Promoting Healthy Organizational Partnerships and Collaboration Between Consumer-run and Community Mental Health Agencies

Abstract

Community mental health agencies (CMHAs) and consumer-run agencies (CRAs) both provide critically important services to persons with severe psychiatric disabilities. Emerging research has begun to support the effectiveness of the CRA approach, a newer service delivery mechanism. However, collaboration between the two service systems, when it occurs, is often problematic. This article briefly identifies the core features of CRAs, discusses their potential for collaboration with CMHAs, and suggests ways to promote healthy organizational partnerships between the two based upon the model proposed by Gidron and Hasenfeld [(1994) Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 5(2), 159-172]. Salient collaboration theories are reviewed and barriers to collaboration are discussed. Finally, implications for mental health practice and future research directions are identified.

Les organismes communautaires en santé mentale au Québec : rôle et dynamique partenariale

“…Globalement, ces résultats soutiennent que le partenariat entre les réseaux communautaires, institutionnels et intersectoriels est bien ancré dans les moeurs (Kessler et al, 1997 ;Hodges et al, 2006). Cependant, ce partenariat demeure très majoritairement de type informel.…”

“…L'étude pionnière effectuée par Emerick (1990) concluait que les organismes conservateurs et modérés entretenaient davantage de relations avec le réseau institutionnel que les organismes qualifiés de radicaux. Les liens de collaboration entre OCSM et réseau institutionnel sont toutefois rarement formalisés (Hodges et Hardiman, 2006). Enfin, les études canadiennes et québé-coises 5 sur l'expérience partenariale en santé mentale ont confirmé l'existence de plusieurs modèles de partenariat, allant du modèle dominé par les établissements publics à celui construit sur de véritables rapports égalitaires entre partenaires, et l'absence de consensus des OC quant à la nature des liens partenariaux à adopter avec le réseau institutionnel.…”

Participatory Spaces of Mental Health Service User Organizations in the Post-deinstitutional Era: Mapping Roles and Challenges

“…Influenced as they are by traditional organizational forms, MHSUOs are increasingly dependent on receiving government funding, employing staff and becoming more like structured nonprofits (Brown et al 2007a;Hodges and Hardiman 2006;Ostrow and Hayes 2015;Salem et al 2008Salem et al , 2010. Many organizations grapple with issues related to organizational structure in the current situation.…”

“…They may thus experience pressures from funders to professionalize and formalize, as well as opposing internal pressures to remain true to the core values of the service user movement (Boyce et al 2010;Gillard et al 2016;Meyer 2010). Hodges and Hardiman (2006) describe how intersectoral cooperation in invited and claimed spaces potentially provides MHSUOs with a stronger voice, but also how it means that these organizations risk becoming increasingly similar to their public/private counterparts. Karlsson and Markström (2012) discuss this trend as a Faustian pact whereby organizations gain influence and resources by receiving public grants and contracts in return for delivering services.…”

“…Several studies focus on the ability of MHSUOs to accept invitations and claim new territory without sacrificing their unique organizational characteristics (e.g., Brown et al 2007a;Hodges and Hardiman 2006). Brown et al (2007a) explore goal tracking as a method of providing accountability to funders while maintaining service user control.…”