This study examines the findings of the recent Community Affairs Reference Committee report into institutional and out-of-home care. Attention is drawn to the key role played by the Care Leavers of Australia Network (CLAN) in pushing the concerns of older care leavers onto the public agenda, successfully lobbying for the Senate Inquiry, and providing services and supports to care leavers.

The report highlighted the historical failure of state authorities to protect the well-being of children and young people placed in alternative care. Many of those children have subsequently experienced significant emotional and psychological problems, the results of which include psychiatric illness, depression, suicide, substance abuse, illiteracy, impaired relationship skills and marriage breakdown, and incarceration.

The report also has contemporary implications. In order to achieve better outcomes for care leavers in the future, we need to ensure that child welfare services are adequately funded, employ properly trained and qualified professional staff, promote a gradual and functional transition from dependence to independence, and ensure accountability to external bodies including consumer groups.

Involving children and young people in planning, decision making and the evaluation of services and programs inevitably raises the eyebrows of adults working in the areas of service delivery, program development and policy formulation. Some adults may question young people’s ability to see the ‘big picture’ and to make decisions, and even their right to be engaged in the first place. In challenging these ideas, the Western Australian Office for Children and Youth established a Children’s Advisory Group (CAG) in 2004 – the first of its kind to be created within the Western Australia Government, and one of the first such groups to be set up in Australia.

The current Children’s Advisory Group (CAG) is a diverse group often primary school children aged 9-12 years from the Perth metropolitan area. They are actively involved in all aspects of the Office’s operation. The CAG has been evaluated throughout its inaugural year of operation, both in terms of process and impact, and has been found to have a significant impact upon government policy and practice. This paper will outline the process for the establishment and implementation of a CAG and the evaluation of a CAG on government policy. It will highlight evaluation findings and discuss future directions.

This article analyses the Australian Government’s communications on children in immigration detention, particularly those detained at Woomera and Baxter Detention Centres. The authors examine paradoxes and ‘double-bind’ theory; theory which analyses communications which continually put the target of them in the wrong and allow no escape. The analysis uses selected passages from Lewis Carroll’s ‘Alice in Wonderland’ and ‘Through the Looking Glass’ to highlight the nature and impact of such communication. The authors conclude that the Australian Government has consistently used paradoxical communication. In doing so it has placed children and families in detention, child protection workers, the South Australian Government, and sometimes external critics in a communication trap from which it is difficult to escape. Other bodies such as Courts have also demonstrated much paradox in their behaviour and communications on detention issues.

Longitudinal research in Victoria is exploring the experience and support needs of birth parents’ and grandparents, children, permanent parents, teachers, social workers and therapists in situations where the children have been permanently removed from their birth families by the child protection system. The research is now halfway through its second three-year phase.

This paper details the findings for ten birth parents, most of whom have been involved in the study for at least three years. The findings are presented through themes of loss, role, boundary, power and support. The research provides clues as to how professionals can offer support to these parents. What the parents want is little enough–for their stories to be heard without blame; to be consulted about their children’s future; and to be offered the possibility of meeting up with parents who have similar experiences.

The journal was first established in 1976 with the title Australian Child and Family Welfare (quarterly), and it was known as such for the first 15 years of its existence. It was published by the Children’s Welfare Association of Victoria as the quarterly journal of the Child and Family Welfare Council of Australia. Co-editors were the Rev Denis Oakley and Dr Peter O’Connor. Denis tells us that the funds to get it started came from the Children’s Welfare Foundation. This foundation was an outstanding example of partnership between business and the non-government sector. Not without controversy, Denis performed on television in his clergyman clobber advertising products for Billy Guyatt stores, drawing in funds for the Foundation which were also applied to the establishment of Grassmere, a community-based youth facility, and to some research work into adoption and family law. The book review editor was Mr Cliff Picton, associate editor was Mr Max Liddell, Mr David Thackeray was business manager, Mr Vernon Knight was circulation manager and the committee providing support was Mrs Glenys Craig, Mr John Edwards, Mr Bill Hughes, Canon Neal Malloy OBE and Mrs Patsy Sebastian. It had a group of interstate representatives, Spencer Colliver, Ray Jenkins, Albert Kruipers, Rev Lyn Reilly, George Belchev, Adam Jamrozik, Geoff Aves and editorial consultants Concetta Ben, Prof Peter Boss, Spencer Colliver and Dr Len Tierney. In the editorial in the first issue was the explanation that the journal was being launched as so much was going on in child and family welfare, that there was a need for a forum. Many of the specialist journals failed to appeal to the broad readership in social welfare, whereas this journal would ‘aim for the broad spectrum of people who make up the vast army of workers in the child and family welfare field … Our concern is to open up discussion on policies and practices, to discuss innovations and the raising of standards.’

There have been major developments in child protection services in Queensland since the 1999 Inquiry into Abuse of Children in Queensland Institutions (the ‘Forde Inquiry’). This article discusses the nature of the changes that have occurred against the backdrop of a major debate in contemporary child protection research and practice – balancing forensic/legalistic and family support approaches to protecting children. Based upon an analysis of departmental annual reports, budget documents, policy statements and child protection administrative data, the article examines developments in policy directions, service provision, client trends and performance during the period. It shows that significant investment has increased the quantity of services available, but policy and program developments are yet to show an impact upon service quality and outcome indicators for children and families.

This paper explores the ACT Government’s investment in a school based human services program. This program aims to improve educational and social outcomes for children and young people by creating effective working relationships between families, communities and their schools. It considers the contemporary challenges to achieving a quality service in a domain not normally inhabited by human services professionals. The main focus of the paper is an analysis of some of the factors which were considered in establishing a high quality service.

The paper draws attention to the importance of developing a conceptually sound program model, in particular one which demonstrates how evaluation can be integrated throughout the program cycle. It argues the importance of pursuing two key pathways to quality: the achievement of professional standards in program design, and the pursuit of the consumer voice in shaping and judging program performance.

The paper contends that program sustainability in this field of practice hinges on recognising who the consumers are, and achieving a range of outcomes which address their varied needs and priorities.

Children Australia is a friendly journal. It is accessible, readable, contemporary, and straight forward. It has always been intended as a forum for practitioners and external commentators alike. The editorial policy has been relatively relaxed, with assistance provided to ensure a good spread of contributors. A quick scan of papers published over the last four years shows a predominance of papers from academics, primarily within schools of social work. These are enriched by contributions from writers from community development, youth services, child development, psychology, policy studies and history, often giving an extra critical slant or a sharp specialist focus that might otherwise be conspicuously missing. Personally, I really appreciate this interdisciplinary conversation and hope it will be preserved and developed.

Currently, discourses on Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) within Australia are in conflict. There are two dominant and conflicting knowledge bases: the biological and genetic approach, and the psychological approach, which includes behavioural and psychoanalytic theories on the cause of deviant or difficult behaviour. Other minor discourses also exist, including the diet perspective and an emerging strengths based discourse arising from support groups. The debate is not purely academic as theory, and the practice developed from that theory, have a huge impact on families. An overview of the competing discourses currently operating in Australia, particularly in Queensland, is presented. The author argues that the theories and the associated strategies recommended by professionals, result in varying outcomes for families and individuals affected by the disorder.

Administrative data on foster carers in New South Wales (NSW) are sadly lacking. Based on research commissioned by the NSW Department of Community Services, this paper uses the Australian Bureau of Statistics Census of Population and Housing and other data to provide up-to-date information on the characteristics of foster carers and the demographic trends that are influencing their numbers. Census data indicate that foster carer families are most likely to contain women aged 35–54 years, not in the labour force. Couples account for two-thirds of all foster carers, with the majority of those couples also caring for birth children. While single parents account for less than one-fifth of all foster carers, they are more likely to foster than couples, either with or without birth children. Higher rates of fostering were found in relatively disadvantaged areas. Projected increases in female labour force participation are expected to contribute to a decline (or to slower growth) in the number of foster carers over the next decade. However, projected increases in sole parent families and couples without children are expected to have the opposite effect. The relative magnitude of these effects was not ascertained.

It’s usually the end of a long day — perhaps the end of a long week — when that anonymous article is drawn from the pile of ‘things to do’. And it seemed like a small task when I agreed to be a reviewer for that journal article. I was interested in the topic … I am interested in the topic! I also support the aims and focus of the journal. After all, it’s one that melds practice and theory, and creates dialogue and debate amongst a range of professionals working in the child, youth and family sector. But I’m a little weary and I’m hoping to find energy and passion in the paper I’m about to tackle — an energy that will carry me through the next few hours of reading, thinking and writing that review report.

The first section of this paper explores the ‘discovery’ of organised ritual abuse and reviews the literature with particular attention to the developing knowledge base, the question of credibility, the silencing of debate, and the ongoing research.

The second section considers the central research issues. The question of definition is discussed and the adoption of ‘organised ritual abuse’ as a working definition is proposed. The four aspects of organised ritual abuse, which analysis of the literature suggests are its key defining features, are then discussed. Finally, consideration is given to the importance of values in this field of research.

Child protection is one of the most difficult fields for social welfare professionals to work within. Being an enabler on one hand and an agent of social control on the other, can create a dichotomy that leaves practitioners feeling like they need a different set of skills to do each component. Maybe a strengths approach framework can provide the link between the two. A strengths approach is greater than a set of strengths-based tools. It is a way of conceptualising the organisation and delivery of child protection services. This article expresses the current views of a practitioner with 37 years experience in the child and family welfare field.