POLICY AND PRACTICE REVIEWS article

Front. Psychiatry

Sec. Public Mental Health

Volume 16 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2025.1461804

This article is part of the Research TopicSpirituality and Religion: Implications for Mental HealthView all 49 articles

COPE: Community Outreach & Professional Engagement – A Framework to Bridge Public Mental Health Services with Religious Organizations

Provisionally accepted
Glen  MilsteinGlen Milstein1*Joseph  CurrierJoseph Currier2Melissa  McKnightMelissa McKnight3Charles  DentCharles Dent4Amy  ManierreAmy Manierre5
  • 1City College of New York (CUNY), New York City, United States
  • 2University of South Alabama, Mobile, Alabama, United States
  • 3Veterans Recover, Mobile, AL, United States
  • 4Charles Dent Enterprises, Mobile, AL, United States
  • 5Union Church, Avon Park, FL, United States

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

The primary purpose of public mental health is to promote wellbeing. The World Health Organization (WHO) and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) have found that it is crucial to engage community to improve wellbeing and to support persons at times of stress. The United States Surgeon General has reported on significant debilitation caused by an epidemic of loneliness, contributed to by the loss of social connections through fewer and less vibrant social infrastructures. WHO, SAMHSA and the Surgeon General recognize that spiritual/faith-based organizations (SFBOs) are prevalent social infrastructures, dispersed geographically, as well as found across diverse economic, ethnic, immigrant, well-served and underserved communities. Because of their prevalence and social connectedness, what role could SFBOs play to improve social cohesion and individual wellbeing, increase community support, reduce dysfunction and sustain recovery? How could mental health service organizations (MHSOs) engage SFBOs in collaborative care? This paper will review evidence that supports the role of religion and spirituality (R/S) to both promote wellbeing, as well as to respond to stressors in ways that can both prevent the onset of mental disorders and support recovery after clinical treatment. We also review negative attributes of R/S that can be the source of trauma and also impede access to mental health care. We provide a framework for Community Outreach & Professional Engagement (COPE) to guide collaborations that originate in MHSOs and reach out to SFBOs to build relationships that can become partnerships. Key principles of COPE are to recognize that community and clinic are separate domains, that clergy have both religious and cultural expertise pertinent to wellbeing and social support, and that clinicians have expertise pertinent to assessment and treatment for dysfunction. We diagram how to bridge these separate domains in order to demonstrate how community-engaged collaborative care is clinically crucial for persons with more severe mental illness or substance abuse to sustain their recovery. We provide case examples of the COPE categories of collaboration, and include recommendations for future research in the context of outcomes for public mental health.

Keywords: Community, Religion, collaboration, Recovery, substance use disorder, mental disorder, wellbeing, social support

Received: 09 Jul 2024; Accepted: 17 Apr 2025.

Copyright: © 2025 Milstein, Currier, McKnight, Dent and Manierre. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

* Correspondence: Glen Milstein, City College of New York (CUNY), New York City, United States

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Research integrity at Frontiers

94% of researchers rate our articles as excellent or good

Learn more about the work of our research integrity team to safeguard the quality of each article we publish.


Find out more