A Fidelity Rating Instrument for Consumer-Run Drop-in Centers (FRI-CRDI)

Abstract

Objective: Given the present emphasis on accountability and maintaining quality, the objective of this study was to develop, apply, and assess the reliability of a fidelity rating instrument for consumer-operated services-a promising model, but one for which fidelity criteria are not yet established. Method: Based on observations, documents, and director interviews from 31 consumer-run drop-in centers, we developed a scale measuring fidelity to pre-established criteria and rated each center on scale items. A second study examined the interrater reliability of the measure. Results: Scale scores on the 31 centers showed substantial heterogeneity on the majority of the criteria. The fidelity rating scale demonstrated satisfactory interrater reliability on most items. Conclusions: The fidelity rating instrument is ready to be used by social work researchers evaluating consumer-operated services. Furthermore, social work researchers can use similar methods with other innovative services that should be evaluated but currently lack standards and fidelity criteria.

Characteristics of Users of Consumer-Run Drop-In Centers Versus Clubhouses

“…Data were originally collected to develop fidelity criteria and measures for CRDIs; for comparative purposes, parallel data were collected from clubhouses serving the same geographic areas (see Mowbray et al. 14 for additional information). Data collection took place at 31 CRDI centers and 31 clubhouses located in diverse geographical areas of the state of Michigan.…”

Partners in Recovery: Social Support and Accountability in a Consumer-Run Mental Health Center

“…Such programs have been defined as service organizations in which the paid staff and most of the governing board are themselves users of mental health services (1). Studies have shown that consumer-run mental health services promote personal and organizational empowerment (2), increase hope (3), enhance independence and competence (4), counteract typical feelings of powerlessness (5), cocreate narratives that support recovery (6,7), and promote social support (4,8,9).…”

The complex terrain of peer support in mental health: What does it all mean?

“…However, measurements of peer organizations' fulfilment of such "critical ingredients" have revealed a substantial lack of consistency. Mowbray et al (2005; p. 279) argue that peer organizations' heterogeneity is reflective of "the barriers they often face in start-up, such as lack of funding and support from traditional mental health providers". Such challenges increase the risk of "programme drift" whereby peer organizations independence and fidelity to intended values and principles are compromised or altered (Beales & Wilson, 2015;Mowbray et al, 2005).…”

“…In practical terms, this means that a participatory, nonhierarchical and shared leadership structure is evident, which SAMHSA (; p.10) argues enables a “permeability of power within the organization among management, staff, and members”. Peers therefore perform different roles within the organization, including serving as paid or volunteer staff and as board members and officers (Johnsen, Teague, & McDonel‐Herr, ; Mowbray, Holter, Stark, Pfeffer, & Bybee, ). Furthermore, the programmes and initiatives delivered in these organizations are led by the members and driven by members’ needs and preferences.…”