivor activists consider to be the most vital to a
Relations with Mental Health Associations (MHA)
The national Mental Health Association has also advocated
for the rights of psychiatric patients. In the past, it sought
accountability from providers and access to, rather than protection from,
psychiatric services (42). Some associations have developed productive
relationships with major consumers groups and the
The breadth of relationships that consumer/ survivors have established with various mental health professionals has extended their ideologies and influence in a number of research, service and policy arenas. They have gained both the ear of researchers, agency directors, and clinicians and have received funding to support some of their initiatives. It remains to be seen whether and how much these contacts and influences can help them oppose competing political pressures.
II. EXTERNAL OBSTACLES TO DEVELOPING CONSUMER RUN SERVICES
Late in 1987 the CSP, out of interest in exploring the rehabilitative potential of self help, by and for primary consumers requested state applications for 3-year Mental Health Services Demonstration projects run by and for consumers (43). The projects were intended to “implement and evaluate local services” and to demonstrate their effectiveness, which was very loosely defined. The drafters of the proposal viewed the project as ambitious and “risky” with a cost of $3.5 million (43, p.7) , but hoped it would encourage state and local mental health agencies to keep funding self help programs as an essential component of their community support systems.
This section reports findings from two phases of study based on these projects. Phase One, conducted in 1993, concerns the period of federal CSP funding from 1988-1991 and ways in which external interferences compromised the quality of the projects and their evaluations. Phase two, conducted in 1996, concerns the demonstration projects during the subsequent four years.
Phase One: the 13 CSP
Demonstration Services Research Projects, 1988- 1992
Seven of the thirteen funded projects proposed to develop drop in centers -- consumer-run programs that offered places where consumers could go to socialize, gain information and participate in advocacy or self-help activities. Two intended to start businesses; two, a state consumer office; one, a clubhouse; another, a volunteer food distribution service for the homeless.
In 1992, I conducted a study for CSP examining the ways in which consumers were involved in evaluating their demonstration projects (30). To learn about these processes, I conducted extensive ethnographic (44 - 46) telephone interviews with 56 people. These included 3 federal mental health officers and at least one each consumer, state officer and evaluator at every site; we also discussed the extent, nature and changes in consumer involvement on the projects. I also relied on government and related documents and archival materials.
After the projects began, and increasingly throughout, CSP increased its expectations for the evaluations (30, pp. 29-30) without increasing budgets to accomplish them. This compromised consumers’ involvements in evaluating the projects and the quality of the evaluations themselves. It also limited the staff’s ability to successfully conduct both the project and evaluation, making it difficult to judge the effectiveness of the projects.
The changes were brought on by Congressional pressure on NIMH staff by lobbyists who demanded that NIMH justify its spending by requiring more rigorous evaluations. CSP staff in turn pressured the projects to include strong outcome evaluations, preferably within a standardized protocol. This change in expectations occurred despite the fact that the projects had not been funded as research demonstration grants, which traditionally demand stronger evaluations, but as demonstration services grants, where rigorous evaluations have been less important (47); indeed the very grant guidelines from NIMH considered the evaluations as secondary to demonstrating the ability to develop new services (48).
Difficulties resulting from changed evaluation expectations. The new demands created difficulties in implementing and interpreting the evaluations. Most of the projects had neither designed nor budgeted for a rigorous evaluation and had trouble securing evaluators for the new project on brief notice and limited funding. This compromised the quality of both the programs and the evaluations, and delayed starting the evaluations. It also resulted in losing the formative data that most evaluators considered more valuable and relevant than outcome evaluations at this stage of studying self help (31). Several project directors were forced to use program staff to help evaluators collect data, diverting them from working on the project.
The changed demands created several theoretical and
methodological problems. Using standard evaluations to assess outcomes
seemed premature in projects still trying to determine meaningful
outcomes. It also did not make sense to evaluate the projects as if
they were already established programs. Such standardized approaches make
it impossible to detect particular characteristics that distinguish developing
programs from well established ones. Several evaluators questioned using
standard evaluations to compare widely varying projects. Evaluators felt
that comparing formative process evaluation data among projects would have been
particularly valuable to learn how organizational and managerial difficulties
were resolved and whether and how state program officers were productively
involved after projects were funded. Evaluators also regre
One evaluator observed how using standardized evaluations for nonstandard projects assured failure: “…so long as demonstration program evaluations are conceived as scaled down versions of ‘real’ research efforts and predetermined client or member outcome measures are taken as indicators of success, they cannot be” (49).
The directors of the consumer projects were concerned that the evaluations would seem weak given their late start, inadequate budgeting, and the premature mandated standard evaluation format. They also feared that the weak evaluations that would likely result would make it difficult to secure continued future funding . They were right on both counts. Passages from a report from the Inspector General’s Office (DHHS 1993) corroborated their fear: “...many respondents agree that, notwithstanding NIMH efforts to strengthen it, evaluation has been weak” (50, p.9).
This led to a premature perception of failure which
The Source of Pressure for Rigorous Evaluations. The CSP officials who pressured for more rigorous evaluations were not trained researchers and most likely did not recognize the implications of their demands. It is unlikely that they, as champions of self help, would have tried to sabotage their own efforts. Indeed, years later, they lauded the projects for having demonstrated “increased social supports, decreased use of inpatient care, and improved self confidence and decision making skills” (24, p.6).
The pressure on the projects did not come from within NIMH,
but from powerful actors who were lobbying Congress. CSP staff suggested
that NAMI, with its powerful lobby and strict agenda on funding biomedical
research (31), was agitating for rigor. E. Fuller Torrey,
a psychiatrist whose strict biomedical perspectives NAMI embraced, had also
been lobbying against consumer projects that promoted social and experiential
healing. After the demonstration projects ended, he wrote an angry le
Phase II: The Fate Of The Demonstration Projects After Managed Care
In 1996, 4 years after the termination of the demonstration services projects, I investigated how they had fared since federal funding had ended. Since this was a period of restructuring of behavioral health services under managed care (51, p.4), I also wanted to learn about consumers’ experiences with managed care and their expectations of how it might promote their interests.
Method: Working from my original contact list, I succeed in contacting roughly half of the original consumer leaders and state officers, and added new persons who had joined the projects or state offices. I interviewed thirty-three people: two CSP officers; six previous and three new state mental health officers; seven consumers involved with the original projects plus twelve additional consumers; one evaluator; and two non-consumer board members. Again I conducted open-ended phone interviews, this time exploring funding issues, continuity and changes in the projects, the natural course of earlier difficulties, and experiences and expectations about managed care.
Findings: As it turned out, projects could have benefited from process evaluations. Projects that had experienced organizational and managerial difficulties continued to struggle in Phase 2 and were more vulnerable to demise. Five projects lost funding and two more were on the brink of losing it. Three that lost funding reemerged with different missions, but they were still run by consumers; the other two had come under non-consumer control. Because of NIMH’s interference, most of the projects lacked the formative data needed to help them move beyond their organizational and managerial difficulties, evaluate the way in which state mental health authorities should be involved, and determine their future goals or funding plans.
Funding Difficulties. Over half (7 out of 13) of the original projects could not secure funding to carry out their missions. Of the remaining six, one other came under non-consumer control. The other five have all struggled to remain economically viable. Many consumer program directors felt they were expected to work longer and harder than those in the traditional service sectors without equivalent pay or benefits. Many projects depended on volunteers to keep going, and part time staff were paid low wages so they could retain government disability benefits. Long hours and low pay have forced even some of the most dedicated veterans to leave consumer positions. Others have transferred to jobs in the traditional mental health sector so they could receive health care benefits. Economic threats to consumer projects have varied with political administration and climate, substantiating early concerns of activists (6) and raising questions about the further impact of managed care.
Organizational and Managerial Difficulties. As novel entities, the original demonstration projects were run by consumer staff with varying levels of managerial experience, exposure to the ideology of the consumer movement, and experiences with the mental health system. These shaped their particular understandings of the meaning of consumer empowerment and control. Consumer directors with more hierarchical management styles (53, 54, 2) often pleased the local mental health officer, but annoyed consumers with strong democratic governance values (27). The interpretation of consumer empowerment and control by others, such as board members and mental health officers, also led to philosophical and organizational conflicts. In the best cases, these were worked out by the time of Phase II; in the worst cases, they compounded fiscal difficulties and impeded project success. Boards who over-managed created ongoing conflict with the staff. Other boards neglected legitimate complaints from users and tolerated managerial abuses. Both proved fatal to two projects. The insights offered by formative evaluation data might have deterred this outcome.
Involvement of State Mental Health Officers. The application for the original demonstration grants clearly specified that “responsibility, control and decision-making” be carried out by consumers (55, p. 6), but that states must provide staff to implement proposed activities (55, p. 15). How this was to be accomplished was left up to the state. Differences in the capabilities and experiences of consumer directors created varying needs for support from the state mental health office, from only filtering funding to the project to offering considerable oversight.
Inexperienced consumers, inadequate state oversight and
mentoring, and the consumer and CSP “hands off” policy were fatal to some
projects. Overburdened state officials found it easier to assume control rather
than spend the time to mentor project staff. A "hands
off" approach worked well with competent directors, but failed with novice
staff who mismanaged finances, abused their power (56, 57) or didn’t
request needed help (58, p. 33). One state mental health official admi
Despite these difficulties, by the year of this study, over 35 states directly funded at least one consumer project (52, p. 160). Perceptions of unique gains from consumer programs, as noted by one state officer, outweighed obstacles, stimulated in part by external political interference. Nevertheless, the political interference from outside opponents has continued.
The next article (Part II) in this two article series will
examine the impact on consumer gains in the
President’s New Freedom Commission on Mental Health. Achieving
Transforming Mental Health Care in
J. On Our Own: Patient Controlled Alternatives to the Mental Health
S., Howie the Harp,
and Budd, S. (eds.). Reaching Across: Mental Health
Helping Each Other. CA Network of Mental Health Clients,
4. Department of Health and
Human Services. (1999). Mental Health: A Report of the
Surgeon General. Retrieved
5. Kauffman, C. An introduction to the mental health consumer movement.
In A Handbook
for the Study of Mental Health: Social Contexts, Theories and Systems, edited by A. Horwitz
et al., pp. 493-507.
Consumerism for Psychiatric Consumers and the Ex-Patient Movement. Int. J. Health Serv.
30(4): 821-847, 2000.
N. Critics and dissenters: Reflections on “anti-psychiatry” in the
Hist. Behav. Sci. 23:3- 25, 1989.
8. Rogers, J. “People
Working Together for Social Justice and Human Rights in Mental
Health,” Statement to the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health, Washington, D.C.,
June 18, 2002, MadNation, Retrieved July 2,
2003 from h
J., Rogers, J. and Sneed, C. Consumers, families, and
systems. Psychosoc. Rehabilitation. J. 12(3): 93, 1989.
10. Fisher, D. Thoughts on recovery. Resources: workforce Issues Mental
4(1): 7, 1992.
P. Recovery: the experience of rehabilitation. Psychosoc. Rehabilitation. J.
12. Moxley, D. Case Management by Design. Nelson-Hall, Chicago, 1997.
13. Lovejoy, M. Expectations and the recovery process. Schizophrenia Bull. 8:605, 1992.
14. Long, A. E. Reflections
on recovery. In Recovery: The New Force In Mental
16. Ohio Department of Mental Health,
15. Hopper, K. Regulation
from without: the shadow side of coercion. In Coercion and
Aggressive Community Treatment: A New Frontier in Mental Health Law, edited by
Dennis, D. and Monahan, J., eds. Plenum Press, New York, 1996.
16. Anthony, W. A. Recovery from mental illness: The guiding
vision of the mental health
service system in the 1990s. Psychosoc. Rehabilitation J. 16 (4): 11-23, 1993.
L., Koehler, M. and Hutchinson, D. The Recovery Workbook.
18. Barry, E. Group stirs
debate over schizophreni
M. Consumer movement impacts system. Newsweek Health and
20. Harding, C., Brooks, G.,
Ashikaga, T. Strauss, J. and Breier, A. Vermont
study of persons with severe mental illness: II. Long term outcome of subjects who
retrospectively met DSM-III criteria for schizophreni
21. Harding, C. M., Zubin, J. and Strauss, J. Chronicity
in schizophrenia: Fact, partial fact,
or artifact? Hosp. Community Psychiatry 38(5): 477-486, 1987.
22. Statement by Treatment
Advocacy Cener President E. Fuller Torrey: Commission on
Mental Health Ignores People in Crisis. U. S. Newswire,
23. Turner, J. and TenHoor, W. The NIMH Community Support Program: Pilot
approach to a
needed social reform. Schizophr. Bul. 4:319-349, 1978.
24. Brown, N. and Parrish, J. CSP Champions of Self Help. The JOURNAL of
B. Toward Community Support Systems for the Mentally
disabled: the NIMH
Community Support Program, pp. 10-11.
J. Comment: Consumer perspectives on community support systems. In A
Network for Caring: The Community Support Program of the National Institute of
Mental Health. Proceedings of Four National Conference 1978-1979, pp. 33-35.
28. Parrish, J. The
consumer movement: a personal perspective. Commun. Support Network
News 52(2):1 and 3, 1988.
29. Campbell, J., Ralph, R.
and Glover, R. From lab rat to researcher: the history, models
and policy implications of consumer/survivor involvement in mental health research.
Proceedings: NASMHPD Research Institute Fourth Annual Conference.
Report and Concept Paper No. 92MF03814201D. Prepared for the community Support
Program, Center for Mental Health Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health
31. NASMHPD Position Paper
on Consumer Contributions to Mental Heath Service delivery
Perspective of Consumers/Survivors: A Report for the State Mental Health Agency
Profiling System. NASMHPD Technical. Report, 1993.
R. From many into one: addressing the crisis of quality in managed
behavioral care at the millennium. Jounral of Behavioral Health Services and Research
25(2): 233-237, 1998.
34. Mosher, L. Soteria and other alternatives to acute psychiatric
hospitalization: A personal
and professional review. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disorders 187(3): 142-149, 1999.
P. Talking Back to Ritalin. Common Courage Press, Monroe.
P. and. Cohen, Ed. D, Your Drug May Be Your
Problem. Perseus Books,
37. Strauss, J. The person
with schizophrenia as a person: II. Approaches to the
and complex. British Journal of Psychiatry 164 (Suppl. 23): 107-111, 1994.
38. Davidson, L. and
Strauss, J. Sense of self in recovery from severe mental illness. British
Journal of Medical Psychology 65:131-145, 1992.
J. , Seidman, E. , Toro, P.
McFadden, L. , Reischl, T., Roberts, L.,
Stein, C. and Zimmerman, M. Collaborative research with a mutual help organization.
Social Policy 15(3):12, 1985.
L. Mental health law and public policy. Hosp. Comm. Psych. 31: 614-616, 1980.
41. Rae Unzicker, personal communication.
42. Brown, P. A
43. Request for Application
for Mental Health Services Demonstration Projects, Application
# MH-87-24, DHHS, PHS, ADAMHA, NIMH, 1987.
44. Atkinson, P. The
Ethnographic Imagination: Textual Construction of Reality.
45. Hughes, C, “What’s
in a Word -- Process? Product? Promise?”
Research 2, 439-450, 1992.
46. Van Maanen,
J. Tales of the Field: On Writing Ethnography.
Press, Chicago, 1988.
47. Williams, W. The organization of the volume and some key definitions.
Social Programs., pp. 5-8, Seminar Press,
48. Developing an NIMH
Community Support Research Demonstration Project for Persons
with Severe and Persistent Mental Illness, National Institute of Mental Health,
49. Stuart, L. The Mind
Empowered, Incorporated: “First of All, It’s About Personal Lies.”
Evaluation prepared for the Office of Mental Health Services,
services demonstration grant. November, 1991.
50. Revitalizing the
Community Support Program. Office of the Inspector
Department of Health and Human Services. Doc. # OEI-05-92-00120, June 1993.
51. Stroup, S. and Dorwart, R. Overview of Public Sector Managed Health
Managed Mental Health Care in the Public Sector, edited by K. Minkoff; and D.
Pollack, pp. 1-13, Harwood Press,
52. Mowbray, C., Grazier, K. and Holter, M. Managed behavioral health care in the public
sector: will it become the third shame of the states? Psych. Serv. 53(2):157-170, 2002..
53. Zinman, S. Self-help: the wave of the future. Hosp. Commun. Psychiat. 37:213, 1986.
S. Issues of power. Reaching Across: Mental Health Clients
Other. Edited by
Network of Mental Health Clients,
55. Mental Health Services
Demonstration Grants (Community Support Program for Adults)
Request for Applications MH-87-24, Department of Health and Human Services, Public
Health Service, Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration, National
Institute of Mental Health, October 1987.
56. McLean, A. Empowerment
and the psychiatric consumer/ex-patient movement in the
R. Towards Empowerment: A Model for a Statewide
Program. An Evaluation under contract with the Wisconsin Office of Mental Health for
NIMH contract #MH44531-03,
58. Morgan, A, and Imperiale, V. “Learning from experience: Avoiding the
pitfalls in self
help,” The JOURNAL of the
Copyright © 2003 Hampstead Psychological
Ltd - A Subsidiary of Southern Development Group, SA.
All Rights Reserved. A Private Non-Profit Agency for the good of all, published in the UK & Honduras.