This paper is based on an address given at the Oz Child Annual General Meeting on 7 December 1998 in Dandenong, Victoria.

Prevention approaches are an important response to the problem of child abuse. Although there have been repeated calls for closer parent-teacher cooperation in prevention programs, such alliances have been far from satisfactory to date. Reasons for poor parent-teacher partnerships are based on social reluctance to intervene in the family unit and the mutual reluctance of teachers and parents to engage in a meaningful alliance. Part of the reticence of teachers to involve parents lies in their lack of confidence relating to the delivery of the child protection curriculum. These problems are explored and some suggestions for change are offered.

For the last twenty-five years, in Australia and in most western type countries, the planning of services for children and families has been strongly influenced by a series of ideological concepts. These concepts are: deinstitutionalization, normalization, least restrictive environment, mainstreaming, minimal intervention, and diversion. Together they are the central tenets of a paradigm (CTP) currently used by policy makers and human service planners. This paper argues that the use of the CTP has had an unintended negative impact. It has lead to the neglect of the most difficult ‘at risk’ adolescents and their families. What we have is a situation where services of sufficient power, intensity and duration (PID) needed by this group are not favoured since they do not conform to the CTP. For ‘at risk’ adolescents and their families this is socially unjust.

MacKillop Family Services was established in July 1997 as a refounding of seven well-established child, youth and family agencies in Melbourne and Geelong. The pressures for change came from the desires of the directors of these agencies and the leaders of their auspicing religious congregations to continue and to improve their services and, at the same time, from the demands of government tendering and funding polices. Several elements contributed to the success of the process of negotiating change: all parties were treated equally; the directors of the agencies were unwavering in their commitment to change; there was a shared sense of urgent social needs and of the opportunity to improve and stabilise responses to those needs; the traditions of each agency were accorded understanding and respect; time and money were made available for much discussion and careful planning; and, finally, a realistic time-frame for transition was provided.

Family planning is still a problem for some countries and organizations. In other countries, where there is a general decline infertility and families become smaller, childhood is changing. Where families are wealthy enough, childhood and education lengthen. The WorldForum’98: Justice for Children, held in Manila in November, gave Filipino children the opportunity to say what needs to change. The agenda produced by them is a model that other agencies in other countries could usefully follow.