How does a social welfare officer know when a parent with mental illness or behavioral symptoms is harmful to the children? As a social you are confronted with different ethical dilemmas on a daily basis. The social welfare officers have to follow their own authorities, laws, guidelines and regulations while at the same time do everything to satisfy their clients’ needs. This inconsistency can sometimes be difficult to handle. The purpose of this study was to gain knowledge and a better understanding of how social welfare officers handles their elbow room in the field of actions to support the children of parents with mental illness. We have conducted a qualitative study where we interviewed six social welfare officers using the “vinjett” method. All social welfare officers included in the study are working with children of parents with mental illness. By using Michael Lipsky’s theory of Street-Level Bureaucrats we intended to get an understanding of how social welfare officers would act in specific situations. Our study shows that social welfare officers’ first contact is with the parents for a judgment of their capacity as parents. The results shows that the social welfare officers, who we interviewed, felt that they had a wide elbow room with resources to determine and shape different actions for the children of parents with mental illness but at the same time they experienced different barriers which may limit the alternatives in their decision-making. The majority of the social welfare officers in our study felt that they were aware of the power and control they possesses, which also are defined in Lipsky’s theory.

<p>How does a social welfare officer know when a parent with mental illness or behavioral symptoms is harmful to the children? As a social you are confronted with different ethical dilemmas on a daily basis. The social welfare officers have to follow their own authorities, laws, guidelines and regulations while at the same time do everything to satisfy their clients’ needs. This inconsistency can sometimes be difficult to handle. The purpose of this study was to gain knowledge and a better understanding of how social welfare officers handles their elbow room in the field of actions to support the children of parents with mental illness. We have conducted a qualitative study where we interviewed six social welfare officers using the “vinjett” method. All social welfare officers included in the study are working with children of parents with mental illness. By using Michael Lipsky’s theory of Street-Level Bureaucrats we intended to get an understanding of how social welfare officers would act in specific situations. Our study shows that social welfare officers’ first contact is with the parents for a judgment of their capacity as parents. The results shows that the social welfare officers, who we interviewed, felt that they had a wide elbow room with resources to determine and shape different actions for the children of parents with mental illness but at the same time they experienced different barriers which may limit the alternatives in their decision-making. The majority of the social welfare officers in our study felt that they were aware of the power and control they possesses, which also are defined in Lipsky’s theory.</p>

Researchers have extensively studied the experiences and potential consequences of being a child whose parent has a mental illness (COPMI). However, there is no consensus on the best way to support these children, in general or in schools. The purpose of this quantitative study was to examine the effects of parental mental illness on children by using an ecological approach. Researchers have used ecological theory to illustrate the importance of internal characteristics, skills, and supports for children to enhance resiliency. This study looked at whether COPMI differed significantly from the children of parents of parents with no current or past mental illness (NonCOPMI) on the Developmental Assets Profile (DAP). The study also looked at whether there was a significant difference in the change in DAP scores for the COPMI compared to the NonCOPMI over time. A secondary data analysis of DAP survey results was performed and SPSS v.23.0 (IBM, 2015) software was used to complete one-way and two-way repeated measures ANOVA on DAP scores. COPMI reported lower DAP levels than NonCOPMI, and this difference was statistically significant in some areas of Internal Assets and Social and Community contexts. These findings suggest that COPMI may be challenged in these areas and are in line with previous findings regarding the challenges that COPMI may face and supports the continued use of ecological theory. By utilizing the DAP survey, specific areas where COPMI may benefit from additional supports can help professionals promote resilience among children. Proactive efforts like this, especially in schools, where increasing attention is being paid to mental health education, may contribute to positive social change.