It is the present trend in dealing with youthful offenders that diversion techniques be utilized whenever possible. Staff and administration of existing treatment centres are to be commended for their efforts to reduce the number of youths placed in those institutions for treatment. However, there remains continual pressure from various areas to view these institutions as a desirable placement for any youth having behaviour problems in the community. Every effort should be made to view placement at these institutions as a last, and in most cases, an undesirable alternative treatment. It has been noted by various persons that while institutionalized, a youth learns “new and better techniques for committing additional delinquent acts upon his release (Wittey and Lawrence, 1973 p. 15).” Further rationale for discouraging placement in these institutions have been noted by others in stating that youths are labelled delinquent by being placed in such institutions and that once a youth acquires such a label, there is no effective way to remove it (e.g. Faust, 1973 and Elssuer, 1969).

This comprehensive and important document has now been released for general reading and debate.

Child maltreatment was first recognized as a health problem in Victoria in the early 1960's and several Committees of Investigation have met since that time to study the subject. This Report is the result of the latest of these, a Workshop, which commenced following a 2 day seminar in February 1975. At the Seminar there were more than 100 people who shared an interest in child maltreatment. They were drawn from many sections of the community — doctors, lawyers, social workers, teachers, sociologists, nurses, police welfare officers, psychiatrists, kindergarten teachers and voluntary groups.

The assessment process in the field of adoption has received scant attention in the literature. This may be a comment on the lack of confidence felt by professionals working in this field, but it all reflects a lack of accountability both to their colleagues and their clients, the prospective adoptive parents and the children being placed for adoption. One of the few studies in this field “Adoptive Screening, new data, new dilemmas” (Brown and Brieland)1 points to the need for a much closer examination of the assessment process, highlighting in particular the way in which social workers may be influenced by their own values as well as by agency criteria. The study goes on to point out that in general “agency practices in this sample reflect substantial caution about placements”. The Child Welfare League of America Standards for Adoption Service: Revised, states that “It is every child's right to have protection. The kind of care that meets his needs and which he would ordinarily be expected to receive from his parents. The family, the community agencies, and the states have responsibilities related to the assurance of this right”. If we take this statement as reflecting the values and assumptions underlying practice in adoption service, obviously the assessment process has a key role to play in protecting the right of children.

This paper tries to demonstrate how the existing practice in adoption social work, when applied to applicants and prospective parents, is inadequate, unjust and diametrically opposed to the acknowledged professional ethics and values. As dissatisfaction alone is unproductive, an alternative is proposed to the existing practice based on a Social Change Model of generic social work.

Before I came to Kenora I was under the impression that the Children's Aid Society was the equivalent of our Social Welfare Department, however I was wrong — it is a voluntary organisation.

Children's Aid helps families who have been experiencing problems. They look for ways to prevent problems arising which would disadvantage children. Their programs are directed towards supporting and strengthening the family unit.