Did you hear the one about the man who ran around in circles trying to get a great quantity of timber and was quoted what appeared to be mad prices? Well, he joined ABAS and they got him his timber at a saving of 58% on the lowest price he had previously been quoted. Honestly.

Today, we live in a child-conscious society.

We have seen the evolution of numerous child welfare programmes by the traditional agencies and are currently observing a proliferation of new and varied plans through recently developed agencies such as the Children's Commission. Supported by the possessive liberal-individualism in social thought, these policies and programmes purport to secure each child's individual material and emotional well-being so that he or she can develop into a well-reared, industrious and respectable community member. The trouble is that very few people seem to have considered the effects that such individualistic programmes have on our community as a whole. What are the overall objectives of child welfare programmes today? What are the values that determine policies? Are these policies and programmes flexible enough in the light of changing social values and cultural conditions? It is the purpose of this paper to raise questions about the objectives of child-welfare policies and to suggest that they may need to change their disposition towards highly individualistic programmes to an approach that emphasizes clearly established community perspectives.

In the past few years discussion concerning the composition of children's rights seems to have oscillated between the conservative statements of such august bodies as the United Nations (1) and the extreme stand of those who advocate “kid power”. (2) The. meaning of the term “children's rights” has become obscured and is in danger of becoming a gimmicky catchphrase which ignores the broader framework of intertwining rights, interests and obligations that involve interaction between the child, the family, the State and other individuals and groups who have an interest in their welfare.

Foster care has long been overlooked as a viable alternative in the range of services to the retarded child and his family.

At a time when a number of agencies are planning developments into this area, this article discusses some of the underlying principles and conditions for a successful programme.

The aim of this Paper is to delineate a number of principles related to the effective delivery of welfare services at a ‘regional’ level. Regional level is used in this Paper in a general sense to distinguish ‘community’ based planning from planning at State or Federal level (or planning at an interpersonal, agency, specific field or societal level). No attempt is made to distinguish the precise characteristics of the regional level, but in detailed operationalised planning related to a specific area clear distinctions need to be made between the various planning levels and between the particular services being provided at each level.