The document summarizes research on a peer-led mental health advocacy organization called Transforming Peers' Lives (TPL). It finds that the collaborative process used by TPL, while difficult, was key to participants' satisfaction. Members felt they had a voice and were valued in the coordinating group. All coordinators also felt they had learned a lot from the collaborative process. However, the research notes that volunteer-run organizations can face delays and disruptions in accomplishing goals when volunteers' other commitments take priority over the organization's work.

1. Transforming
Peers’ Lives:
An analysis of
cooperative leadership
in an independent
peer-led organization

2. Preliminary
Report
of a
Project-in-Process
caveat:
Researcher is a Founding
Co-coordinator of Organization Studied
Elizabeth R. Stone, MA
Pacifica Graduate Institute

3. The Setting
Santa Rosa, CA
(Sonoma County)
“Peer-Led” Programs are funded with
MHSA (Mental Health Services Act) funds
awarded by the County to
Goodwill of the Redwood Empire
As such, they are beholden to the corporate values
and directives of this non-profit corporation

4. An independent peer-led advocacy group exists -
Corrine Camp Action Network
It had been the recipient of a small grant
from the State’s Stigma & Discrimination
Reduction project to form and operate a
Speakers’ Bureau
This project became
the seed from which
Transforming Peers’ Lives
(TPL) evolves

5. Mission Statement
“Advancing experiences
of hope and transformation
for Sonoma County’s
mental health community
through support,
consultation and services”

6. Its structure is four individuals who serve as co-
coordinators and who oversee the operation of a variety
of projects, which is where any members from the greater
Sonoma County community who self-identify as an
individual who has experienced mental health challenges
can become involved.
This concentric conceptualization allows for three different
and ever-widening communities – the four co-coordinators,
the peer community, and the general community of people
who live or work in Sonoma County.
This structure allows TPL to develop a collaborative way of
working together that co-constructs a psychological sense
of community while solidifying administration.

7. The Fieldwork Project
Originally:
Create a Leadership Transition Plan
Revised:
Analyze and Evaluate the Formation
and Decision-Making Processes for
Participant Satisfaction and
Effectiveness

8. My Methodology =
level of involvement determined by participants
Values & Principles in
“Survivor-Controlled Research”
• Empowerment
• Emancipation
• Participation
• Equality
• Anti-discrimination
(from Sweeney, 2009)

9. 1. Timing
1. Power
2. Compensation
3. Numbers
4. Wellness
5. Investment
6. Organizational Culture
Components of
Meaningful Involvement
For Peers in Research
(from Jones, 2015)

10. 1. Timing
Standard =
Include Peers as early as possible in planning
In Practice =
The two other remaining co-coordinators were
consulted on the planning of the project. One in
particular was integral to every decision made.
She participated in discussions of project design,
co-created the interview questions and also
interviewed the researcher. She will analyze
results with the researcher when that takes place
to decide next steps.

11. 2. Power
Standard =
Peers have the power to make decisions
and shape projects
In Practice =
The peer who elected to participate
most fully was integral in all decisions.
Since she will be the one who moves
the organization forward, her direction
is critical.

12. 3. Compensation
Standard =
Peers are financially compensated in a
manner equal to non-peers
In Practice =
We were all
volunteers/uncompensated

13. 4. Numbers
Standard =
There is a critical mass (or sufficient number) of
Peers involved to make a difference
In Practice =
Everyone involved were Peers

14. 5. Wellness
Standard =
Steps have been taken to ensure that Peer
Wellness is prioritized
In Practice =
Amount of and timing of participation were
dictated by the person involved.
The peer who elected to participate most fully
had several non-mental-health-related situations
that postponed participation at crucial points.

15. 6. Investment
Standard =
The organization has invested in peer capacity building
In Practice =
The peer who elected to participate most fully viewed
her participation in the project as an opportunity to
develop new skills that would be helpful as the
organization transitioned and for her personal future
work.
The researcher was careful to ensure that the
participating peer fully understood each concept,
method and consideration/decision in each step of the
project.

16. 7. Organizational/Project Culture
Standard =
Explicit steps have been taken to ensure
that peer perspectives are valued
In Practice =
The raison d’etre of the project was to
elicit and learn from the personal
perspectives of the peers involved

17. Procedure
1. Researcher (E.) met with co-coordinators (D. &
V.) to propose project, outlining possible goals
and a preliminary process. Gained approval.
2. E. invited D. & V. to fully participate in all
aspects of the project. D. declined, but agreed
to be interviewed. V. decided to participate
fully.
1. E. met with outside consultant (N. Jones) to be
directed to literature and to review protocol
for peer participation in research.

18. Procedure (Cont)
4. E. & V. met frequently to discuss the goals and
to reach agreement of the process.
5. E. & V. met frequently to create the interview
questions.
6. E. interviewed C.
(founding & prior co-coordinator)
7. E. interviewed D. & V. individually
8. V. interviewed E. (researcher)
9. E. is reviewing the audio recordings and will
meet with V. to discuss highlights
10. E. & V. will meet to discuss next steps

20. witnessing how L. was trying to get us together . .
.
I realized I was following a mode of participating
that I had learned from a long time ago and that I
had to either accept it or deny it and I didn’t want
to accept it when I had the opportunity to learn
something new . . .
I needed to slip myself out of it, to be a part of
(TPL) . . .
and I decided to put myself forward more . . .
knowing that I could voice my ideas better – I
hardly ever did it, but I knew I could do it

21. The collaborative process is not easy . . .
you have an idea of what needs to be done . . .
it’s not easy to just stop and listen to everyone
about it . . .
it can be hard to wait
~~~~~~~~~~~~
It makes everybody feel that their voice was
heard . . .
it was difficult; but should be continued

22. Sometimes we don’t agree . . . It takes time to
explain, to talk things out, everyone understanding
each other . . .
That’s what I’ll take with me: to ask questions, to
find out what’s going on.
I learned about collaboration, about building trust.
Never had I been in a process where so much time
was spent on everyone being heard . . .
learning to get things done in a way that included
everyone.
~~~~~~~~~~~~

23. We did the peer-run projects we wanted . . .
it didn’t involve County money, or the other non-
profit with its own agenda . . .
it was our own agenda
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Getting people to volunteer for assignments . . .
there was no real boss . . .
we decided all together . . .
it was a great opportunity for everyone to grow

24. Findings
A Collaborative Process
was difficult,
but key
to participants’ satisfaction
They felt they had a “voice”
and were a valued member
of a coordinating group
All co-coordinators also
felt they had learned a lot
from the process

25. Findings
No matter how committed
someone is (or a group
of people are) to
a cause or project,
when they are volunteering
other things/events can easily
(sometimes temporarily)
become a greater priority,
causing delays and disruptions
in accomplishing desired goals

26. Elizabeth R. Stone, MA
2nd Year CLE Student
© 2015