The Collaborative Recovery Model (CRM): A Framework for Embedding Recovery Principles into Practice.

The recovery paradigm has reshaped mental health practice by moving beyond the narrow focus on symptom reduction. While some models, such as the Wellness Recovery Action Plan (WRAP), emerged directly from consumer-led activism, the collaborative recovery model was developed within academic and service settings, blending psychological theory with recovery philosophy. Developed in Australia by Oades and colleagues in the early 2000s, CRM draws heavily on positive psychology, coaching approaches, and recovery-oriented principles. It emphasises goal-setting, strengths, and the importance of collaboration between practitioners and consumers in building a purposeful life (Oades et al., 2005). Designed through partnerships between researchers, practitioners, and consumers, with the aim of embedding recovery into mainstream mental health services. Its structured tools—including the Life Compass and Goal Attainment strategies—provide practitioners and consumers with a framework for working together to identify values, set goals, and take incremental steps toward recovery.

A defining feature of CRM’s development was its collaborative ethos. Consumers, carers, and practitioners were consulted in its design, but the driving force came from academic and service-based researchers. As a result, CRM has sometimes been described as less “grassroots” than WRAP, yet more systemically embedded (Perkins & Slade, 2012). This mixed origin reflects both a strength and a limitation: on one hand, CRM was designed to be compatible with service systems, making it more likely to be adopted widely; on the other, its development risks privileging professional frameworks over consumer expertise.

Context also matters in understanding CRM’s development. The early 2000s were a period in which recovery principles were being increasingly promoted in Australian mental health policy, but services struggled to translate those principles into everyday practice. CRM was created in part as a solution to this gap, offering structured tools that clinicians could use to have recovery-oriented conversations with consumers (Oades et al., 2005). Its origins, therefore, highlight a pragmatic attempt to balance the ideals of recovery—hope, empowerment, autonomy—with the realities of service delivery and clinical accountability.

Key Features and Attributes of the Collaborative Recovery Model

The Collaborative Recovery Model (CRM) is structured around a set of principles and tools designed to embed recovery values into therapeutic relationships. Unlike consumer-developed models such as WRAP, CRM provides clinicians and practitioners with a systematic framework for engaging collaboratively with consumers. Oades and colleagues (2005) describe CRM as both a philosophy of practice and a set of structured tools for guiding recovery-oriented work. At the heart of CRM are the core principles of hope, self-determination, and collaboration. Hope is seen as the engine of recovery, encouraging consumers to imagine a future beyond illness (Oades & Anderson, 2012). Self-determination reflects the belief that consumers should be active agents in their own recovery, making choices about goals and pathways. Collaboration emphasises the partnership between consumer and practitioner, recognising that both bring valuable expertise to the recovery process.

The Life Compass is a values-clarification exercise that helps consumers identify what matters most to them in different life domains, such as relationships, health, work, or spirituality. By mapping personal values, consumers can establish a foundation for meaningful goal-setting.

The Goal Attainment process builds on this by encouraging consumers to set specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound (SMART) goals. Practitioners and consumers then co-develop Action Plans, breaking larger goals into smaller, manageable steps. This structured coaching style reflects CRM’s grounding in positive psychology and solution-focused approaches.

Regular reviews of progress are integral, ensuring that goals remain aligned with values and that setbacks are framed as opportunities for learning rather than failures. This aligns with recovery literature that views recovery as a non-linear process marked by growth, relapse, and resilience (Bonney & Stickley, 2008).

An important attribute of CRM is that it is designed to be embedded within services. Oades and colleagues (2009) developed training packages for practitioners to ensure consistency and fidelity. The model is intended as a framework for transforming the culture of mental health services. This system-level orientation distinguishes it from tools like WRAP, which can be used independently by consumers.

Evidence-Base and Effectiveness of the Collaborative Recovery Model

Since its inception, the Collaborative Recovery Model (CRM) has been the subject of growing empirical evaluation, particularly in Australian mental health services where it was first implemented. Much of this research highlights CRM’s capacity to improve consumer outcomes in areas such as goal attainment, empowerment, and therapeutic alliance, though—as with many recovery models—the evidence also underscores challenges around fidelity and systemic context.

Oades and colleagues (2005), who pioneered the model, conducted early studies showing that CRM’s structured tools, such as the Life Compass and Goal Attainment strategies, supported consumers to clarify values and make progress toward personally meaningful goals. These studies found that consumers valued the collaborative ethos of CRM, reporting stronger therapeutic relationships and a greater sense of agency in their recovery. Later evaluations by Oades and Anderson (2012) reinforced these findings, arguing that CRM creates a “coaching-style” relationship that is particularly effective for fostering motivation and hope.

Evidence also points to CRM’s effectiveness in enhancing goal attainment. In a study of community mental health services, consumers using CRM reported clearer goals and a higher rate of follow-through compared with traditional care planning approaches (Oades et al., 2009). This aligns with broader recovery literature that stresses the importance of goal-setting as a mechanism for empowerment and meaning-making (Slade et al., 2014).

Another area of evidence concerns hope and empowerment. Research has shown that CRM supports consumers in developing a stronger sense of purpose and agency, key predictors of recovery outcomes (Oades et al., 2009). The emphasis on aligning goals with personal values through the Life Compass has been particularly noted as a driver of hope, consistent with Bonney and Stickley’s (2008) argument that hope is central to the recovery journey.

From the perspective of practitioners, CRM has been associated with improvements in the therapeutic alliance. By encouraging collaborative planning and shared responsibility, practitioners reported that CRM helped shift their role from directive experts to collaborative partners (Oades & Anderson, 2012). This rebalancing of roles is significant given critiques that services often struggle to translate recovery principles into practice (Davidson et al., 2009).

Several studies highlight issues of implementation fidelity. For example, while training in CRM is provided to practitioners, research has found variability in how consistently tools are applied, with some services adopting CRM more as a managerial framework than a practice philosophy (Slade et al., 2014). This raises the risk that CRM, like other recovery models, can be co-opted into service metrics and documentation processes rather than remaining consumer-driven.

Cultural limitations also remain under-examined in the evidence base. Most evaluations of CRM have been conducted within Western, English-speaking contexts, with little research into how CRM aligns with Indigenous or culturally and linguistically diverse populations. For instance, studies on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander mental health emphasise the importance of kinship and collective wellbeing (Page et al., 2022), which may not map neatly onto CRM’s goal-setting framework. Similarly, research into LGBTIQ mental health shows that recovery models must explicitly address stigma and identity (Rees et al., 2021), a dimension not strongly present in CRM literature.

Application to a Specific Setting: Youth Mental Health

The Collaborative Recovery Model (CRM) is particularly well-suited to youth mental health settings, such as early intervention services or programs like headspace, where young people often present with emerging mental health concerns alongside complex developmental and social needs. Adolescence and young adulthood are times of rapid identity formation, shifting relationships, and exploration of values—all themes that align closely with CRM’s structured focus on hope, values clarification, and goal-setting.

A key application of CRM in youth services lies in the Life Compass tool, which guides consumers to identify values across different life domains, such as relationships, education, leisure, and health. For young people, many of whom are still shaping their identities, this process can provide a framework for reflecting on what matters most to them and how they want their lives to look. Research suggests that clarifying values in this way can promote agency and reduce the sense of being defined solely by a diagnosis (Oades et al., 2009). It also resonates with Bonney and Stickley’s (2008) emphasis on recovery as a process of reclaiming meaning and identity.

The structured Goal Attainment process is also highly applicable to youth mental health. Many young people report feeling overwhelmed by the scale of their problems or uncertain about how to move forward. CRM’s coaching-style framework encourages breaking large aspirations into smaller, achievable steps, which can foster motivation and confidence. Oades and Anderson (2012) argue that this stepwise approach is particularly effective for young people, who often benefit from clear guidance without losing autonomy. From a service perspective, CRM also supports the development of strong therapeutic alliances with young people, a group that can be mistrustful of mental health services. By positioning the practitioner as a collaborative partner rather than an authority figure, CRM creates a more equal dynamic that respects the young person’s expertise in their own life. This approach reflects Davidson and colleagues’ (2009) assertion that recovery requires shifting power relations between consumers and practitioners.

However, there are also challenges in applying CRM to youth settings. One issue is the risk of over-structuring. Some young people may find the emphasis on SMART goals overly rigid, particularly if they are ambivalent about engaging in services. Research indicates that recovery for young people is often nonlinear, shaped by exploration and trial and error (Slade et al., 2014). In this sense, practitioners must use CRM flexibly, ensuring that the tools are adapted to developmental needs rather than applied prescriptively.

Another challenge is ensuring cultural responsiveness. For Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander youth, recovery involves collective identity, kinship networks, and connection to Country (Page et al., 2022). CRM’s individualised focus on personal goals may not fully capture these relational and cultural dimensions unless adapted with input from Indigenous communities. Similarly, young people who identify as LGBTIQ+ often need recovery plans that explicitly address stigma, discrimination, and identity affirmation (Rees et al., 2021). Without adaptation, CRM risks reinforcing a narrow, individualised view of recovery that overlooks these contextual factors.

Finally, CRM’s reliance on trained practitioners raises practical concerns. While youth mental health services often prioritise recovery-oriented approaches, staff turnover and limited training resources can undermine fidelity to the model. Perkins and Slade (2012) warn that recovery models integrated into services risk being reduced to administrative frameworks unless sustained by organisational culture and leadership. For young people, this could mean CRM being experienced as yet another checklist rather than a meaningful collaboration.

In summary, CRM has strong potential when applied to youth mental health settings. Its focus on hope, values, and collaborative goal-setting resonates with the developmental tasks of adolescence and early adulthood, while its structured tools can support engagement and empowerment. However, its success depends on flexibility, cultural adaptation, and authentic collaboration to avoid the pitfalls of rigidity or co-optation.

Conclusion

The Collaborative Recovery Model (CRM) stands as a structured, evidence-informed approach to embedding recovery principles into mental health services. Developed in Australia by Oades and colleagues (2005), it combines insights from positive psychology with a recovery-oriented philosophy, offering tools such as the Life Compass and Goal Attainment processes to translate values into action. Its emphasis on hope, self-determination, and collaboration aligns with the broader recovery paradigm, while its integration into service systems makes it a pragmatic choice for practitioners seeking to operationalise recovery in everyday practice.

The evidence base for CRM highlights its effectiveness in enhancing goal attainment, empowerment, hope, and therapeutic alliance. In youth mental health and community rehabilitation settings, CRM provides a useful framework for supporting consumers to clarify values, set meaningful goals, and build collaborative relationships with practitioners. These applications demonstrate its potential to bridge the gap between recovery ideals and service realities. Yet, the critical analysis also reveals limitations. CRM’s origins in academia and services raise concerns about professional dominance and the marginalisation of consumer voices. Its structured tools, while useful, risk becoming overly rigid or prescriptive, potentially undermining the non-linear and subjective nature of recovery.

Moreover, questions remain about cultural appropriateness and fidelity, particularly in relation to Indigenous and LGBTIQ populations. Without adaptation and authentic collaboration, CRM may fail to reflect the diversity of recovery experiences. Overall, CRM represents both an opportunity and a challenge. It provides services with a concrete way of embedding recovery into practice, but its effectiveness depends on how it is implemented. To remain true to recovery values, CRM must be delivered flexibly, collaboratively, and with cultural responsiveness, ensuring that consumer voices are not only included but central. This analysis of CRM provides a foundation for reflecting on its personal application, which will be explored in the interactive section for consumers to do themselves in collaboration with stakeholders.

The interactive elements of CRM are:

1.     Life Compass (values)

2.     SMART Goal Setting. Measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound (SMART) goals.

3.     Action Planning

4.     Progress Review

5.     Hope & Reflection

The Life Compass (Values Clarification)

Purpose

The Life Compass is designed to help consumers clarify their values across different life domains (such as relationships, work/education, leisure, health, spirituality, and community). It acts like a map of meaning, guiding both the practitioner and consumer in identifying what really matters so that later goals are authentic, not externally imposed.

1.     Choose a Life Domain

Think about one area of life that matters or needs attention

• Relationships

• Health & Wellbeing

• Work/Education

• Leisure/Hobbies

• Spirituality/Meaning

• Community/Belonging

“The life area I want to focus on is _______.”

2.     Identify Core Values

Encourage reflection with simple, guided blanks:

• “What matters most to me in this area is _______.”

• “When this part of my life is going well, I feel _______.”

• “I would like this area of my life to look like _______.”

3.     Picture the Future

Imagine a hopeful version of life:

• “If things were going really well in _______ (domain), I would be _______.”

• “A picture of my ideal future in this area is _______.”

4.     : Connect Values to Recovery

Bridge values into practical recovery focus:

• “Because I value _______ in the area of _______, one small step I can take is _______.”

• “This step matters because it moves me closer to _______.”

5.     Summarise the Compass Point

Wrap up with a simple takeaway statement:

• “My compass point in the area of _______ is _______.”

SMART Goal Setting: Measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound (SMART) goals.

Step 1: Define the Area of Focus

Start by connecting the goal to a life domain or value.Prompt:“The area of life I want to focus on is _______.”

Step 2. Make the Goal Specific

Help the client phrase a clear, simple goal.Prompt:“My goal is to _______.”

Step 3: Make it Measurable

Ask how they’ll know progress is being made.Prompt:“I will know I am making progress because _______.”

Step 4: Make it Achievable

Check that the goal feels realistic and within reach.Prompt:“One small step I can take toward this goal is _______.”

Step 5: Make it Relevant

Connect the goal back to the person’s values (from the Life Compass).Prompt:“This goal matters to me because _______.”

Step 6: Make it Time-Bound

Anchor the goal to a timeframe.Prompt:“I will aim to achieve this by _______ (date or timeframe).”

Step 7: Summarise the SMART Goal

Finish with a clear statement.Prompt:“My SMART goal is to _______ by _______ because it supports my value of _______.”

Action Planning: Step-by-Step Interactive Exercise

Step 1: Identify the First Action

Help the client pick a concrete first step.Prompt:“The first action I will take toward my goal is _______.”

Step 2: Anticipate Challenges

Invite them to think ahead about obstacles.Prompt:“A challenge I might face is _______.”

Step 3: Plan Strategies for Challenges

Help them develop coping strategies.Prompt:“If this challenge happens, I can _______.”

Step 4: Identify Supports and Resources

Encourage them to think about people, tools, or services that can help.Prompt:“One support or resource that will help me is _______.”

Step 5: Commit to the First Step

Wrap up by having them state their commitment clearly.Prompt:“I will begin by _______ on _______ (day/time).”

Progress Review: Step-by-Step Interactive Exercise

Step 1: Recall Achievements

Begin by recognising progress since the last session.Prompt:“Since our last check-in, I achieved _______.”

Step 2: Celebrate Positives

Highlight what went well.Prompt:“One thing that went well was _______.”

Step 3: Identify Challenges

Encourage honest reflection on difficulties.

Prompt:“One challenge I faced was _______.”

Step 4: Explore Responses to Challenges

Help the client reframe obstacles as learning opportunities.Prompt:“When I faced this challenge, I responded by _______.”

Step 5: Identify Lessons Learned

Draw out insights for the future.Prompt:“What I learned from this experience is _______.”

Step 6: Strengthen Hope for Next Steps

End on a forward-looking, motivational note.Prompt:“A positive step I want to take next is _______.”

Hope and Reflection: Step-by-Step Interactive Exercise

Step 1: Identify Sources of Hope

Start with what gives the client a sense of possibility.Prompt:“One thing I am hopeful about is _______.”

Step 2: Explore Motivation

Help them notice what inspires action.Prompt:“I feel motivated when _______.”

Step 3: Reframe Setbacks

Encourage resilience by normalising difficulties.Prompt:“When I face setbacks, I remind myself that _______.”

Step 4: Connect to Values

Bring it back to what matters most (from the Life Compass).Prompt:“Staying hopeful helps me stay true to my value of _______.”

Step 5: Look Ahead

Finish with a forward-looking reflection.Prompt:“One thing I am looking forward to is _______.”

References:

Bonney, S., & Stickley, T. (2008). Recovery and mental health: A review of the British literature. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing, 15(2), 140–153. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2850.2007.01185.x

Davidson, L., O’Connell, M. J., Tondora, J., Styron, T., & Kangas, K. (2006). The top ten concerns about recovery encountered in mental health system transformation. Psychiatric Services, 57(5), 640–645. https://doi.org/10.1176/ps.2006.57.5.640

Oades, L. G., & Anderson, J. (2012). Recovery in Australia: The individual within a regional context. International Review of Psychiatry, 24(1), 5–10. https://doi.org/10.3109/09540261.2011.637905

Oades, L. G., Crowe, T. P., & Nguyen, M. (2009). Leadership coaching transforming mental health systems from the inside out: The Collaborative Recovery Model as person-centred strengths based coaching psychology. International Coaching Psychology Review, 4(1), 25–36.

Oades, L. G., Deane, F. P., Crowe, T. P., Lambert, W. G., Kavanagh, D., & Lloyd, C. (2005). Collaborative recovery: An integrative model for working with individuals who experience chronic and recurring mental illness. Australasian Psychiatry, 13(3), 279–284. https://doi.org/10.1080/j.1440-1665.2005.02202.x

Page, S., Tsey, K., McCalman, J., & Brown, C. (2022). Indigenous perspectives on recovery: Collective identity, kinship and connection to Country. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 56(1), 36–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/00048674211031021

Perkins, R., & Slade, M. (2012). Recovery in England: Transforming statutory services? International Review of Psychiatry, 24(1), 29–39. https://doi.org/10.3109/09540261.2011.645025

Rees, S., Richards, J., & Dobson, R. (2021). LGBTIQ+ mental health and recovery: Identity, stigma and resilience. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Mental Health, 25(2), 145–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/19359705.2020.1831093

Slade, M., Amering, M., Farkas, M., Hamilton, B., O’Hagan, M., Panther, G., Perkins, R., Shepherd, G., Tse, S., & Whitley, R. (2014). Uses and abuses of recovery: Implementing recovery-oriented practices in mental health systems. World Psychiatry, 13(1), 12–20. https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.20084