Recovery Model
Adapted from:
• SAMHSA’s Working Definition of Recovery: 10
Guiding Principles of Recovery
Publisher: SAMHSA
Publication ID: PEP12-RECDEF
• New Freedom Commission on Mental Health,
Achieving the Promise: Transforming Mental Health
Care in America. (Final Report)
Publisher: HHS
Publication ID: SMA-03-3832
Presenter
Michael Ross, MSW, LCSW
Email: [Link]@[Link]
Phone: (317) 234-9746
Recovery Works
Forensic Treatment Services Program Director
Division of Mental Health and Addictions
Outline
1. Learning Objectives
2. Recovery Model
3. Ten Fundamental Components of Recovery
4. Four Major Dimensions that Support a Life in Recovery
5. The Way Forward
Learning Objectives
1. Be able to DEFINE
Recovery and Resilience.
2. Know the TEN Fundamental
Components of the
Recovery Model.
3. Know the FOUR major
dimensions that support a
life in recovery.
4. Be able to EXPLAIN the
importance of the Recovery
Model.
(Substance Abuse Mental Health Service Administration, 2016)
Recovery Model
• A non-linear process of change through which
individuals improve their health and wellness, live a
self-directed life, and strive to reach their full
potential.
Recovery-Oriented Systems
of Care
• Recovery-Oriented Systems of Care (ROSCs) are
designed to help individuals recover from behavioral
health problems across their lifespan by allowing
choice, enhancing agency, and improving
collaboration.
Recovery
In the final report of the New Freedom Commission on
Mental Health:
Recovery refers to the process in which people are able
to live, work, learn, and participate fully in their
communities. For some individuals, recovery is the ability
to live a fulfilling and productive life despite a disability.
For others, recovery implies the reduction or complete
remission of symptoms. Science has shown that having
hope plays an integral role in an individual’s recovery.
(New Freedom Commission Report, 2003)
Resilience
In the final report of the New Freedom Commission on Mental
Health:
Resilience means the personal and community qualities that
enable us to rebound from adversity, trauma, tragedy, threats,
or other stresses — and to go on with life with a sense of
mastery, competence, and hope. We now understand from
research that resilience is fostered by a positive childhood and
includes positive individual traits, such as optimism, good
problem-solving skills, and treatments. Closely knit
communities and neighborhoods are also resilient, providing
supports for their members.
(New Freedom Commission Report, 2003)
Ten Fundamental
Components of Recovery
1. Recovery emerges from hope 7. Recovery is supported
2. Recovery is person-driven through relationship and
3. Recovery occurs via many social networks
pathways 8. Recovery is culturally-based
4. Recovery is holistic and influenced
5. Recovery is supported by 9. Recovery is supported by
peers and allies addressing trauma
6. Recovery involves individual, 10. Recovery is based on respect
family, and community
strengths and responsibility
(Substance Abuse Mental Health Service Administration, 2013)
Recovery emerges from hope
• The belief that recovery is real provides the essential
and motivating message of a better future—that
people can and do overcome the internal and external
challenges, barriers, and obstacles that confront
them.
(Substance Abuse Mental Health Service Administration, 2013)
Recovery emerges from hope
(continued)
• Hope is internalized and can be fostered by peers,
families, providers, allies, and others. Hope is the
catalyst of the recovery process.
(Substance Abuse Mental Health Service Administration, 2013)
Recovery is person-driven
• Self-determination and self-direction are the
foundations for recovery as individuals define their
own life goals and design their unique path(s) towards
those goals.
(Substance Abuse Mental Health Service Administration, 2013)
Recovery is person-driven
(continued)
• Individuals optimize their autonomy and independence
to the greatest extent possible by leading, controlling,
and exercising choice over the services and supports
that assist their recovery and resilience.
(Substance Abuse Mental Health Service Administration, 2013)
Recovery occurs via many
pathways
• Individuals are unique with distinct needs, strengths,
preferences, goals, culture, and backgrounds—including
trauma experience—that affect and determine their
pathway(s) to recovery.
(Substance Abuse Mental Health Service Administration, 2013)
Recovery occurs via many
pathways (continued)
• Recovery is nonlinear, characterized by continual growth
and improved functioning that may involve setbacks.
(Substance Abuse Mental Health Service Administration, 2013)
Recovery occurs via many
pathways (continued)
• Recovery pathways are highly personalized. They may
include professional clinical treatment; use of
medications; support from families and in schools; faith-
based approaches; peer support; and other approaches.
(Substance Abuse Mental Health Service Administration, 2013)
Recovery is holistic
• Recovery encompasses an individual’s whole life,
including mind, body, spirit, and community. The
array of services and supports available should be
integrated and coordinated.
(Substance Abuse Mental Health Service Administration, 2013)
Recovery is supported by
peers and allies
• Mutual support and mutual aid groups, including the
sharing of experiential knowledge and skills, as well as
social learning, play an invaluable role in recovery.
(Substance Abuse Mental Health Service Administration, 2013)
Recovery is supported by
peers and allies (continued)
• By fostering collaboration professionals can also play
an important role in the recovery process by providing
clinical treatment and other services that support
individuals in their chosen recovery paths.
(Substance Abuse Mental Health Service Administration, 2013)
Recovery involves individual,
family, & community strengths
and responsibility
• Individuals, families, and communities have strengths
and resources that serve as a foundation for recovery.
In addition, individuals have a personal responsibility
for their own self-care and journeys of recovery.
Individuals should be supported in speaking for
themselves.
(Substance Abuse Mental Health Service Administration, 2013)
Recovery is supported
through relationship & social
networks
• An important factor in the recovery process is the
presence and involvement of people who believe in
the person’s ability to recover; who offer hope,
support, and encouragement; and who also suggest
strategies and resources for change.
(Substance Abuse Mental Health Service Administration, 2013)
Recovery is culturally-based
and influenced
• Culture and cultural background in all of its diverse
representations—including values, traditions, and
beliefs—are keys in determining a person’s journey
and unique pathway to recovery.
(Substance Abuse Mental Health Service Administration, 2013)
Recovery is supported by
addressing trauma
• The experience of trauma (such as physical or sexual
abuse, domestic violence, war, disaster, and others) is
often a precursor to or associated with alcohol and
drug use, mental health problems, and related issues.
(Substance Abuse Mental Health Service Administration, 2013)
Recovery is based on respect
• Community, systems, and societal acceptance and
appreciation for people affected by mental health and
substance use problems—including protecting their
rights and eliminating discrimination—are crucial in
achieving recovery.
(Substance Abuse Mental Health Service Administration, 2013)
Four major dimensions that
support a life in recovery
1. Health
2. Home
3. Purpose
4. Community
(Hamrah, 2016)
(Substance Abuse Mental Health Service Administration, 2013)
The Way Forward
Medical Model Recovery Model
• Professional in charge • Client centered
• Focus on illness and • Focus on wellness and
dysfunction function
• Focus on disability and • Focus on ability and
lack of competence competence
• Directive • Collaborative
• Tends to be reductionistic • Tends to be holistic
• Linear • Non-linear
The Way Forward
It is critical that treatment professionals and communities
develop coalitions to reduce stigma and promote the role
of resilience, resistance, and recovery in prevention,
health promotion, and treatment.
The Way Forward
Recovery-oriented systems support person-centered and
self-directed approaches to care that build on the
strengths and resilience of individuals, families, and
communities to take responsibility for their sustained
health, wellness and recovery.
The Way Forward
• What does an unsuccessful program look like?
• What does a successful program look like?
Questions
Email [Link]@[Link]
REFERENCES
1. The World Health Report: 2001. Mental Health: New Understanding, New Hope.
2. Nullis, Clare (Associated Press Writer) 2001, WHO Urges Greater Recognition of Mental Health
3. Problems. Canoe Health Geneva (AP), 04 October 2001.
4. Garmezy, N. (1991). Resilience in children’s adaptation to negative life events and stressed environments. Pediatrics Annals, 20,
459–460, 463–466.
5. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2001). Mental Health: Culture, Race, and Ethnicity—A Supplement to Mental
Health: A Report of the Surgeon General. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and
Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Mental Health Services.
6. Dumont, J. and P. Ridgway. Mental health recovery: What helps and what hinders. in Southern Regional Conference on Mental
Health Statistics. 2002. New Orleans, LA.
7. Anthony, W.A., Recovery from mental illness: The guiding vision of the mental health service system in the 1990s. Psychosocial
Rehabilitation Journal, 1993. 16: p. 11-23.
8. Carpinello, S.E., et al., The development of the Mental Health Confidence Scale: A measure of selfefficacy in individuals diagnosed
with mental disorders. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal, 2000. 23: p. 236-243.
9. Corrigan, P.W., et al., Recovery as a psychological construct. Community Mental Health Journal, 1999. 35(3): p. 231-240.
10. DeMasi, M.E., et al. Specifying dimensions of recovery. in Proceedings: 6th Annual National Conference on State Mental Health
Agency Services Research and Program Evaluation. 1996. Alexandria, VA:
11. National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors (NASMHPD) Research Institute.
12. Ralph, R.O. and D. Lambert, Needs Assessment Survey of a Sample of AMHI Consent Decree Class Members. 1996, Portland, ME:
Edmund S. Muskie Institute of Public Affairs, University of Southern Maine.
13. Carling, P.J., Return to community: Building support systems for people with psychiatric disabilities. 1995, New York: Guilford
Publications.
14. Wong, Y.I. and P.L. Solomon, Community integration of persons with psychiatric disabilities in supportive independent housing: A
conceptual model and methodological considerations. Mental Health Services Research, 2002. 4: p. 13-28.
15. Braitman, A., et al., Comparison of barriers to employment for unemployed and employed clients in a case management program:
An exploratory study. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal, 1995. 19(1): p. 3-18.
16. Mann, S.B., Talking through medication issues: One family's experience. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 1999. 25: p. 407-409.
REFERENCES
16. Sheehan, S., Is there no place on earth for me? 1982, New York: Vintage Books.
17. Crane-Ross, D., D. Roth, and B.G. Lauber, Consumers' and case managers' perceptions of mental health and community support
service needs. Community Mental Health Journal, 2000. 36: p. 161-178.
18. Hogan, M.F., Spending Too Much on Mental Illness in All the Wrong Places. Psychiatric Services, 2002. 53(10): p. 1251-1252.
19. Drake, R.E., et al., Implementing evidence-based practices in routine mental health service settings. Psychiatric Services, 2001.
52: p. 179-182.
20. Bond, G.R., et al., Measurement of fidelity in psychiatric rehabilitation. Mental Health Services Research, 2000. 2: p. 75-87.
21. Becker, D.R., et al., Fidelity of supported employment programs and employment outcomes. Psychiatric Services, 2001. 52: p. 834-
836.
22. McHugo, G.J., et al., Fidelity to assertive community treatment and client outcomes in the New Hampshire dual disorders study.
Psychiatric Services, 1999. 50(6): p. 818-824.
23. McGrew, J.H., et al., Measuring the fidelity of implementation of a mental health program model. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 1994. 62: p. 670-678.
24. Jerrell, J.M. and M.S. Ridgely, Impact of robustness of program implementation on outcomes of clients in dual diagnosis programs.
Psychiatric Services, 1999. 50: p. 109-112.
25. McDonnell, J., et al., An analysis of the procedural components of supported employment programs associated with employment
outcomes. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. Special Issue: Supported employment, 1989. 22(4): p. 417-428.
26. Lehman, A.F. and D.M. Steinwachs, Patterns of usual care for schizophrenia: Initial results from the Schizophrenia Patient
Outcomes Research Team (PORT) client survey. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 1998. 24: p. 11-20.
27. Drake, R.E., et al., Implementing evidence-based practices in routine mental health service settings. Psychiatric Services, 2001.
52: p. 179-182.
28. Lehman, A.F. and D.M. Steinwachs, Patterns of usual care for schizophrenia: Initial results from the Schizophrenia Patient
Outcomes Research Team (PORT) client survey. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 1998. 24: p. 11-20.
29. Lehman, A.F. and D.M. Steinwachs, Translating research into practice: The Schizophrenia Patient Outcomes Research Team (PORT)
treatment recommendations. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 1998. 24: p. 1-10.
30. Copeland, M.E., Wellness Recovery Action Plan. 1997, Brattleboro, VT: Peach Press. Chichester. p. 91-109.
31. Mueser, K.T., et al., Illness management and recovery for severe mental illness: A review of the research. Psychiatric Services,
2002. 53(10): p. 1272-1284.
