The arguments for and against professionalization are explored to understand the risks and benefits for the Lived Experience workforce.

Background

Lived Experience work developed as part of the consumer movement and the impact of deinstitutionalization. The employment of Lived Experience workers has greatly increased since their inclusion in mainstream mental health services. However, the growth and effectiveness of the workforce has been impacted by a lack of clear and shared understanding of Lived Experience roles.

Including Lived Experience workers is recommended as best practice in mental health service delivery in Australia. This is because of increasing evidence of the benefits of Lived Experience workers in improving outcomes for people receiving services, Lived Experience workers, colleagues and organisations. Despite evidence of the benefits of Lived Experience work, challenges exist. Several strategies support best practice in employing Lived Experience workers, including Lived Experience specific policies, supervision and training.

There is increasing pressure for the Lived Experience Workforce to become professionalized as Lived Experience work is more and more included as part of mainstream mental health services. Lived Experience workers have expressed fears of co-option if Lived Experience workers are heavily influenced by the dominant medical model and lose their unique way of working. There is also a concern about the power imbalance between Lived Experience workers and people accessing services. To reduce these concerns, Lived Experience work must be grounded in the history of the consumer movement and consumer/survivor culture in providing the foundation and values of Lived Experience work within a Human Rights and social justice framework.