Peer Dev Presentation

1. Peer-Developed Vision
of Peer-Run Respites
A Report on the Process and Outcomes of GEP Listening and Dialog
Sessions
October 18, 2013
Sam Ahrens, Grassroots Empowerment Project

2. Process
 GEP held Seven Regional Listening and Dialog Session
across the state.
 They included information about peer-run respites,
personal sharing and visioning, group dialog, and
collective visioning
 The draft was presented in four sessions at
Empowerment Days, with group dialog focused on
gaining consensus
 Facilitators revised the draft based on input from
dialog sessions and presented it to the entire
assembly of peers at Empowerment Days for
approval

3. Process (Contd.)
 We presented the final document as a position paper
to guests at Empowerment Days in roundtable
discussions
 The position paper was shared with United We Stand
Wisconsin (UWSW), the statewide consumer
network, the Milwaukee Mental Health Taskforce,
Wisconsin Council on Mental Health, and other
interested parties

4. A Collective Vision with Strong
Consensus
Peer-Run Respites are a distinct alternative grounded in the
principles and values of peer support:
 Safety, comfort, and support in a small, homelike setting
 View everyone as fundamentally whole and capable of healing
 Crisis is seen as an opportunity for growth
 Support people to identify their needs and find their own
answers
 Offer quiet and privacy along with opportunities for relationship,
activities and community - both within the respite and in the
local community in which the respite is operated
 Peer staff available for peer support at all times and see their
relationships with respite guests as an opportunity for mutual
learning among equals

5. A Vision Centered in Peer Support
Strong Consensus that peer support is central:
 The principles and values of peer support provide the
direction for development, program, and operation
of peer-run respites
 Peer Support is the primary program offering and
activity
 For peers, the almost exclusive focus on peer support
is the defining characteristic of a peer-run respite,
and is also why peer-run respites are seen as such a
valuable and important addition to existing programs
and services

6. Defining Peer
Strong Consensus that peer means:
 People who share life experience of emotional
distress that have been severe enough to have
significantly affected their quality of life
 Their experiences enable them to relate with and
support as equals people needing respite due to
mental health and/or substance use concerns
 They identify as peers publicly and freely share their
history and experiences in the course of carrying out
their role, which is one of mutuality and equality

7. Defining Peer-Run
Strong Consensus that:
 Peer-run means that peers oversee, staff, and
operate the respite at all levels and that a strong
majority of the Board of Directors identify as peers.
 60% is the minimum peer representation required at
all levels to meet the peer-developed definition of
peer-run
 Further, peers considered a hybrid model, which
would allow the respite to be attached to a
traditional provider organization or county while
being operated by peers at the staff and advisory
committee level.
 Peers rejected this “peer-operated” model for Peer-
Run Respites

8. Defining Choice
 Strong Consensus that In the context of peer-run
respites, choice means:
 For respite guests, self-direction is primary
 “Everything is optional” in terms of participation in
activities offered by the respite.
 The only requirements viewed as legitimate involve
safety and privacy needs.

9. Non-Medical Crisis Alternative
Strong Consensus that:
 Peer-run respites have a unique place in the array of
supports for people with mental health and/or
substance use concerns who are in crisis
 They are entirely non-medical, and at the same time
support the access and use of services and supports
desired by individual guests
 Peer-run respites offer a clear and distinct option
from care based on the medical model of treatment

10. Size, Location, and Transportation
Strong Consensus that:
 The size needs to be small enough to ensure a
homelike setting – four to six private bedrooms
 Respites need to be distributed geographically
across the state, in communities that differ from
each other (urban, rural, mid-size/suburban)
 For maximal benefit and minimal life disruption
for guests, two hours travel time from home is
considered the outside limit
 Peer-run respites need to actively address
transportation needs of potential and current
guests

11. Issues for Further Dialog
Strong Consensus that further dialog and statewide peer
input and engagement is needed consider these issues:
 Homelessness
 Substance Use and Sobriety
 Stability and Long-term Future of Funding
 Unmet Need & Access Issues
 Program and Contractual Requirements

12. Participation and Outcomes
 Approximately 125 peers participated in a total of 11 sessions
totaling 34 hours of listening and dialog
 92% of participants from the regional sessions strongly agreed
that they were respected and heard
 96% of participants in the regional sessions strongly agreed that
the questions and activities were relevant
 Participants at Empowerment Days reported:
 a 300% increase in being informed on the issues
 a 110% increase in personal empowerment
 a 100% increase in connection to the statewide consumer network

13. Statewide Engagement of Peers
GEP will continue to support and promote the statewide
engagement of peers in the development of peer-run respites
through a UWSW work group that will:
 Facilitate dialog and input on critical issues identified by peers in
the listening and dialog sessions, as well as other issues that
emerge in the development process
 Inform peers statewide on the work of the Advisory Committee
through the listserv and other forums for peer engagement
 Seek out opportunities to partner positively with other
stakeholders in developing the Wisconsin Model for Peer-Run
Respites