CCNY psychologist Glen Milstein believes in the connection between religion and mental health

In October 1992, Columbia University doctoral student Glen Milstein transcribed some of his recent ideas in a notebook for possible inclusion in his dissertation. Those 20 minutes of erudite scribblings became the foundation of his work for the next third of a century, culminating in the publication of  “COPE: Community Outreach & Professional Engagement – a framework to bridge public mental health services with religious organizations,” a paper of which he is the lead author, in Frontiers in Psychiatry in August.

Now an associate professor of psychology at The City College of New York’s Colin Powell School for Civic and Global Leadership, Milstein called the paper “20 minutes (and 33 years) in the making.”

The paper sets out theoretical and operational frameworks to bridge the domains of “clinic” (mental health service organizations, or MHSOs) and “community” (spiritual/faith-based organizations, or SFBOs). Citing evidence that supports the role of religion and spirituality to promote wellbeing, the paper also reviews ways in which such partnerships can prevent the onset of mental disorders and support recovery after clinical treatment. The paper also provides case examples of categories of collaboration, and includes recommendations for future research in the context of outcomes for public mental health.

“I knew this would be a big project,” he said, reflecting on his academic journey. “I wanted to think in terms of the whole system that surrounds people. I thought about the distinctions between community clergy and clinicians, and how each could bring that expertise to help one another and reduce one another's burden, while also helping people thrive and sustain recovery.”

To provide context, Milstein provided “religion terms operationalized for public mental health contexts.” They are: religion (structural framework for organized expression of the significant or the sacred within the context of community institutions that enact spiritual practices to facilitate spirituality); spirituality (people seeking meaning, purpose, transcendence in their significant relationships to self, family, community, nature, faith); and faith (personal orientation toward a significant or sacred, which may provide hope that supports—or creates struggle that impedes—well-being).

The paper also offered an example of a clinical assessment tool with demonstrated utility: FICA (Faith, Importance, Community, Action), four assessment questions that provided “operational definitions that other clinicians and researchers could use,” he said. These definitions facilitate the assessment of individuals’ experiences of their religious faith and spirituality, making FICA a useful tool for individual clinical treatment, as well as for community engagement of collaborative partnerships.

Milstein became interested in studying the connection between faith and healing when, as a research assistant, he asked the mother of a person with schizophrenia whether she thought her son’s illness would ever be cured. Her response, in Spanish, was, “if G-d performs the deed, he will get well, even though the doctors say he will always be like this.”

Milstein sees the paper’s timing as fortuitous.

“At this moment in history, we know more about the connection between religion and mental health,” he said. “It can help to sustain recovery and repair.”

Adding to his many career honors and recognitions, Milstein was recently elected president of the Society for the Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, Division 36 of the American Psychological Association. The division, one of 54 in the APA, has 1,100 members.

“In 2026, I will enter the presidency of Division 36 with a lot of clarity about the ubiquity, tenacity and plasticity of religion,” he said. “My goal, as president, is to describe the empirical findings that [describe] the possible utility of religion for well-being.”