Search results

The purpose of this paper is to gain understanding about the effectiveness of a forensic peer support program’s impact on reducing criminal recidivism. People with histories of mental illness returning to the community following incarceration face tremendous challenges in jails and prisons and in successful reentry to community. Transitioning from jails and prisons is fraught with additional challenges such as reconnecting or connecting with mental health and substance abuse treatment, finding adequate housing, finding employment, reuniting with family and friends, etc. Unfortunately, recidivism remains high, principally because of these challenges. Many state and local authorities have supported the development of the forensic peer specialist.

Kaplan–Meier survival analyses were conducted to examine time to re-incarceration.

The population served was determined to be a particularly high risk of re-incarceration population, when released from prison. All had a mental illness diagnosis, with 80 percent diagnosed with at least one serious mental illness, and more than 50 percent had three or more anterior incarcerations. Utilizing Kaplan–Meyer survival analysis, the chance of re-incarceration for participants after one year was of 21.7 percent. Surprisingly, in the first year after release from prison, participants did much better than those in the general US prison population when in terms of re-incarceration rates (21.7 percent vs 43.4 percent).

While preliminary findings of this approach, this study reaffirms the idea that forensic peer support programs are beneficial in reducing recidivism rates for people diagnosed with a mental illness coming out of prison, offering individuals supports to maintain their lives in the community.

As peer support services have become increasingly used in mental health settings as a recovery-oriented practice, so has the body of published research on this approach to care. The purpose of this paper is to provide an update on the current evidence base for peer support for adults with mental illness in two domains: mental health and recovery, and physical health and wellness.

To provide a robust, non-redundant, and up-to-date review, first the authors searched for meta-analyses and systematic reviews. Second, the authors found individual studies not included in any of the reviews.

Peer services are generally equally effective to services provided by non-peer paraprofessionals on traditional clinical outcomes. Although some studies found peer services to be effective at reducing hospitalization rates and symptom severity, as a whole, the current evidence base is confounded by heterogeneity in programmatic characteristics and methodological shortcomings. On the other hand, the evidence is stronger for peer support services having more of a positive impact on levels of hope, empowerment, and quality of life.

In addition to the need for further high-quality research on peer support in mental and physical health domains, the authors also question whether measures of hope, empowerment, and integration into the community are more relevant to recovery than traditional clinical outcomes.

This paper provides an original, robust, and up-to-date review of the evidence for peer services.

The United Nation’s treaty from the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) speaks to the assurance of rights and access to justice. To assure the rights addressed in the treaty, disability scholars have argued for a collaborative approach between police officers, mental health, Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, professionals, and disability rights organisations. Internationally, we have witnessed that rights are being trampled at the intersection of race/ethnicity, gender identity, disability, and sexual orientation. Interactions with the police and the various systems are sometimes experienced as sources of trauma, racism, disrespect, pain, and abuse by individuals living with disabilities. Allyship and organising with the community, particularly with BIPOC and other ‘minoritised’ communities, is essential for policy and other systemic change. Community conversations were done to learn how Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) and allies experience and address policing and disability and act at these intersections. The advocacy and activism of Surviving Race: The Intersection of Injustice, Disability, and Human Rights served as the impetus for this study. Surviving Race was created to unite psychiatric survivors, BIPOC impacted by the mental health and disability systems, White allies, and members of the LGBQTIA+ community to stand in solidarity with activists who were demanding systemic change after the deaths of far too many. This chapter explores intersectional and cross-disability allyship, allyship to BIPOC disability, and psychiatric survivor communities. It examines how people with disabilities and allies can more effectively work at the intersection of race, rights, equity, and justice.

People with lived experience of mental health problems (MHPs) are often marginalised and have difficulty achieving community inclusion. Citizenship, a relatively novel concept in mental health, provides a means of understanding what is necessary for marginalised individuals and groups to gain a sense of belonging within their communities. By exploring the “what, why, how and who” of citizenship, the purpose of this paper is to provide a rationale for the inclusion of citizenship as part of a person-centred and holistic mental health strategy.

A community-based participatory research (CBPR) approach, with peer researchers, was adopted to develop a model of citizenship within a Scottish context. The aim of the model is to link the concept of citizenship with specific strategies that systems, agencies and individuals can use within mental health policy and practice to promote greater inclusion and participation. Concept mapping was used as part of a mixed-methods participatory methodology and data were then analysed using multivariate statistical methods of multidimensional scaling and hierarchical cluster analysis.

It is argued that using a CBPR approach, utilising concept mapping, encourages the development of a model of citizenship that is entirely grounded in the perspectives and lived experiences of people with MHPs. The need for adequate resources, preparatory work, training, research management and reflexive practice are key to the success of a CBPR approach with peer researchers.

Working with peer researchers and key stakeholder groups is central to a CBPR approach and the implementation of a model of citizenship within mental health policy and practice. Developing a model of citizenship derived specifically from the experiences of people with lived experience is likely to promote their inclusion. It provides a means of challenging the structural deficits and inequalities that cause distress and prevent people with lived experience of MHPs of recovering their citizenship.