What are the special characteristics of families who provide long term care for children of parents with mental illness?

This work is the Copyright of V. Cowling, MA.© 2003 Vicki cowlingThis project investigated characteristics relating to family functioning and attitudes to mental illness, and caregiving, which distinguish families choosing to care for children of parents with mental illness (CPMI) from families who choose not to but do care for other children (NCPMI), and from families not involved in the adoptive care system (COMM). Welfare agencies seeking long term home based care for children of parents with mental illness (among other groups of children) report that potential caregivers are concerned about the child’s genetic risk, and the requirement that they facilitate access visits with the birth parent. Consequently it is more difficult to recruit caregivers to care for children of parents with mental illness. Previous studies found that families who adopt children with special needs had family systems that were flexible and able to adapt to changing needs, and in which family members felt close to one another. It was not known if the functioning of families who care for children of parents with mental illness would differ from other family groups. Nor was it known if these families would differ in motivation to be caregivers and attitudes to mental illness from other family groups. Forty four families completed a questionnaire providing background information, and a family functioning questionnaire which included the FACES II measure (Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scale) and questions assessing level of altruism, and tendency to respond in a socially desirable manner. Data from the FACES II measure was used to classify families according to the Circumplex Model of Marital and Family Systems. Q-methodology was used to assess participants’ attitudes to eight issues related to the research question: mental illness, children of parents with mental illness, parents having a mental illness, family environment, motivation to be caregivers, ongoing contact between child in care and parent, approval of others when deciding to be a caregiver, and flexibility in deciding to accept a certain child for placement. The Q-method required participants to rate 42 statements (a Q-set), concerning these issues, according to a fixed distribution, from statements with which they strongly agreed to statements with which they strongly disagreed. Participants could also give open-ended responses to questions addressing the same issues in a semi-structured interview. The CPMI group were found to have a lower level of income and education than the other two groups, and were more likely to be full time caregivers. Both caregiver groups were unlikely to have children of their own. The profiles of the three groups on the cohesion and flexibility sub-scales of FACES II were similar. The classification of the family groups on the Circumplex model showed that the CPMI group were located in the balanced and mid-range levels of the model more so than the other two groups. Responses to the Q-sort and interview questions suggested that the CPMI families were more understanding of mental illness, and of the needs of the children and capacity of their parents. It is suggested that future studies increase the number of participants, and investigate in more detail the factors which motivate families who provide long term care for children of parents with mental illness

Children and parents living with a family member with mental illness

The importance of collaboration and partnerships in the delivery of effective services is a notion that is well established in the literature, for example, the recent evaluation of the former Stronger Families and Communities Strategy. This article describes a partnership between practitioners and researchers. The Mental Health Community Based Program funded by the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (FaHCSIA), and one of the projects within this initiative, is described. A complementary research (PhD) project being undertaken by the first author (Vicki Cowling), and the processes involved in establishing the partnership and working together between agency and researcher, are then outlined

Primary schools: opportune settings for changing attitudes and promoting mental health

Issue addressed: Reducing the prejudice towards mental illness in a primary school setting and creating a supportive environment for families where a parent has a mental illness. Methods: Teacher workshops and classroom sessions for grades 5 and 6 children on mental illness. Results: Significant increase in teachers' confidence to support a child whose parent has a mental illness. Reduced prejudice towards people with schizophrenia among the children. Conclusion: The primary school setting appears to be an effective environment to promote mental health literacy and reduce the likelihood of negative stereotype formation

Integrating biosystematic data into conservation planning: Perspectives from Southern Africa's Succulent Karoo

In this paper we explore the role that biosystematists can play in conservation planning. Conservation planning concerns the location and design of reserves that both represent the biodiversity of a region and enable the persistence of that biodiversity by maintaining key ecological and evolutionary processes. For conservation planning to be effective, quantitative targets are needed for the spatial components of a region that reflect evolutionary processes. Using examples from southern Africa's Succulent Karoo, we demonstrate how spatially explicit data on morphological variation within taxa provide essential information for conservation planning in that such variation represents an important surrogate for the spatial component of lineage diversification. We also provide an example of how the spatial components of evolutionary processes can be identified and targeted for conservation action. Key to this understanding are the recognition and description of taxonomic units at all spatial scales. Without the recognition of subspecific variation, it is difficult to formulate evolutionary hypotheses, let alone set quantitative targets for the conservation of this variation. Given the escalating threats to biodiversity, and the importance of planning for persistence by incorporating ecological and evolutionary processes into conservation plans, it is essential that systematists develop hypotheses on the spatial surrogates for these processes for a wide range of lineages. The important questions for systematists to be asking are (1) how is variation distributed in the landscape, and (2) how did it come about? Conservation planners too need to highlight these spatial components for conservation action