Should State Offices of Mental Health Employ 'Peer' Roles?
A little about you...
Whether or not it does more harm or good for State Offices of Mental Health to employ 'peer' roles is a question we're interested in looking at more deeply. (If you haven't seen it already, you can read our full article on this topic HERE.)
When we refer to State Offices of Mental Health, we mean any State office that is responsible for mental health services, regardless of what it is called. (Office of Mental Health, Department of Mental Heath, Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services, etc.).
For the purpose of this survey, we are primarily referring to and looking for responses from people currently or previously employed in policy-level positions with State Offices of Mental Health that are designated for people with psychiatric histories. This may include roles that are:
Are required (or highly preferred) to be filled by someone with first-hand experience receiving services, being diagnosed, etc; AND
Positioned in a 'consumer' office of affairs (or similar); AND/OR
Otherwise understood to be the representative or voice of 'lived experience' in the office
Other folks who are employed in state-employed 'peer' roles (i.e., offering direct support in state hospitals, etc.) are also welcomed to respond. Feedback from people intersecting with and/or impacted by the design of these jobs and/or the people working in them is also welcomed.
We do intend to compile the results an share them with others, but will not include any identifying information. For example, we won't share a comment someone makes, and identify which state they come from, and so no.
Our intention is for the survey to be entirely anonymous. Please feel free to skip any questions that you are concerned might identify you.