There is a growing body of literature that provides data to support the belief that recovery from serious mental illness (SMI), such as schizophrenia, is possible. Part of recovery oriented treatment of serious mental illness may involve boundary crossings and in vivo social learning. This study examined potential relationships between provider attitudes towards recovery and attitudes towards dual relationships.

One hundred forty five mental health professionals and paraprofessionals (response rate = 19%) in four community mental health centers in Arkansas completed an electronic or paper survey examining these attitudes. Using multiple regression, linear regression, and t-tests, several of the primary hypotheses were found to have support. Specifically, there was a relationship found between providers' attitudes towards recovery as measured by the RAQ-7 and providers' attitudes towards boundary crossings as measured by a subscale of recovery boundary crossings. This subscale consists of five specific dual relationships identified by the primary researcher as having content validity as appropriate recovery oriented interventions.

The secondary hypotheses were also supported in that a significant relationship was found between practice setting and recovery and practice setting and attitude towards dual relationships. Practice setting within community mental health centers was collapsed into two groups. These groups consisted of providers who have worked in a setting serving SMI clients exclusively, such as a clubhouse setting, and those providers who have not worked in a setting serving SMI clients exclusively.

A relationship between provider attitudes towards recovery and provider attitudes towards a modified Therapeutic Practices Survey was not found. This modified survey contained both boundary crossings and boundary violations. There was found to be a bimodal distribution of scores for this survey, which may reflect the two distinct populations of providers within the sample at the community mental health centers.

Limitations to this study include: low response rate; use of self report that may increase social desirability bias; and the use of modified or new scales. Recommendations for research with clients that would inform this practice are proposed. Recommendations for practice include the development of more sophisticated code of ethics and practice guidelines.

Keywords: dual relationships; recovery; community mental health center; mental illness; learning theory