A sample of 2,330 parents were surveyed regarding their knowledge of child development in the first three years of life, using a simple, easy to read questionnaire. Items tapped knowledge that would contribute to an authoritative parenting style, which combines warmth and firmness, and is associated with the most favourable child development outcomes. The sample included mothers and fathers of dependant children living at home, as well as grandmothers and grandfathers. While the majority of parents demonstrated good, basic knowledge of child development, there were also relative differences between parent groups, such that knowledge increased consistently with parents' level of educational achievement, and was greater in mothers than fathers. There were also generational differences, with grandfathers being less knowledgeable than present day fathers, and grandmothers less knowledgeable than present day mothers. The questionnaire has potential value for practitioners, as the survey results provide data from a large Australian sample which could support the use of the instrument with at-risk groups, or in parent intervention programs.

This article discusses the lack of attendance of fathers at parent education programs from both gender and personality perspectives. Some suggestions are made that may guide decisions so that father participation rates can be increased.

The nature and extent of parent education and support programs targeting parents with children under five is reviewed. Several evaluated Australian and overseas programs are described, and their role and effectiveness in the prevention of child abuse and neglect are examined. The principles and values that underpin such programs are discussed, and their common components outlined. The New Parent Infant Network (NEWPIN) is then situated in the broader framework of effective parent education and support programs operating in Australia.

This article critically examines the contents of an Executive Summary of a recent study of ‘antisocial behaviour’ among a cohort of adolescents in Victoria. It is argued that in both theoretical and methodological terms the study suffers from a number of serious shortcomings that may have serious implications for certain populations if ensuing policies are translated into practice. Additionally, the general theoretical trajectory of the study fits into the new culture of ‘risk management’ which also has important implications for those populations defined by the powerful as aberrant or troublesome.

At the present time there is a need for a new generation of programs to address the needs of ‘at risk’ children and families. This is an issue that is exercising the minds of service planners in both government and non-government community service organisations. This need arises from the fact that many existing programs have yet to be rigorously evaluated and are of questionable effectiveness. This lack of evidence of effectiveness does not sit well in the current climate of accountability. It also runs contrary to the increasingly strident calls for evidence based practice.

Many new programs arrive in Australia from the US as this country is often the source of program innovation as illustrated by the importation in the 1980s and 1990s of family preservation and family reunification programs. In the US, promotion of ‘model programs' has taken another step and a systematic effort at program replication is now in evidence. The question is, how might model programs from overseas be successfully replicated in Australia? And what is required, if anything, to replicate these models effectively taking account of our different cultural traditions?