Global Lived Experience Index

What is the GLEI?

The Global Lived Experience Index (GLEI) is a comprehensive framework and scoring engine designed to identify, compare, and evaluate lived experience systems across the world. Rather than merely listing organizations, it serves as a diagnostic tool to decode the maturity, structure, and readiness of national systems, transforming scattered initiatives into a readable global map.

The Index reveals that the global movement is not developing uniformly but follows distinct System Archetypes based on local logic. It identifies a "Virtual 5/5 System" where the world's leading countries collectively define a mature global architecture by excelling in different dimensions: Australia in workforce design, the UK in infrastructure, Canada in research authority, and the U.S. in innovation and scale. Ultimately, the GLEI functions as a "Global Positioning System" for the movement, allowing stakeholders to identify specific gaps—such as the universal weakness in peer-led crisis alternatives—and design targeted interventions to move systems forward.

Tiers

The Global Lived Experience Index utilizes a tier-based framework to categorize both the functional layers of a lived experience movement and the overall maturity of national systems. These tiers provide a diagnostic tool to understand how a system is structured and how far it has evolved toward full integration. The Index groups countries into five tiers based on their Readiness Score (ranked on a scale of 0 to 30 or 1.0 to 5.0):

Tier 1 - Maturity / Fully Integrated (4.5–5.0 / 26–30): Multi-layered, self-aware, and innovative; lived experience is a foundational societal layer.
Tier 2 - Advanced Systems (3.8–4.4 / 21–25): Strong systems, often with high workforce integration but potentially less grassroots peer power.
Tier 3 - Developing / Integrating (2.8–3.7 / 16–20): Established organizations and emerging workforce; system is in formation but still fragmented.
Tier 4 - Early / Organisational (1.8–2.7 / 11–15): Growing advocacy and community foundations; limited formal system integration.
Tier 5 - Pre-Movement / Emergence (1.0–1.7 / ≤10): Lived experience is largely private or hidden; minimal visible infrastructure or policy recognition.

The ultimate goal of this model is to move countries from Existence (Hidden) to Scale. By mapping a country's tiers, strategists can identify specific gaps—for example, a nation may have a strong voice (Tier 1) but lack the repeatable vehicles (Tier 3) or policy enablers (Tier 5) required to become a world-leading system.

Stages

The Global Lived Experience Index (GLERI) classifies the development of lived experience movements into five primary maturity stages based on a scoring system of 0 to 30. These stages track the transition of lived experience from a private, informal reality into a professionalized, national infrastructure.

Emergence (Score: 0–10): At this foundational stage, lived experience is largely private, hidden, or stigmatized. Support exists primarily through informal relationships, family, or traditional cultural systems rather than organized entities. There are no formal structures or shared political identity yet. (Tanzania, Uganda, and parts of Ethiopia).
Organisation (Score: 11–15): The movement begins to form a collective identity. Individuals speak out, advocacy groups and NGOs emerge, and identity consolidates through early anti-stigma campaigns. While a visible "survivor spine" begins to form, the movement remains largely outside formal state systems. (India, Kenya, and Nigeria).
Integration (Score: 16–20): This is the critical "turning point" where lived experience connects to formal health systems. Formal peer roles emerge within services, and co-design begins to be recognized as a valid process. Lived experience starts to influence policy and research, transitioning from passive participation to recognized expertise. (New Zealand, Singapore, and Japan)
Systemisation (Score: 21–25): The movement becomes structural and repeatable. This stage is defined by standardized peer workforce roles, national training pathways, and stable infrastructure like Recovery Colleges and Clubhouses. Policy frameworks and data collection become routine, making the system self-sustaining rather than dependent on individual advocates. (Canada, the Netherlands, and Ireland).
Maturity (Score: 26–30): The system is multi-layered, self-aware, and innovative. Lived experience is a foundational societal layer that influences global models. Maturity is reached when a country has fully integrated advocacy, a professional workforce, diverse peer-run spaces, and robust non-clinical alternatives into its national architecture. (Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States)

Typology

The typology is a classification framework used to categorize national systems based on their dominant operating logic—how they are structured, how they function, and what forces drive their development. This system moves beyond merely counting organizations to "decoding the architecture" of the movement. The index identifies 10 core system archetypes that define the global landscape:

Structured Systems: These systems are nationally coordinated and deeply embedded in government policy and service delivery. They are characterized by strong physical and digital infrastructure and high levels of regional consistency. (Australia, United Kingdom, New Zealand).
Workforce Systems: In these models, lived experience is primarily operationalized as a formal profession. Peer workers are embedded directly into clinical and social services with recognized roles, formal accreditation, and standardized training pathways (United States, Canada).
Social Movement Systems: These systems are driven by survivor-led activism, identity politics, and collective grassroots power. They prioritize "voice first," often focusing on rights-based struggles and independence from clinical control. (Brazil, Kenya, Philippines).
NGO Ecosystems: Characterized by decentralized networks of non-governmental organizations, these systems are dynamic and adaptive but often fragmented. They usually build the system infrastructure before the state formally adopts it. (India, Mexico, Uganda).
Community Systems: These systems rely on informal, relational, and local support. Support exists through family and grassroots networks rather than formal institutional structures. (Peru, Paraguay, Indonesia).
Cultural / Spiritual Systems: Healing and support are embedded in indigenous traditions, spiritual frameworks, or non-Western paradigms of distress. Healing is not viewed as a separate clinical category but as part of the broader culture. (Thailand, Bolivia, Bhutan)
Legal / Policy Systems: Change in these systems is driven primarily by legislation and state reform. Rights and deinstitutionalization efforts are embedded in law before a strong grassroots movement may even exist. (Argentina, Uruguay, Spain).
Humanitarian Systems: These are crisis-driven systems formed in response to war, displacement, or economic collapse. Lived experience support is shaped by survival, often carried by international aid organizations or trauma-recovery projects. (Venezuela, Haiti, Afghanistan).
Constrained Systems: These are systems where the lived experience reality exists, but civil society space is limited. Advocacy and autonomous organizing are restricted or suppressed by political conditions (Nicaragua, Belarus, North Korea).
Hybrid Systems: Advanced and transitional systems often combine multiple archetypes. They are complex, dynamic ecosystems where movement, workforce, and policy layers coexist and overlap. (USA, South Africa, Malaysia).
Micro-Systems: Found in small-population countries where limited size allows for easier coordination and coherence (e.g., Iceland, Malta)
Emerging Systems: Systems where one or two strong nodes exist, but the broader ecosystem is still in an early, formative stage (e.g., Portugal, Latvia).

Signature Models

In the Global Lived Experience Index, the Signature Model is defined as the primary structure, innovation, or defining trait that characterizes a country’s specific contribution to the global movement. Rather than a single global model, different nations serve as "global nodes" for specific types of system maturity. The signature models nations and regions are categorized as follows:

Australia: Recognized for its National Lived Experience Workforce Development Guidelines and formal system integration. It is the global benchmark for Peer Workforce architecture.
United Kingdom: Defined by its Survivor Movement, the national scaling of Recovery Colleges, and deep integration with the NHS.
Canada: Its signature is Academic and Policy Integration, specifically through its leadership in Mad Studies and national standards for peer support.
United States: Characterized by Scale and Innovation, leading the world in Peer Respites, warmlines, and the massive Clubhouse network.
New Zealand: The world leader in Co-design and Cultural Grounding, particularly for its integration of indigenous Māori frameworks into national strategy.

Netherlands: Zelfregiecentra (self-management centers) and herstelacademies (recovery academies).
Norway & Sweden: Large-scale Clubhouse (Fontenehuset/Fontänhus) networks embedded within strong welfare systems.
Finland: The origin of the Open Dialogue approach.
Italy: The Trieste Model of deinstitutionalized community psychiatry.
Germany: The EX-IN (Experienced-Involvement) training model and Trialogue.
Switzerland: The Soteria model of non-coercive community care.

Brazil: Known for its Anti-asylum Reform Movement.
Argentina: Law-driven reform based on national legal and policy frameworks.
Singapore: A Highly Coordinated System with standardized, government-aligned frameworks.
South Africa: Advocacy Networks that consolidate movement energy into permanent structures.
Colombia: Post-conflict healing models that utilize lived experience to address trauma in a societal context.

Core Capability Score

This level of scoring represents a national ecosystem where lived experience is no longer just "included" but has become a foundational societal layer that defines the system's architecture and operating logic. Across the specific scores you identified, here is how the Global Lived Experience Index defines those core capabilities:

Movement Strength: a movement that is culturally visible, politically influential, and self-sustaining. The movement does not ask for space; it defines the agenda. It possesses a strong survivor identity and independent collective voice that shapes the public narrative, free from clinical or institutional control. Canada and the United States are global exemplars in this dimension.
Peer Workforce: indicates a system with a large, professionalized workforce characterized by defined roles and standards. Canada and the United States currently hold this score, as their workforces are massive but sometimes fragmented or provincially/state-dependent.
Policy Integration: systemic authority, where lived experience is embedded at every level of governance. Power is shared structurally, not symbolically. Co-design is the mandatory standard policy practice, and dedicated funding streams are controlled by lived experience leaders. Australia and New Zealand are the global leaders in this dimension.
Research Base: lived experience owners possess "Epistemic Power"—the authority to define what counts as knowledge. The country has established academic fields like Mad Studies and research institutions led by people with lived experience who define and own the national research agenda. Canada is the world's "Knowledge Powerhouse" and the only nation with a perfect 5/5 score here.
Education Infrastructure: a system capable of formally teaching, credentialing, and scaling its own knowledge. There is a fully embedded national education system, such as a national network of Recovery Colleges, that allows the system to reproduce lived experience capability at scale. The United Kingdom is the global benchmark for this infrastructure
Alternative Models: plurality defines the system, and traditional psychiatry is no longer dominant. Non-medical models—such as Open Dialogue, WRAP, and Hearing Voices—are mainstream, not marginal, and are widely available as primary care options. The United States leads in this dimension due to its vast network of peer respites and diverse alternative models.
System Integration: strong integration where lived experience is woven into the broader health and social service fabric There are established partnerships and clear referral pathways between peer-led and clinical systems into a "seamlessly integrated organism." Australia, Canada, and the USA all maintain this strong integration level.
Overall Readiness: a fully developed, scalable, and globally influential system. The movement has transitioned from "voice" (activism) to "infrastructure" (a foundational layer of society). The system functions as a "distributed intelligence network" where all layers—leadership, workforce, and spaces—reinforce one another. Australia and the United Kingdom are the closest nations to achieving this perfect overall readiness score.