Center to Study Recovery in Social Contexts

The Center to Study Recovery in Social Contexts is an NIMH funded grant to investigate the well being of people with serious mental health issues, especially those who use publicly financed services in New York State. The Center applies a perspective used in economic development, Sen’s Capabilities Framework, to guide research on recovery. We examine real opportunities that people have to do and be what they value within the social contexts of resources, law, custom and policy, taking a Community Based Participatory Research approach that involves members of the mental health community in formulating research questions, designing methods of inquiry, and interpreting findings. Read more here: Continue Reading…

Share

Soteria Alaska

Soteria-Alaska was established to provide an alternative to psychiatric hospitalization under the principles established by the beloved, late Dr. Loren Mosher in his Soteria-House project for people who want to try something other than psychotropic drugs. Read More here: Continue Reading…

Share

2011-2012 Training Program in Dialogic Practice w/ Jaakko Seikkula, Mary Olson, and Faculty

The Mill River Institute for Dialogic Practice Haydenville, MA 01039 • 413.585.1198 TRAINING PROGRAM IN DIALOGIC PRACTICE INTERNATIONAL FACULTY 2011-2012 MARY OLSON, PH.D. JAAKKO SEIKKULA, PH.D. MARKKU SUTELA, M.A. The first of its kind in the US, this yearlong program provides an in-depth introduction to the principles and practices of dialogic therapy, including Finnish Open Dialogue. There will be lectures, videotapes, experiential exercises, and reflecting consultations. LEVEL 1 CERTIFICATION: 100 HOURS (4 Modules) October 27 – 30, 2011 January 19 – 22, 2012 March 29 – April 1, 2012 June 11 – 15, 2012 $4000. $1000 due upon acceptance, balance due on October 1. To apply and register, please send your CV/resume: Mary Olson at Continue Reading…

Share

“Families and First Break: An Evolving Role” – Ron Bassman, Karyn Baker & Connie Packard

For printer friendly document complete with footnotes (not included in this post) click here. ABSTRACT The changing role of the family and how the family unit may help or harm a disturbed and/or disturbing member is examined. The authors use their personal experiences as mental health professionals, user/survivors and family members to inform their critique. A brief history of family involvement – how the family has been perceived and worked with by mental health professionals – is followed by a description of present day practices. The paper concludes with speculation about alternatives in which quality of life for all of the family members may be more possible. INTRODUCTION The role of nuclear families in helping or hindering the recovery process is the canvas upon which we will examine what has been done, what is being done now, and what might be done to support and nurture the untapped potential of this primary resource. Just as the construct “mental illness” invokes considerable debate and has generated numerous hypotheses, the role of families in the aetiology of mental illness and the estimated influence families have in their relatives’ recovery continues to be a controversial issue. Activism and advocacy efforts by families and those who have been diagnosed and treated for major mental illness have adopted antagonistic positions in regard to the causation and the nature of the condition, decisions about treatment, risk/safety, rights and forced treatment. What is consistent and beyond question is how unprepared all members of the family are for the confusion, fear and emotional pain that awaits them when one of them elects to exit or falls off the acceptable beaten path he or she is expected to follow. This paper is a collaborative effort that is informed by the lived expertise of three individuals who draw from their personal experience as psychiatric survivors, family members and from their work as mental Continue Reading…

Share

“Reframing First Breaks and Early Crisis: A Capabilities-Informed Approach” — Kim Hopper

Kim Hopper Center to Study Recovery in Social Contexts October 2009 A note on the project: This paper will attempt to lay out a usable version of the capabilities approach and explore how its conceptual toolkit might aid us in thinking about “first breaks” and early crises. As will quickly be evident, this is very provisional work. Applied work in capabilities that deals with physical and mental states of distinction, limitation and exclusion – difference, “impairment,” and “disability” – is still in its formative stages and has yet to get its linguistic house in order. So, a forewarning: In making the argument, this paper will necessarily raid and pillage a number of literatures for concepts, distinctions and applications that will then be put to provisional use, found wanting or misleading, and revised accordingly or thrown out. Initial or trial adoption of terms should not be mistaken for final endorsement – and, indeed, one of this paper’s major points will be the need to interrogate the conceptual frameworks we routinely take for granted in discussing public mental health, to question our well-worn equipment of everyday thinking To date, some preliminary efforts have been made to use the capabilities approach to rethink recovery and social integration as “outcomes,” to support self-determination, and to make a case for peer participation in research.1 Fueled by pilot funding from the Center to Study Recovery in Social Contexts, additional work is under way to examine decision-making, citizenship, parenting, community participation, complex poverty, and user views of freedom. This joint project with INTAR on “first breaks” opens fresh ground the charge is twofold: re-think and re-ground, framework and fieldwork – theory to direct the inquiry, practice that will need to be interpreted as evidence. Prologue: Transcript excerpt, BBC “Yesteryear” 2030 BBC Interviewer: “So, let me see if I have this right. Continue Reading…

Share

Soteria Network

We are a network of people in the UK promoting the development of drug-free and minimum medication therapeutic environments for people experiencing ‘psychosis’ or extreme states. We are part of an international movement of service users, survivors, activists, carers and professionals fighting for more humane, non-coercive mental health services. People who hear voices, have visions or experience reality in different ways to those around them — and become overwhelmed by their experiences — are often referred to as experiencing ‘psychosis’. We believe that people can and do recover from difficulties which tend to be categorised under the term psychosis. This recovery can be with, without and sometimes despite psychiatric intervention. Conventional psychiatry tends to regard ‘psychosis’ as part of a serious mental illness such as ‘schizophrenia’, ‘bi-polar disorder’ or ‘psychotic depression’. We recognise that ‘psychosis’ can be extremely distressing to the person experiencing it and to those around them. However, we do not necessarily see psychosis as a bio-medical condition that requires set medical interventions. Rather, we see it as an acute personal crisis, marked by a range of extra-ordinary experiences, which may result from a number of factors, including trauma, psychological, neurophysiological, existential, spiritual, social and environmental. Fundamentally though, we believe that there is meaning in the experience. Like many other organisations in Europe and America, we draw inspiration from the practices of Soteria House and the work of Loren Mosher and his colleagues. We continue to look for opportunities to develop and enrich this work, whilst holding to the broader principles of Soteria. For more information on the work and philosophy of the Soteria Network please read our booklet. Though the Soteria Network is actively engaged in promoting progressive approaches to people experiencing extreme states, distress, ‘breakdown’ or Continue Reading…

Share