Facilitating community connections among people with mental illnesses: Perspectives from grassroots community leaders.

We conducted focus groups comprising 20 grassroots community leaders to identify social and structural elements that affect community engagement among people with serious mental illnesses. Community leaders not affiliated with mental health systems have been mostly left out of the discussions about inclusion and engagement, even though they possess unique information about the places where they live and can be essential partners in making community connections. The findings from the focus groups point to elements that both facilitate and inhibit connections, as well as roles community mental health practitioners may take on, to engage with community leaders and people with mental illness to minimize barriers and foster connections in community settings. Additionally, the focus groups elucidated the interplay between the right to be a member of one's community and a community's responsibility to create a welcoming environment. The current study garnered information regarding the broader needs and implications of community connections, as well as some specific suggestions to enhance community engagement among people with serious mental illness. Hesitation and stigma around engaging individuals with mental illnesses were identified as barriers to inclusion. Further study about how community leaders and groups may be involved in facilitating meaningful community connections is recommended.

Learning from those we serve: Piloting a culture competence intervention co-developed by university faculty and persons in recovery.

OBJECTIVE: This article describes the development and piloting of a bilevel intervention codeveloped by persons in recovery from mental illness and addiction and university faculty with expertise in cultural competence to improve the cultural competence of a community mental health center in the northeastern United States. METHOD: Two faculty and 5 persons in recovery met for 6 months to develop the bilevel training intervention. They discussed experiences of culturally responsive care and developed experiential activities and case examples for the 2-day training. Forty-five community mental health service providers attended the 2-day training. Trainees' self-reported awareness, knowledge, and skills in cultural competence were measured pre and post training and analyzed with repeated measure t tests. Next, faculty and persons in recovery provided follow-up training and helped to establish an infrastructure supported to support the agency cultural competence plan. One hundred twenty-five providers completed the Organizational Multicultural Competence Survey and between-subjects t tests measured increases in organizational cultural competence. RESULTS: Significant increases were found in providers' multicultural knowledge, awareness, and skills. Qualitative responses demonstrated the contribution of the experiences of persons in recovery to the training. Ratings of the organizational-level cultural competence intervention showed significant improvements in the agency's cultural competence policies (e.g., implementation of strategies to hire and retain a diverse workforce). CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: These data suggest that bilevel interventions codeveloped by persons in recovery and researchers may be effective in increasing provider and organizational-level cultural competence. Future research should evaluate the effect of these interventions on consumers and health outcomes.