Investigating the Mobility of the Peer Specialist Workforce in the United States: Findings From a National Survey

Objective: The objectives of the current study were to characterize (a) peer specialist interest in enrolling in/returning to higher education and perceived barriers, (b) perceptions of the local availability of higher education/continuing education programming, and (c) perceived barriers to the advancement of the peer workforce. Method: We utilized both close-ended and open-ended items from a large, collaboratively developed national survey of peer specialists. Analytic methods included both descriptive and basic inferential statistics (N = 801) and qualitative coding and analysis (subsample N = 451). Results: High levels of interest in higher education were found, with nearly 80% of participants reporting that they would enroll/return to college were it feasible. Analysis of open-ended responses regarding perceived barriers to career advancement revealed 5 major themes: financing and administrative policies; perceived public discrimination and devaluation of the peer specialist role by coworkers and agency leadership; lack of opportunities and mechanisms for advancement; the simultaneous need for advanced education and the inaccessibility of college or graduate degrees; and individual level barriers, including internalized stigma and derailed work histories due to disability. Conclusions and Implications for Practice: As the peer workforce continues to grow, it is critical that the field grapple with fundamental questions as to how to best support the development and advancement of the peer workforce. Our findings underscore persistent workplace challenges and perceived barriers to advancement, insights which may help the field develop strategies for improving development supports. Impact and Implications The research reported in this article found high levels of peer specialist interest in returning to higher education to advance professional skills, while simultaneously documenting significant perceived barriers to advancement, spanning organization-level challenges, state and federal policy, and higher education infrastructure. Moving forward, we suggest that the mental health field consider policies and practices that would better enable the mobility and advancement of peer providers.